Youtube comments of Clyde (@Clyde-2055).
-
425
-
57
-
34
-
34
-
22
-
19
-
16
-
13
-
13
-
12
-
10
-
10
-
9
-
8
-
8
-
8
-
7
-
6
-
6
-
6
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
5
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
4
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
@bodanerius — The biggest difference in racing now and 40+ years ago is the “audience”. The roots of professional auto racing was about cars, speed, innovation and engineering excellence, and a certain breed of FAN was drawn to events.
But as sanctioning bodies began to seek more profits, they attempted to expand their audience by broadening the appeal beyond the racing FAN. To do this, they started pursuing what they called “parity” in the cars, leading to events that continuously gravitated away from traditional racing to become gladiatorial-like completions between the drivers, while at the same time trying to maintain the illusion of engineering and manufacturer competition within the sport so not to chase away the racing FAN.
In this very thread my point is made by @SHR, @lance, and @MrArctic, voicing the need for passing, close “racing”, with SHR even stating that we’d (the AUDIENCE) need BOP (balance of performance) to keep the cars close if they (F1) opened up the rules. Those people are not racing FANS, they are part of the racing AUDIENCE that see auto racing as entertainment rather than a proving ground for engineers and innovators.
Societally, such paradigm changes are natural, as ideas, traditions and values and evolve and morph to follow the will of the masses. But sometimes, these changes backfire, and even consume the very entity from which they evolved. NASCAR is a great example of this; they tried to appeal to the masses, chased away most of their racing FANS, then the masses (the AUDIENCE) tired of the very thing that they clamored for to start with, leaving the sport struggling to stay solvent.
The WEC series is trying to grow, recently employing BoP as a tool to artificially tighten up the competition in hopes of drawing a larger audience. Like with NASCAR, the initial response has been favorable. Let’s check back in 10-20 years to see how that works out for them.
Note: As far as I’m concerned, using BoP in auto racing is like handicap golf: strictly for amateurs …
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
3
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
2
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@macmurdock77 — Valid question.
My take on it is that Musk and Alphabet are developing two totally different products, each requiring very different developmental protocols.
Waymo has developed a sophisticated, data intensive automated driving system.
Elon is aiming to produce a more comparatively flexible and independent autonomous platform.
My questions are:
— Is Musk’s goal attainable in the near future? It seems like his direct competitors have fallen by the wayside, but I wouldn’t bet against ole Elon.
— Is Waymo’s product scalable, given the expense of the vehicles and the support staff needed to operate the service, and even if it is, what advantage does the Waymo offer over the current business model of Uber or Lyft?
As for Musk’s product, if he succeeds, he will have far more than simply a taxi service. His system can be sold worldwide through his Tesla brand and licensed to anyone for use in production cars.
I haven’t used a Waymo, though I’d like to just to see it in action. I find the FSD interesting, but it would not be something I’d buy at this stage of my life. Perhaps if I were a drunk or going blind, I’d feel differently about it. I do like the Autopilot for road trips though …
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@Phapchamp — You wrote: “All models indicate with this rate parts of Africa will be inhabitable by 2050.” Well that’s a good thing ! At the rate they’re reproducing, they need all the land they can get … 😂
— The carbon we’re burning from beneath the ground is of ORGANIC origin. So no, when that carbon was above ground, the earth wasn’t some molten piece of “burning-hot” rock — it was already supporting life.
See how you are. You’re just spreading more disinformation that you’ve conjured out of thin air, or from the depths of your obviously-fertile imagination.
During man’s time on earth, there have been periods when it was much hotter than it is now, and man survived fine — flourished, in fact. And in much hotter times, what is now the Sahara was green.
If the dire predictions by climate alarmists are even half true, humanity will be forced to adjust, but they will survive — at least until some other calamity comes along and wipes them out.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@chefbink61 — No, they’re not made for paycheck to paycheck folks. And while I can afford one, they’re not made for me, either.
But my point to you is, when you try to make a point with outlandish stats, your point loses credibility.
As for that battery, I gave you a worse-case pricing. You can find a suitable 12-volt battery for Teslas in the $100-$200 range, too (e.g., Group 51r for the Model 3).
I still don’t want one. My wife likes the idea of a Model 2, however who knows when that might happen.
I like old cars. They looked better, had character, and they can be kept running for decades if you don’t let rust eat them up …
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
That’s actually a good question. Here’s the quick answer.
“BEV (Battery Electric Vehicle) lithium-ion battery fires are generally considered worse than hybrid lithium-ion battery fires because BEVs contain a significantly larger battery pack with more energy density, which can lead to a more intense and prolonged fire when damaged, making them harder to extinguish and potentially causing more damage due to the "thermal runaway" effect where a single cell's fire can spread rapidly to others within the battery pack” — Google
Please note the the above is comparing Li-ion batteries across vehicle types.
Statistics indicate that BEV’s do not catch fire more frequently than hybrids. In fact, less, mainly because of the sophistication of MOST BEV’s BMS (battery management system). Be warned, not all BMS’s are created equal. Further, hybrids also have the added fire potential from the petrol engine.
Now, the crux of the matter.
Many HEV’s use NiMH (nickel-metal hydride) batteries instead of Li-ion batteries. NiMH batteries are not as fire-prone as Li-ion ones.
“Compared to Lithium-Ion (Li-Ion) batteries, Nickel-Metal Hydride (NiMH) batteries have a significantly lower fire risk, as Li-Ion batteries are more prone to catching fire when damaged or improperly handled due to their higher energy density and potential for thermal runaway, while NiMH batteries are generally considered much safer in terms of fire hazards.” — Google
I hope this helps. Happy motoring …
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1