Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
CW values for the NC
CW values for the NC
I've been reading an article on cars and their CW values and what it
means for efficiency. The article is in German but I thought the figures
given for the MX-5 may be interesting so here it goes.
Top down: 0.45 cw
Soft top up: 0.39 cw
Hard top up: 0.37 cw
At 150 KMPH The Hard top uses 0.3 litres of gas less than the soft top
per 100 KM. With the top down 1.4 litre extra gas is used per 100 KM
(also at 150 KMPH). This can of course also be translated to possible
top speeds but the article does not do that - it only comments that no
one drives top down at more than 150 KMPH (Sort of making me "no one" as
I do - it's loud but otherwise fine).
http :// www .autobild.de/artikel/autos-im-windkanal 666465.html
http :// www .autobild.de/mmg/mm bildergalerie 668619.html?tab=0&page&bid=0&m=&e=&i http :// www .autobild.de/mmg/mm bildergalerie 668619.html?tab=0&page&bid=0&m=&e=&i http :// www .autobild.de/mmg/mm bildergalerie 668619.html?tab=0&page&bid=0&m=&e=&i
No real surprise that the soft top is a little less smooth or that top
down is even worse when it comes to smooth airflow.
Here are some other figures (also from the article):
The ten most efficient
1. BMW 5er 0,26
1. Mercedes S-Klasse 0,26
1. Lexus LS 460 0,26
1. Toyota Prius 0,26
2. Audi A4 0,27
2. BMW 3er 0,27
2. Mercedes E-Klasse 0,27
2. Mercedes C-Klasse 0,27
2. Mercedes CL 0,27
2. Porsche 911 0,27
And the ten less efficient
1. F1 Race car 1,2
2. 2 Mercedes Actros 0,81
3. 3 Morgan Roadster 0,6
4. 4 Land Rover Defender 0,59
5. 5 Hummer H2 0,53
6. 6 Mercedes G-Modell 0,52
7. 7 Morgan Aero 8 0,51
8. 8 Jeep Wrangler 0,49
9. 9 Jeep Commander 0,41
10. 10 Chrysler PT Cruiser 0,38
Kind regards
Bruno
I've been reading an article on cars and their CW values and what it
means for efficiency. The article is in German but I thought the figures
given for the MX-5 may be interesting so here it goes.
Top down: 0.45 cw
Soft top up: 0.39 cw
Hard top up: 0.37 cw
At 150 KMPH The Hard top uses 0.3 litres of gas less than the soft top
per 100 KM. With the top down 1.4 litre extra gas is used per 100 KM
(also at 150 KMPH). This can of course also be translated to possible
top speeds but the article does not do that - it only comments that no
one drives top down at more than 150 KMPH (Sort of making me "no one" as
I do - it's loud but otherwise fine).
http :// www .autobild.de/artikel/autos-im-windkanal 666465.html
http :// www .autobild.de/mmg/mm bildergalerie 668619.html?tab=0&page&bid=0&m=&e=&i http :// www .autobild.de/mmg/mm bildergalerie 668619.html?tab=0&page&bid=0&m=&e=&i http :// www .autobild.de/mmg/mm bildergalerie 668619.html?tab=0&page&bid=0&m=&e=&i
No real surprise that the soft top is a little less smooth or that top
down is even worse when it comes to smooth airflow.
Here are some other figures (also from the article):
The ten most efficient
1. BMW 5er 0,26
1. Mercedes S-Klasse 0,26
1. Lexus LS 460 0,26
1. Toyota Prius 0,26
2. Audi A4 0,27
2. BMW 3er 0,27
2. Mercedes E-Klasse 0,27
2. Mercedes C-Klasse 0,27
2. Mercedes CL 0,27
2. Porsche 911 0,27
And the ten less efficient
1. F1 Race car 1,2
2. 2 Mercedes Actros 0,81
3. 3 Morgan Roadster 0,6
4. 4 Land Rover Defender 0,59
5. 5 Hummer H2 0,53
6. 6 Mercedes G-Modell 0,52
7. 7 Morgan Aero 8 0,51
8. 8 Jeep Wrangler 0,49
9. 9 Jeep Commander 0,41
10. 10 Chrysler PT Cruiser 0,38
Kind regards
Bruno
Re: CW values for the NC
Biggest Irony in all of that is the model name of one of the cars on the
'worst' list; Morgan Aero 8! That's pretty funny.
Biggest surprise was the F1 car. That just does not jive with common sense
and logic. Seems to me that they have horribly tiny frontal areas and
there's no flat / blunt surfaces. Maybe I just figured it out; the ground
effects intentionally abut a whole bunch of air, with the resulting force of
that air pushing the car downward in order to keep the car on the ground.
Hmmmmmmm, I could be right!?! In effect these cars need the huge HP to
utilize the air to keep them stuck down! Can you imagine how fast these
buggers would be with aero aids that allow them to slice thru the wind?
Chris
99BBB
Biggest Irony in all of that is the model name of one of the cars on the
'worst' list; Morgan Aero 8! That's pretty funny.
Biggest surprise was the F1 car. That just does not jive with common sense
and logic. Seems to me that they have horribly tiny frontal areas and
there's no flat / blunt surfaces. Maybe I just figured it out; the ground
effects intentionally abut a whole bunch of air, with the resulting force of
that air pushing the car downward in order to keep the car on the ground.
Hmmmmmmm, I could be right!?! In effect these cars need the huge HP to
utilize the air to keep them stuck down! Can you imagine how fast these
buggers would be with aero aids that allow them to slice thru the wind?
Chris
99BBB
Re: CW values for the NC
Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Biggest surprise was the F1 car. That just does not jive with common sense
> and logic. Seems to me that they have horribly tiny frontal areas and
> there's no flat / blunt surfaces. Maybe I just figured it out; the ground
> effects intentionally abut a whole bunch of air, with the resulting force of
> that air pushing the car downward in order to keep the car on the ground.
> Hmmmmmmm, I could be right!?! In effect these cars need the huge HP to
> utilize the air to keep them stuck down! Can you imagine how fast these
> buggers would be with aero aids that allow them to slice thru the wind?
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
The aerodynamics on the F1 cars produce so much down force that the Indy
cars can theoretically be driven upside-down as long as you keep the
speed above 81 mph, since roughly 81 mph is when the down force equals
the weight of the car.
They produce roughly 2 times their weight in down force once they hit
118 mph.
From Wikipedia:
The cars' aerodynamics are designed to provide maximum downforce with a
minimum of drag; every part of the bodywork is designed with this aim in
mind. Like most open wheeler cars they feature large front and rear
aerofoils, but they are far more developed than American open wheel
racers, which depend more on suspension tuning; for instance, the nose
is raised above the centre of the front aerofoil, allowing its entire
width to provide downforce. The front and rear wings are highly sculpted
and extremely fine 'tuned', along with the rest of the body such as the
turning vanes beneath the nose, bargeboards, sidepods, underbody, and
the rear diffuser. They also feature aerodynamic appendages that direct
the airflow. Such an extreme level of aerodynamic development means that
an F1 car produces much more downforce than any other open-wheel
formula; for example the Indycars produce downforce equal to their
weight at 190 km/h (118 mph), while an F1 car achieves the same
downforce:weight ratio of 1:1 at 125 km/h (78 mph) to 130 km/h (81 mph),
and at 190 km/h (118 mph) the ratio is roughly 2:1. Therefore,
theoretically, F1 cars can drive upside down from 130 km/h (81 mph).
Keeping it on topic, can you imagine how the Miata would drive with that
kind of down force?
You would obviously need a lot more power to drive your car that starts
to "weigh" well over 4000 pounds at highway speed.
Cornering would be even more fun than ever! :-)
Pat
Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Biggest surprise was the F1 car. That just does not jive with common sense
> and logic. Seems to me that they have horribly tiny frontal areas and
> there's no flat / blunt surfaces. Maybe I just figured it out; the ground
> effects intentionally abut a whole bunch of air, with the resulting force of
> that air pushing the car downward in order to keep the car on the ground.
> Hmmmmmmm, I could be right!?! In effect these cars need the huge HP to
> utilize the air to keep them stuck down! Can you imagine how fast these
> buggers would be with aero aids that allow them to slice thru the wind?
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
The aerodynamics on the F1 cars produce so much down force that the Indy
cars can theoretically be driven upside-down as long as you keep the
speed above 81 mph, since roughly 81 mph is when the down force equals
the weight of the car.
They produce roughly 2 times their weight in down force once they hit
118 mph.
From Wikipedia:
The cars' aerodynamics are designed to provide maximum downforce with a
minimum of drag; every part of the bodywork is designed with this aim in
mind. Like most open wheeler cars they feature large front and rear
aerofoils, but they are far more developed than American open wheel
racers, which depend more on suspension tuning; for instance, the nose
is raised above the centre of the front aerofoil, allowing its entire
width to provide downforce. The front and rear wings are highly sculpted
and extremely fine 'tuned', along with the rest of the body such as the
turning vanes beneath the nose, bargeboards, sidepods, underbody, and
the rear diffuser. They also feature aerodynamic appendages that direct
the airflow. Such an extreme level of aerodynamic development means that
an F1 car produces much more downforce than any other open-wheel
formula; for example the Indycars produce downforce equal to their
weight at 190 km/h (118 mph), while an F1 car achieves the same
downforce:weight ratio of 1:1 at 125 km/h (78 mph) to 130 km/h (81 mph),
and at 190 km/h (118 mph) the ratio is roughly 2:1. Therefore,
theoretically, F1 cars can drive upside down from 130 km/h (81 mph).
Keeping it on topic, can you imagine how the Miata would drive with that
kind of down force?
You would obviously need a lot more power to drive your car that starts
to "weigh" well over 4000 pounds at highway speed.
Cornering would be even more fun than ever! :-)
Pat
Re: CW values for the NC
Why doesn't someone do that? Drive an F1 car upside down! That could get a
crowd excited!
Chris
99BBB
"pws" <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote in message
news:481dde2b$0$20164$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
>
>> Biggest surprise was the F1 car. That just does not jive with common
>> sense and logic. Seems to me that they have horribly tiny frontal areas
>> and there's no flat / blunt surfaces. Maybe I just figured it out; the
>> ground effects intentionally abut a whole bunch of air, with the
>> resulting force of that air pushing the car downward in order to keep the
>> car on the ground. Hmmmmmmm, I could be right!?! In effect these cars
>> need the huge HP to utilize the air to keep them stuck down! Can you
>> imagine how fast these buggers would be with aero aids that allow them to
>> slice thru the wind?
>>
>> Chris
>> 99BBB
>
> The aerodynamics on the F1 cars produce so much down force that the Indy
> cars can theoretically be driven upside-down as long as you keep the speed
> above 81 mph, since roughly 81 mph is when the down force equals the
> weight of the car.
> They produce roughly 2 times their weight in down force once they hit 118
> mph.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> The cars' aerodynamics are designed to provide maximum downforce with a
> minimum of drag; every part of the bodywork is designed with this aim in
> mind. Like most open wheeler cars they feature large front and rear
> aerofoils, but they are far more developed than American open wheel
> racers, which depend more on suspension tuning; for instance, the nose is
> raised above the centre of the front aerofoil, allowing its entire width
> to provide downforce. The front and rear wings are highly sculpted and
> extremely fine 'tuned', along with the rest of the body such as the
> turning vanes beneath the nose, bargeboards, sidepods, underbody, and the
> rear diffuser. They also feature aerodynamic appendages that direct the
> airflow. Such an extreme level of aerodynamic development means that an F1
> car produces much more downforce than any other open-wheel formula; for
> example the Indycars produce downforce equal to their weight at 190 km/h
> (118 mph), while an F1 car achieves the same downforce:weight ratio of 1:1
> at 125 km/h (78 mph) to 130 km/h (81 mph), and at 190 km/h (118 mph) the
> ratio is roughly 2:1. Therefore, theoretically, F1 cars can drive upside
> down from 130 km/h (81 mph).
>
>
> Keeping it on topic, can you imagine how the Miata would drive with that
> kind of down force?
> You would obviously need a lot more power to drive your car that starts to
> "weigh" well over 4000 pounds at highway speed.
> Cornering would be even more fun than ever! :-)
>
> Pat
>
Why doesn't someone do that? Drive an F1 car upside down! That could get a
crowd excited!
Chris
99BBB
"pws" <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote in message
news:481dde2b$0$20164$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
> Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
>
>> Biggest surprise was the F1 car. That just does not jive with common
>> sense and logic. Seems to me that they have horribly tiny frontal areas
>> and there's no flat / blunt surfaces. Maybe I just figured it out; the
>> ground effects intentionally abut a whole bunch of air, with the
>> resulting force of that air pushing the car downward in order to keep the
>> car on the ground. Hmmmmmmm, I could be right!?! In effect these cars
>> need the huge HP to utilize the air to keep them stuck down! Can you
>> imagine how fast these buggers would be with aero aids that allow them to
>> slice thru the wind?
>>
>> Chris
>> 99BBB
>
> The aerodynamics on the F1 cars produce so much down force that the Indy
> cars can theoretically be driven upside-down as long as you keep the speed
> above 81 mph, since roughly 81 mph is when the down force equals the
> weight of the car.
> They produce roughly 2 times their weight in down force once they hit 118
> mph.
>
> From Wikipedia:
>
> The cars' aerodynamics are designed to provide maximum downforce with a
> minimum of drag; every part of the bodywork is designed with this aim in
> mind. Like most open wheeler cars they feature large front and rear
> aerofoils, but they are far more developed than American open wheel
> racers, which depend more on suspension tuning; for instance, the nose is
> raised above the centre of the front aerofoil, allowing its entire width
> to provide downforce. The front and rear wings are highly sculpted and
> extremely fine 'tuned', along with the rest of the body such as the
> turning vanes beneath the nose, bargeboards, sidepods, underbody, and the
> rear diffuser. They also feature aerodynamic appendages that direct the
> airflow. Such an extreme level of aerodynamic development means that an F1
> car produces much more downforce than any other open-wheel formula; for
> example the Indycars produce downforce equal to their weight at 190 km/h
> (118 mph), while an F1 car achieves the same downforce:weight ratio of 1:1
> at 125 km/h (78 mph) to 130 km/h (81 mph), and at 190 km/h (118 mph) the
> ratio is roughly 2:1. Therefore, theoretically, F1 cars can drive upside
> down from 130 km/h (81 mph).
>
>
> Keeping it on topic, can you imagine how the Miata would drive with that
> kind of down force?
> You would obviously need a lot more power to drive your car that starts to
> "weigh" well over 4000 pounds at highway speed.
> Cornering would be even more fun than ever! :-)
>
> Pat
>
Re: CW values for the NC
Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Why doesn't someone do that? Drive an F1 car upside down! That could get a
> crowd excited!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
I wondered that myself. It would require either being able to smoothly
climb a wall and onto the ceiling at over 81mph, which could be tricky
or even impossible. (Leon?)
The other possibility that I see is to have the car hooked onto the
ceiling with a mechanism of some sort that releases once enough speed
has been attained.
That would require building a ceiling that will work as well as a road,
assuming that one does not already exist.
I would want to see the second option tested without a driver first,
though a short and straight drop onto the roof at 90 mph or so might not
be nearly as bad as some of the wrecks that occur during racing at much
higher speeds.
Losing a F1 car in an experiment would not be the greatest thing, but
various people spend millions of dollars on silly things every day.
Pat
Chris D'Agnolo wrote:
> Why doesn't someone do that? Drive an F1 car upside down! That could get a
> crowd excited!
>
> Chris
> 99BBB
I wondered that myself. It would require either being able to smoothly
climb a wall and onto the ceiling at over 81mph, which could be tricky
or even impossible. (Leon?)
The other possibility that I see is to have the car hooked onto the
ceiling with a mechanism of some sort that releases once enough speed
has been attained.
That would require building a ceiling that will work as well as a road,
assuming that one does not already exist.
I would want to see the second option tested without a driver first,
though a short and straight drop onto the roof at 90 mph or so might not
be nearly as bad as some of the wrecks that occur during racing at much
higher speeds.
Losing a F1 car in an experiment would not be the greatest thing, but
various people spend millions of dollars on silly things every day.
Pat
Re: CW values for the NC
> I wondered that myself. It would require either being able to smoothly
> climb a wall and onto the ceiling at over 81mph, which could be tricky
> or even impossible. (Leon?)
How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
to watch. They could build the grandstand in the middle.
miker
> I wondered that myself. It would require either being able to smoothly
> climb a wall and onto the ceiling at over 81mph, which could be tricky
> or even impossible. (Leon?)
How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
to watch. They could build the grandstand in the middle.
miker
Re: CW values for the NC
miker wrote:
> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
> to watch.
That would be very cool.
I am no expert at physics, but is seems like the cars should be able to
do it given a properly designed, and probably very expensive track. Not
sure the drivers would approve.
They could build the grandstand in the middle.
>
> miker
That would make wrecks far more interesting when they occurred top-side.
As the cars either dropped below speed or lost enough body panels, down
from the ceiling they would come, raining flaming fuel and debris on the
crowd.
After my one and only trip to the Indy 500, I am not completely against
the idea. (I am glad that I went, BTW, once)
It would make the event quite a bit more interesting to me and I don't
think that I would ever miss a race on television. ;-)
Pat
miker wrote:
> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
> to watch.
That would be very cool.
I am no expert at physics, but is seems like the cars should be able to
do it given a properly designed, and probably very expensive track. Not
sure the drivers would approve.
They could build the grandstand in the middle.
>
> miker
That would make wrecks far more interesting when they occurred top-side.
As the cars either dropped below speed or lost enough body panels, down
from the ceiling they would come, raining flaming fuel and debris on the
crowd.
After my one and only trip to the Indy 500, I am not completely against
the idea. (I am glad that I went, BTW, once)
It would make the event quite a bit more interesting to me and I don't
think that I would ever miss a race on television. ;-)
Pat
Re: CW values for the NC
On 2008-05-05, pws <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
>> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
>> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
>> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
>> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
>> to watch.
>
> That would be very cool.
Not as cool as a möbius strip racetrack...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Why are these athletic
at shoe salesmen following
visi,com me??
On 2008-05-05, pws <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
>> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
>> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
>> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
>> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
>> to watch.
>
> That would be very cool.
Not as cool as a möbius strip racetrack...
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! Why are these athletic
at shoe salesmen following
visi,com me??
Re: CW values for the NC
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-05-05, pws <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
>
>>> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
>>> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
>>> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
>>> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
>>> to watch.
>> That would be very cool.
>
> Not as cool as a möbius strip racetrack...
>
If someone is going to try it with a F1 car they had better do it quick.
I believe regs are going to reduce downforce considerably in 2009.
It would need a strong ceiling. The downforce used at some tracks is huge.
Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2008-05-05, pws <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
>
>>> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
>>> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
>>> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
>>> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
>>> to watch.
>> That would be very cool.
>
> Not as cool as a möbius strip racetrack...
>
If someone is going to try it with a F1 car they had better do it quick.
I believe regs are going to reduce downforce considerably in 2009.
It would need a strong ceiling. The downforce used at some tracks is huge.
Re: CW values for the NC
On 2008-05-05, Invisible Man <Invisible@invisible.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2008-05-05, pws <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
>>
>>>> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
>>>> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
>>>> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
>>>> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
>>>> to watch.
>>> That would be very cool.
>>
>> Not as cool as a m??bius strip racetrack...
>>
>
> If someone is going to try it with a F1 car they had better do it quick.
> I believe regs are going to reduce downforce considerably in 2009.
> It would need a strong ceiling. The downforce used at some tracks is huge.
That's where the moebius strip track has an advantage: once the
field is spread out enough, you'll have cars on both sides of
the strip and the downforces would cancel. Perhaps the staring
lineup could be split so that half the cars start on one side
and half on the other.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I've got an IDEA!!
at Why don't I STARE at you
visi,com so HARD, you forget your
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!!
On 2008-05-05, Invisible Man <Invisible@invisible.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> Grant Edwards wrote:
>> On 2008-05-05, pws <pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
>>
>>>> How about an oval track, only vertical? Shoot down the straight to build up
>>>> speed, enter a vertical curve at the end which continues until you're upside
>>>> down and headed back the other direction. Vertical curve at the other end
>>>> takes you back to the ground on the original straight. That would be a hoot
>>>> to watch.
>>> That would be very cool.
>>
>> Not as cool as a m??bius strip racetrack...
>>
>
> If someone is going to try it with a F1 car they had better do it quick.
> I believe regs are going to reduce downforce considerably in 2009.
> It would need a strong ceiling. The downforce used at some tracks is huge.
That's where the moebius strip track has an advantage: once the
field is spread out enough, you'll have cars on both sides of
the strip and the downforces would cancel. Perhaps the staring
lineup could be split so that half the cars start on one side
and half on the other.
--
Grant Edwards grante Yow! I've got an IDEA!!
at Why don't I STARE at you
visi,com so HARD, you forget your
SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER!!
Re: CW values for the NC
Grant Edwards wrote:
> That's where the moebius strip track has an advantage: once the
> field is spread out enough, you'll have cars on both sides of
> the strip and the downforces would cancel. Perhaps the staring
> lineup could be split so that half the cars start on one side
> and half on the other.
To continue this silly thread....
I have to admit to forgetting what a moebuis strip is, thank you for the
reminder.
Like to keep that vocabulary thing growing, and that is one of the few
things with a name that does not have at least 15 definitions in the
English language depending on the context, so I should be able to
remember it.
How about a Figure 8 Klein Bottle track? ;-)
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KleinBottle-Figure8-01.png
Pat
Grant Edwards wrote:
> That's where the moebius strip track has an advantage: once the
> field is spread out enough, you'll have cars on both sides of
> the strip and the downforces would cancel. Perhaps the staring
> lineup could be split so that half the cars start on one side
> and half on the other.
To continue this silly thread....
I have to admit to forgetting what a moebuis strip is, thank you for the
reminder.
Like to keep that vocabulary thing growing, and that is one of the few
things with a name that does not have at least 15 definitions in the
English language depending on the context, so I should be able to
remember it.
How about a Figure 8 Klein Bottle track? ;-)
http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KleinBottle-Figure8-01.png
Pat
Re: CW values for the NC
On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:51:50 -0500, in rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata, pws
<pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
<snip>
>
>How about a Figure 8 Klein Bottle track? ;-)
>
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KleinBottle-Figure8-01.png
Well, if you like topology, you can get your own Klein bottle. I have
one, though it's not big enough to race on. See
http :// www .kleinbottle,com /. The problem with math jokes is that most
folks don't get them.
Jim - sometime mathematician, sometime programmer
On Wed, 07 May 2008 00:51:50 -0500, in rec.autos.makers.mazda.miata, pws
<pwshelton@austin.rr,com > wrote:
<snip>
>
>How about a Figure 8 Klein Bottle track? ;-)
>
> http :// en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:KleinBottle-Figure8-01.png
Well, if you like topology, you can get your own Klein bottle. I have
one, though it's not big enough to race on. See
http :// www .kleinbottle,com /. The problem with math jokes is that most
folks don't get them.
Jim - sometime mathematician, sometime programmer
Re: CW values for the NC
In article <68e23uF2s33kjU1@mid.individual,net >,
Jim Hayter <see.reply.to@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> See
> http :// www .kleinbottle,com /.
Priceless! Thanks.
> The problem with math jokes is that most
> folks don't get them.
It's the same with classical music jokes (q.v., PDQ Bach's "Concerto for
Horn and Hardart" et al.).
--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C
In article <68e23uF2s33kjU1@mid.individual,net >,
Jim Hayter <see.reply.to@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> See
> http :// www .kleinbottle,com /.
Priceless! Thanks.
> The problem with math jokes is that most
> folks don't get them.
It's the same with classical music jokes (q.v., PDQ Bach's "Concerto for
Horn and Hardart" et al.).
--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C
Re: CW values for the NC
Lanny Chambers <lanny@hummingbirds,net > wrote:
> It's the same with classical music jokes (q.v., PDQ Bach's
> "Concerto for Horn and Hardart" et al.).
That's more of a food joke and one that people should get Automat-
ically.... <Ouch!>
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http :// improve-usenet.org
Lanny Chambers <lanny@hummingbirds,net > wrote:
> It's the same with classical music jokes (q.v., PDQ Bach's
> "Concerto for Horn and Hardart" et al.).
That's more of a food joke and one that people should get Automat-
ically.... <Ouch!>
--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http :// improve-usenet.org
Re: CW values for the NC
In article <Xns9A976BF1BEB6Bxs11emailinatorcom@85.214.90.236>,
XS11E <xs11e@mailinator,com > wrote:
> > It's the same with classical music jokes (q.v., PDQ Bach's
> > "Concerto for Horn and Hardart" et al.).
>
> That's more of a food joke and one that people should get Automat-
> ically.... <Ouch!>
Food joke, NYC joke, whatever. I had the dubious pleasure of "dining" at
H&H years before the first PDQ album came out in 1965 (and promptly blew
me away, music geek that I am).
As a solo instrument, the hardart is a large console with divers objects
on top that are struck, plucked, blown into or otherwise abused to
produce a chromatic scale. There are also some balloons and a shotgun.
The mallets, etc., are obtained by inserting coins that open doors to
their compartments. Voilà, the parody is complete.
The best part about PDQ Bach is the imaginative titles: Iphigenia in
Brooklyn, Royal Firewater Musick, Pervertimento, Serenude, Sonata for
Viola/Four Hands, Toot Suite, Fanfare for the Common Cold, and the
operas Einstein on the Fritz and The Abduction of Figaro.
If you're not a music geek, though, best just go back to your iPod.
--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C
In article <Xns9A976BF1BEB6Bxs11emailinatorcom@85.214.90.236>,
XS11E <xs11e@mailinator,com > wrote:
> > It's the same with classical music jokes (q.v., PDQ Bach's
> > "Concerto for Horn and Hardart" et al.).
>
> That's more of a food joke and one that people should get Automat-
> ically.... <Ouch!>
Food joke, NYC joke, whatever. I had the dubious pleasure of "dining" at
H&H years before the first PDQ album came out in 1965 (and promptly blew
me away, music geek that I am).
As a solo instrument, the hardart is a large console with divers objects
on top that are struck, plucked, blown into or otherwise abused to
produce a chromatic scale. There are also some balloons and a shotgun.
The mallets, etc., are obtained by inserting coins that open doors to
their compartments. Voilà, the parody is complete.
The best part about PDQ Bach is the imaginative titles: Iphigenia in
Brooklyn, Royal Firewater Musick, Pervertimento, Serenude, Sonata for
Viola/Four Hands, Toot Suite, Fanfare for the Common Cold, and the
operas Einstein on the Fritz and The Abduction of Figaro.
If you're not a music geek, though, best just go back to your iPod.
--
Lanny Chambers
St. Louis, MO
'94C
