|
Forgive my noob question but, even overfilled, how does the oil get into the cylinder? I thought the cylinder had to be sealed, because it creates a vacuum on the downstroke to suck in oxygen and fuel for the compression stroke. I get that overfilling the oil could cause the engine to agitate and foam the oil, which is bad, I just don't see how it winds up pouring into the intake.
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 02:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
So, if you wanted to engineer and build in a safety system to prevent this runaway condition, all you need is a device which severs that line when RPMs are reading high but the ignition is turned off? Doesn't seem that difficult to do.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 18, 2009 02:44
|
|
|
I invariably get passed by those guys on the freeway, doing 80+, as well. They scare the poo poo out of me because my car is designed to absorb shock damage to the bumpers or doors, not to the loving roof. They're more dangerous to hit than a drat tractor-trailer truck. And those guys are speeding around as if they're in a loving sports car, like they have no clue (I guess they don't) that a super-lifted truck on gigantic chunky tires is not exactly a great performer on the freeway. Anyway I bet the shipping container salvage idea wouldn't work because 90% of them are full of cheap sneakers and pairs of cargo pants from Malaysia. I heard a used 40-foot can be had for about $8000, so over its life (10+ years? 20? of constant use) the cargo doesn't have to be all that profitable valuable to pay for the thing. For every container full of still-sealed valuable stuff, there'd be a thousand that were full of saltwater-ruined electronics, spoiled food, or styrofoam cups.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 10, 2010 01:00
|
|
|
It looks like melted coffee ice cream or something. Like he tried to lube his engine with a frappachino.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 30, 2010 23:25
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:Eh, I understand it saves money, I just don't think that bad design is something that should ever be excused. I know we've moved on from here, but this struck me. All automotive engineering is about compromise. Every engineering decision is a compromise of one kind or another; between materials availability, limitations of machining/casting, expense of manufacture, a balance between tolerances and their cost, man-hours, robot-hours, the price of steel, thermodynamics... it goes on and on. There is no such thing as a perfect engine in the real world, because a perfect engine would cost infinite dollars and be unmanufacturable. Once you accept that, then every lovely engine in the world makes sense. That doesn't mean there is no such thing as a bad design decision, of course; only that you cannot separate business requirements from design choices, and sometimes the business requirements are sufficiently restrictive that bad design choices are the only realistic possibility. Of course, there are also mistakes, but I think that's subtly different than 'bad design'. Mistakes are inevitable; it's QA, prototyping, a long and expensive and thorough design cycle that mitigates mistakes, and how much of that a company can afford for a given design is once again a function of real-world business limitations.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 1, 2010 08:03
|
|
|
hatefulsquid posted:I thought you guys might appreciate this. This is an oil-rigger's blog site, with some pretty technical in-depth discussions about what happened to the deepwater horizon and why: http://www.drillingahead.com/forum/topics/transocean-deepwater-horizon-1 Be sure to read the comments after the main article. And this link is a clip from a radio show where one of the guys that was on the rig that day called in to try to clear some stuff up. http://www.marklevinshow.com/Article.asp?id=1790422&spid=32364 The tl:dr of it, though, is that the disaster almost certainly had nothing at all to do with the actual ship. Several things had to have gone wrong, but all of those things would be in the bore, the safety devices at the top of the bore (the sea floor), and the operation of the riser (the big neutrally-bouyant pipe between the sea floor and the floating rig). Essentially, the very very deep oil field is under tremendous pressure. It's necessary to balance the pressure coming up from below, with pressure down the riser and well from above, so that various operations can be performed. In this case they had just plugged the well with concrete and were setting a second (redundant) plug above that, when a severe runaway overpressure occurred (exactly why and how is not yet known) and all of the failsafes designed to prevent gas from bursting up the riser failed (for a variety of possible reasons). So Hyundai isn't at fault here. Possibly halliburton is, or BP, or some other contractor, or (most likely) a combination of factors that include operational error, poor planning, and physical failure of equipment.
|
|
#
¿
May 5, 2010 02:16
|
|
.jpg)
|
GWBBQ posted:Probably like a train wreck There are a lot of ironies in all this. One of them is that near-shore (shallow water) drilling is likely to get seriously scuttled after this disaster, when that's actually pretty safe (comparitavely). Whereas the Deepwater Horizon was drilling a (reportedly) extremely high pressure (20,000 PSI+) deep water well. Another irony: this was a modest find. Another irony: the best way to stop the leaking, at this point, is to drill a couple of additional bores into the existing one, at an angle, so they can inject something to block the main bore. So two more ships and crews will have to take on an even more complex and potentially dangerous task, with incredible pressure to go as fast as possible, and hopefully not get killed doing it. Ultimately there is always a balance between cost and safety. Any bystander can point to wherever that line was drawn and say, post-disaster, "Oh! they could have spent just a little more, and it wouldn't have happened! What idiots!" but that is hindsight. The reality is that experienced and smart people run the numbers and try to find a point where the operation is reasonably safe and still reasonably profitable. None of those people involved want someone to get killed, none of them want a rig to blow up, and every single one of them is acutely aware of the consequences of a fuckup. I'm not a pro-drilling pro-oil guy, far from it. But it's patently unfair to point at BP and say they are to blame for this because they didn't approve of using a particular bit of kit. We simply do not know yet exactly what happened or why, and particularly what changes in practice might have prevented this.
|
|
#
¿
May 7, 2010 06:54
|
|
|
hatefulsquid posted:I agree with everything you said, just wanted to point out that "reasonably profitable" is a laughable term when applied to the oil industry. I know you're being facetious but... There is an enormous amount of known oil on Earth that is not feasible, with current technology, to drill. "Not feasible" means profitable of course. "Peak Oil" fanatics will point to the 'known reserves' statistics, and compare them to oil consumption statistics, and the math easily shows how we will completely run out in x years. What this analysis fails to take into account, however, is that 'known reserves' refers to economically viable reserves; as the price of oil incrementally increases, more reserves become profitable, and thus 'known reserves' increase. Moreover, as technology improves, the costs of extracting drop, which also brings more oil into the 'known reserves' category. So, in a nutshell, the modern oil business is an exercise in correctly calculating the cost of extracting a given amount of oil from a given field. The big boys are very good at making these calculations, and part of the reason why, is because they understand how not to overspend... and how not to make billion-dollar mistakes. "Reasonably profitable" is by definition the threshold between an economically non-viable find, and something worth drilling.
|
|
#
¿
May 9, 2010 02:09
|
|
|
James Woods posted:What "Peak Oil fanatics" tend to point out Others have already jumped on you for the stupidity of this tirade, but I want to make it clear that I am well aware that oil supplies may not keep up with the rising demand. "Peak Oil" is not "everyone who is concerned about the viability of an oil-based world economy". It's a very specific idea that is based on several false or misleading premises, one of which is the misunderstanding, deliberate or not, of what exactly are meant by technical terms such as "proven reserves" when they are used by the oil industry. The very recent (in the last 10 or 15 years, but especially the last 5) dawn of deep-water drilling has moved enormous quantities of known oil deposits from non-viable to viable, putting them into the reserves category, for example. Here is a good example from 2007: Brazil's new deepwater find is something approaching 8 billion barrels of oil and gas. The fossil-fuel economy is almost certainly non-viable long-term for a variety of reasons, but the "Peak Oil" argument isn't one of them.
|
|
#
¿
May 10, 2010 21:52
|
|
|
Not really, which you'd know if you read what was posted 5 pages ago.
|
|
#
¿
May 20, 2010 23:41
|
|
|
Nerobro posted:Nitrous Oxide makes a decent extinguishing material. It needs compression to get enough energy to de-bond the nitrogen and oxygen. It works a lot like co2 on a fire. Surely the heat of an open flame is sufficient energy to debond it? I'm pretty boggled if what you say is true.
|
|
#
¿
May 1, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
If I understand it right, this is a turbodiesel that is in a runaway condition due to a failure in the turbo (or in the engine block?) which is allowing engine oil to be consumed by the engine (through the air intake?). The engine is thus burning oil rather than fuel, it is in a positive feedback loop, and that's why you can't kill it by cutting off fuel (such as by yanking the fuse on the fuel pump or turning off the ignition). Diesel engines don't need a spark either, they ignite the fuel just from high compression, so disconnecting the battery is pointless. So you want to either cut off fuel (the oil supply) or air. Of the two, it's much easier to block the air intake than cut off the oil supply to wherever poo poo's broken and letting oil in. Right? I mean, you could try crawling under the vehicle to open the oil pan drain but that sounds hot, really dangerous, and not very fast. Maybe take a screwdriver to the oil filter? Having oil spraying around everywhere when you have an engine rapidly exploring the upper limits of its maximum thermal endurance doesn't seem wise either. All these options are stupider than stuffing something bulky into the air intake. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 01:50 on May 9, 2012 |
|
#
¿
May 9, 2012 01:47
|
|
|
A screw extractor is probably just ordinary carbon steel that has been heat treated and quenched to glass-hardness. This gives it the hardness necessary to carve into a less-hard piece of carbon steel, but makes it very brittle (similar to a metal file). If you apply any amount of sideways force it will snap instead of bending. If it's just heat-treated carbon steel, though, once you snap off the piece you can soften it by heating it up to bright glowing red (no longer sticks to a magnet) and then allowing it to slowly cool (anneal). Don't quench it, that does the opposite. The slower it cools the better. But best is to not try to pry with it at all whatsoever. You must force it in straight and true and do not push or pull sideways on the handle at all.
|
|
#
¿
May 16, 2012 03:23
|
|
|
not exactly a failure but I wasn't sure of a better place to put this (NSFW audio) https://va.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_rrsbylTagl1r0uzl6.mp4
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2023 03:28
|
|
|
kaker mix can fill you in I bet, he ran that import business for a few years
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2023 00:22
|
|
|
re: some of the previous posts, wood is extremely strong in compression and I think using it to fill space in a big truck frame isn't automatically a terrible idea, provided the condition of the wood is monitored carefully, and it's encapsulated in such a way that it can't shear along the grain lines easily. The structural wood shown in that horrific frame job and in this RV tow setup is uhhhh, not the right way to do it.
|
|
#
¿
May 8, 2023 18:59
|
|
|
There's a post with one caster wheel at the front of the trailer, for moving it around when it's not hitched up. It does not look like the rear wheels are on casters, or at least I can't see any evidence of that from the three photos posted.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2023 00:47
|
|
|
Farmdizzle posted:The main wheels are on pivoting drag-style links. Look closer at the third pic - you can see a spring-loaded pivot sticking down just forward of the wheel (and the wheel itself is obviously not parallel to the frame of the trailer.) ohhh, OK I see it now. And I guess the hitch setup should keep the trailer from whipping back and forth, but yeah it's going to swing wide of the vehicle's outside rear on turns so the driver will need to make very wide turns to be sure not to smash the tail into stuff. I really don't understand what motivated doing this, anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
there's two cinder blocks under the front prop, I have to think they've done this intentionally. Maybe they're hosing out the floor of the camper? But I can't figure out why it's still attached to the truck. e. oh maybe they're tryign to attach a different tow vehicle, and this one is super way too lifted
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
haha amazing
|
|
#
¿
Jul 12, 2023 19:32
|
|
|
The Door Frame posted:Is what happened to all of the protege5's? Mine is still OK, although the bit that had damage repaired all the clearcoat is peeling off, but that's on the body shop's lovely paint system. Of course I don't live in the rust belt. They only made the protege5 for three years though, so there just weren't that many to begin with.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 15, 2023 18:47
|
|
|
I have never lost control of my vehicle. I have never intentionally tried to spin a vehicle either. I am a safe and sensible driver.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2023 18:44
|
|
|
Oh yeah I got a flat tire by driving the rear wheel over a curb once, taking the corner a bit too tight. That was an accident I guess, but I didn't lose control. I used to do 360+s in my big wheel when I was a kid. I wore all the way through the right heel on multiple pairs of sneakers doing that, I'd get goign as fast as possbile and then jam my heel into the sidewalk. IIRC I could get just about 1.5 rotations at max speed and recklessness. Maybe I got it out of my system by the time I was 8?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 17, 2023 19:25
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:You didn't have the spinout brake on your Big Wheel? Nope! The handbrake was an option on my ~1978 base model Big Wheel, and my mom was poor as hell in those years. Joke's on her, she had to replace like three pairs of my shoes way before I grew out of them as a result. It had tassles on the handles and perfectly smooth wheels. Basically this one  just imagine that kid in a flannel shirt instead, but the same dorky long bad hair cut, and that was me at age 4 this is thread relevant because the absurd lack of traction was a feature of that era's big wheels and back then you just rode it in the street or whatever, parents didn't give a gently caress Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 07:18 on Aug 23, 2023 |
|
#
¿
Aug 23, 2023 07:12
|
|
|
I feel like it would be more economical to use a ship to sail around the coast from darwin to adelaide and back, but I'm sure someone thought of that and did the numbers and somehow running hundreds of trucks is less expensive
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2023 00:40
|
|
|
yeah and they were doing whippets too
|
|
#
¿
Sep 14, 2023 23:09
|
|
|
Large Testicles posted:Personal horrible mechanical failure. Replacing the drivers side cv axle on my car and the loving thing is stuck in the transmission this aint the right thread, but if you're shotgunning parts without a diagnosis, go ahead and inspect/replace engine mounts/bushings, and shock/strut and mounts?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2023 15:59
|
|
|
An actual money shift, in 2023, you love to see it. Like, I'm sorry and everything, but it's a dying thing.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 28, 2023 21:17
|
|
|
I was asking in the mod forum about posting a lot about trad games secret santa and jeffrey suggested I make an ad for it so I did and that is an option for sheep game too, next year perhaps just run a forum ad, jeff will surely be happy to run it for free anyway let's see some horrible mechanical failures perhaps
|
|
#
¿
Dec 21, 2023 18:31
|
|
|
HawkHill posted:Why would the SS that Tesla is using not be at least this durable? another factor is that you probably don't use your kitchen 24/7 but many of these trucks will sit outside 24/7 subject to the weather. They'll go through daily heat cycles, and when the body is colder than the air, they'll get dew. There'll be road salt and stuff too. They get a static electric charge probably. They're scoured by road grit and tiny pebbles every time they're driven. I bet the surfaces get hot enough to burn you if you touch them when they sit in full sun all day, lol
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2024 17:31
|
|
|
it's intended to show that it's durable in an evocative way, and it's worked because here we are talking about it it's no different than when they cut a can in half with a ginsu knife, because you totally use your kitchen knives to cut cans in half e. like it's stupid, of course it is, but it's not that different from something people have been doing in product marketing forever: a stunt to demonstrate how durable/strong/sharp/fast/whatever it is in a memorable way Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jan 25, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 20:12
|
|
|
Darchangel posted:Well, yes, but the Ginsu thing is just using the tool in a way you normally would, but in the most extreme version, if you follow. I mean, "it's a cutting utensil - here's it cutting things tougher than anything you will ever need to cut!" And part of the Ginsu thing was that it could cut that unreasonable object, and then still be sharp enough to use normally. sure, it's just the fact they shot an arrow at it isn't the funny part it's that it failed is funny
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2024 22:06
|
|
|
that's ok, in the future the car's ai will just decide when you probably meant to be in park, reverse, drive, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 29, 2024 18:06
|
|
|
no seatbelt passenger airbag goes off with no passenger steering wheel comes off it's a poo poo box driven at speed by an idiot, guys
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 18:47
|
|
|
so fess up, which one of you was it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 27, 2024 18:48
|
|
|
wesleywillis posted:Let's just make modifying your car illegal. Doesn't matter what. Everything not completely stock, ride height, rims, tires, all suspension, exhaust everything, headlights, taillights you name it. Humanity doesn't deserve to be allowed anything good or fun. welcome to california, lol not really, but sometimes it feels like it
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 00:24
|
|
|
cursedshitbox posted:Nah CA only cares about what comes outta the tailpipe, The state does not care about 32 lightbars and bald terrains so long as the emissions gear is intact and working. engine swap your post-1974 and then try and register it, oh, it's not the OEM engine, hmm, that's not gonna be fun https://www.bar.ca.gov/consumer/smog-check-program/engine-changes oh anything to do with the emissions chain is aftermarket and not on the approved list of specific parts, and your cat insn't installed and stamped, that's an issue but yeah did you see the spoilered part because it really isn't a huge deal unless you're trying to put an LS1 into your 2000 mazda or something quote:California Engine Change Guidelines install light bars and let your tires go bald and do your hella flush mods and cut the springs etc. etc. and that's all cool and good, but don't you dare install the wrong engine unless you jump through a shitload of hoops and then get it past a special "referee" inspection. Leperflesh fucked around with this message at 19:37 on Feb 28, 2024 |
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2024 19:32
|
|
|
Ford recalled about 1.5M Pintos to fix the burny tank issue, but over 5M teslas have been sold now, so ratio-wise they're probably about the same level of dying by fire risk
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2024 20:28
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 05:03 |
|
|
namlosh posted:If I recall, they were pretty much shamed into the recall. The whole debacle is something we remember not so much for the death toll, but for the leaks of internal memos discussing how much the recall would cost vs litigation from dead people’s families. This was back when people used to care whether companies were evil of course. Half the country would probably call it “shrewd” for a corporation to decide to save money by killing people vs litigation from the use of their unsafe product nowadays… while accepting tons of taxpayer subsidies of course what actually happened was very complicated and has been widely misrepresented in the press and popular perception for decades, but essentially you're right but also the public perception was badly skewed, the memo comparing cost of fixes to the value of a human life was following NHSTA standards and was not explicitly or individually a decision-making document, lots of other cars had the same defect, and many of the people who died in car fires in Pintos didn't do so specifically because of the identified defect: cars can catch fire for a lot of reasons. all of the above is just to reiterate that it's complicated and the throwaway idea that all Teslas explode into flame because of bad design is similarly glossing over a lot of details that make the whole thing less pat and satisfying. But still fits a narrative about Musk's disregard for human life that like... he sure does jack poo poo to disabuse or counter, and the build quality on Teslas is poo poo, and so I personally think people shouldn't buy them anyway
|
|
#
¿
Mar 22, 2024 23:55
|
|