Car Forums  

Go Back   Car Forums > General Discussions > General Chat
FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 05-23-2006, 01:03 AM   #16
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
Ignorance, ignorance....

1) see your response #6, first you say this is a bad idea because there's less g-force, but then you say you can't stop the g-force... which is it?
2) whatever.... lingo isn't always scientific
3) How much do you think RnD on airbags cost (for example)? and less safe ... why?
4) so, you don't need to have it ... and the up and down from a buckled road wouldn't have any effect
6) the whole point is that you would be pushed down, not laterally



And Neil, I see you've thought about this considerably ... keep working on it.
I like it in theory, but the first downside I see would be possible loss of reference when you are trying to drive a car that you are moving relative to ... if you get me.

1) What the hell, where did I mention less g-force? I said that anyone who really enjoys driving enjoys the feeling of being pushed when they take a corner, and then said you can't escape physics. Read what I said again and then respond.

2) Have you ever read white sheets on products? They're loaded with jargon and lingo.

3) Well, considering the replacment cost alone can range anywhere from 500 to 1500$ for a single airbag, I can only imagine what it has cost over the last three decades. And the reason why a tilting "capsule" would be less safe in event of a crash...all the extra connections and fittings, the seat not being securely bolted down, the seat moving itself....

4) If it was actually developed, watch the government make a regulation to say that all cars need it. Then watch the auto manufacturers jump with joy and dollar signs in their eyes when they can charge a lot of extra money for a vehicle. And have you ever driven on Canadian roads? The roads here don't simply buckle up and down, they go all over the place. A little something we like to call winter and a frost line. We know two seasons; winter, and road repair.

6) What if some of us can't be pushed down? As I mentioned before, I have an issue with rotated vertabrae in my spine, and too much up & down pressure will cause a slipped disc.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 01:17 AM   #17
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
Do people actually read what is posted or do they just pick out a few choice words and then start the flaming? WTF? And do people know the meaning of the word "similar"? Here is a hint, it doesn't mean "the same as".


Okay, I'll play your little game. No, I do not pick out a few words and start flaming. And similar is defined as being related in nature or looks, but not the same. So stop trying to be "god".

Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
It is similar in that that there is something actively tilting during the turning. Reducing body roll can be seen as an attempt to keep the seats parallel to the road. Not what we are trying to do, but similar.

That would be the one and only similarity. "Something is actively tilting". But the two are nowhere close, if you actually stop to think about it. The tilting seat is to try and reduce side to side motion in the seat. The tilting wheels are to lower body roll to increase the amount of force that can be handled during a corner. One is trying to reduce force, one is trying to increase force..


Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
Yes, I have seriously thought about what I was saying. How much angle do you think you need? How far do you lean over in your seat when you go around a corner? 15 degrees? 20 perhaps?


Even if it is only 20 degrees, take your upper body and move to the side 20 degrees, my head would definitely be hitting the glass in my car, well before I hit the 20 degree mark. Even Neil said that 40 centimetres would be needed for a 30 degree angle, which would equate to 15 inches(roughly). So a 20 degree would probably need a good 30cms, which is 12 inches(roughly). So you would need to extend the sides of the car by at least two feet. G

Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
The goal is not to reduce side to side motion. They haven't invented inertial dampeners yet except for in Star Trek. It is to take the side motion you have and to support it with the bottom of the seat. By tilting the seat, the side motion is then more aligned with the bottom and the effect is that the person is pushed into the bottom of the seat instead of sliding off of it.

Excuse me, the goal is to reduce that motion. Neil stated that he hates the feeling, and wants to develop something to reduce it. So read the thread again there buddy. And why would you need to worry about sliding off the seats if there is side bolsters? I have never had a problem with sliding off of my seat, and yes, my seats do have bolsters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
All I hear is nay nay nay. What if they never tried making car bodies out of aluminum in an effort to reduce weight? Is your vehicle as light as it could be? You seem to be adamant about that.

Funny, that's the exact same thing I hear. And no, my vehicle is not as light as it could be. But they can't really make it much lighter, short of using less materials, and making the structure weaker. At least with the current technologies developed, and economically feasible.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 01:44 AM   #18
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
DodgerForLife: I certainly understand what you are saying about government intervention. For such a radical idea as this governments would probably insist on millions of dollars of testing and evaluation, and I for sure don't have that kind of money.
I suspect one approach might be to use the technology on off-road vehicles such as farm vehicles perhaps. Once confidence has been gained that they are safe it would be easier to persuade legislators to approve the technology for road vehicles.

I also take on board the other point made about getting used to the fact that your car almost appears to tilt. This would be rather like learning to ride a bike - you might fall off (crash) once or twice!

Of course the humble motorbike operates this tilting technology already, just where you have only two wheels and the whole thing tilts over. And in my experience anyway it is not often that you see a bike tilted over more than 30 degrees on a turn.
And as any biker will tell you riding a bike is fun! Perhaps the fact that you are always weighted downwards relative to the tilting bike rather than shoved to one side adds to the enjoyment of the biking experience.
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 03:04 AM   #19
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
1) What the hell, where did I mention less g-force? I said that anyone who really enjoys driving enjoys the feeling of being pushed when they take a corner, and then said you can't escape physics. Read what I said again and then respond.
Ok, I'll respond now ....
you didn't say less force, you said (paraphrased): "This is a silly idea, because 'real' drivers like the g-force" (implication: this idea will lessen the force)
then you said (paraphrased again): "You can't stop the force on the driver"

Am I wrong? If so, feel free to tell me what you meant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
2) Have you ever read white sheets on products? They're loaded with jargon and lingo.
So, does that mean you can't be scientific without lingo? If I called x-ray diffraction "bouncing x-rays off powdered crystals", would that make me any less scientific? Methinks not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
3) Well, considering the replacment cost alone can range anywhere from 500 to 1500$ for a single airbag, I can only imagine what it has cost over the last three decades. And the reason why a tilting "capsule" would be less safe in event of a crash...all the extra connections and fittings, the seat not being securely bolted down, the seat moving itself....
These fittings can't be made safe? Is it possible that the positives outweigh the negatives? The seat would have to be securely bolted down at some point. The moving seat actually has the potential to absorb energy from an impact, possibly INCREASING SAFETY in a side impact. I'm not saying it would, but there's a possibility. Testing and calcs would be required to determine this, but I'm not going to make a blanket statement that I can't support accurately.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
4) If it was actually developed, watch the government make a regulation to say that all cars need it. Then watch the auto manufacturers jump with joy and dollar signs in their eyes when they can charge a lot of extra money for a vehicle. And have you ever driven on Canadian roads? The roads here don't simply buckle up and down, they go all over the place. A little something we like to call winter and a frost line. We know two seasons; winter, and road repair.
You're right, all innovations should be stopped, just in case the goverment makes people pay for them. If this is the case, the idea must be good. You obviously think it's good enough for the govt to adopt it as standard. Do you?

No, I haven't. But the whole point of the device is that it is self regulating, ie, it minimises lateral stress on the driver, regardless of conditions. If you had to, you could always link it to the steering, so only corners engage it, not bumps. Look beyond the face value. It's a innovative concept, it can be massaged etc... it's not like it's already built.

And if Canadian roads and conditions are so bad as to drastically limit the effectiveness of this thing, then why would your government standardise it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
6) What if some of us can't be pushed down? As I mentioned before, I have an issue with rotated vertabrae in my spine, and too much up & down pressure will cause a slipped disc.
Then I'm sure you can get dispensation to not use one, even if your government makes it mandatory. Much like people can get dispensation from wearing seatbelts ... over here at least.

So you think it's a bad innovation because you can't or wouldn't get benefit from it? What about things like new innovative sanitary pads for women? Are these bad too, just because you don't menstruate?
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 02:20 PM   #20
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
Of course the humble motorbike operates this tilting technology already, just where you have only two wheels and the whole thing tilts over. And in my experience anyway it is not often that you see a bike tilted over more than 30 degrees on a turn.

And as any biker will tell you riding a bike is fun! Perhaps the fact that you are always weighted downwards relative to the tilting bike rather than shoved to one side adds to the enjoyment of the biking experience.

That has ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle. The enjoyment comes from being as bare minimum as mechanicals can be, basically the rider, an engine, a couple of tires and some framework to hold it together. You are out in the elements, and there is a great feeling of freedom. I've had a few sport bikes.

Enjoymnet in most enthusiast vehicles comes from driving fast, and you don't have to be a boy racer to exceed .5 Gs on te estreet. A family car on a freeway onramp will easily exceed .5 Gs. Hell, the average Accord and Camry can now pull .8 Gs on stock tires. That would require a virtual 90 degree tilt to the "cockpit."

Now, having a SEPARATE, semi-enclosed bubble inside the car's structure to have to get into besides getting into the car, or at least a cage of some sort (to keep that separate control cockpit rigid enough not to bind up in operation), or more importantly, two of them (and are you just going to make teh back seat passengers suffer? or is this strictly a 2 seater idea), and you have a real issue with getting people out in the case of an accident. And another more practical problem of getting people in. In a luxury car? Yeah, let's get your long coat, or a woman's dress inside easily on those trips to the restaurant on a chily autumn evening, or get in quickly when it's raining... and if you did get them in, would they get caught in the mechanism easily? Ergonomics is more than just "are the buttons easy to reach."

You have to think of all the users, and right off the bat, you've elliminated half teh user base of a luxury car. No, scratch out luxury cars, and family sedans, for that matter, as it's just too complex and impractical for trips to the grocery store or the day care. And too hard to adjust to all body sizes, from the 6'4" man of the house to his 5' wife.

Which brings us back to sporting vehicles, cars designed for heavier corenring forces and people that love to feel them. I've pulled over 1G in my RX7 without exceeding the speed limit, and I don't want to think about the mass shift and movement of an internal cockpit assembly at 1G and shifting back and forth on a slalom, or through a series of esses.

It's also harder to drive when you're not level with the ground surface. You'd have to tilt your head the opposite direction to get a clear view laterally in a corner if your whole cockpit is leaned 45 degrees or more over to the side.

You talk abut that train tilting into the corenrs. That's the whole BODY on the suspension, not all the individual seats. Active suspension has been tried that could tilt a car into the corner in the same way, but it can only tilt a little bit. The train tracks are designed that the tilt compensates for the maximum side loading, by making the curves into wide, gentle arcs. The train, like airliners, doesn't have to make 90 degree corners, or go between wide sweeping arcs and tight switchbacks, which often happens on roadways.

And did you ever think about taking a quick turn into a parking lot, like so many people do on a daily basis? Halfway though the turn, made quickly through an available hole in traffic, the cockpit leans over to compensate for a .5+ G quick turn and you hit the lip of the entrance to the parking lot. Normally, that would give a nice vertical bump, but now youre tilted over to teh side and it tries to fling the cockpit section up and down (which to you is sideways)...

How about simply cornering on bumpy roadways? In order for the "cockpit" to swing freely, it woudl be constructed in such a way that hitting bumps while cornering would bounce it around sideways (it would bounce the car up and down, but since yo're tilted over, to your seat it would be sideways, which would rock it sideways. Think about that motion for a moment). You COULD dampen the movement with shocks, but then it would react too slowly to the cornering forces on quick switchbacks, and it woudl end up being behind the movement of the car, which could lead to some serious vertigo situations when it should be tilted left, but is still tilted right and your body experiences negative Gs in relation to the seat until it compensates, all the while you'd have to keep your eyes on the road which would be literally changing orientation like an artificial horizon. Ever try that in an aerobatic plane? Hard enough to do when you don't have to worry about hitting anything.

I'm beginning to wonder how much driving you've done in your life, as you don't seem to have a firm grasp on everything involved...
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 02:26 PM   #21
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
That has ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle. The enjoyment comes from being as bare minimum as mechanicals can be, basically the rider, an engine, a couple of tires and some framework to hold it together. You are out in the elements, and there is a great feeling of freedom. I've had a few sport bikes.

Blah, blah, blah.
You can stop right there. When you go on your highly opinionated tirades, most people shut you off in the first few sentences. IN YOUR OPINION leaning a bike over may have "ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle", but until you are the only person on earth riding one, that is only your opinion and not a fact.

Remind again me who it is that always accuses people of holding their own tightly held opinion as more important than facts. Go look in the mirror Chris. Pot, kettle, black.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 02:42 PM   #22
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by vwhobo
You can stop right there. When you go on your highly opinionated tirades, most people shut you off in the first few sentences. IN YOUR OPINION leaning a bike over may have "ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle", but until you are the only person on earth riding one, that is only your opinion and not a fact..

No, he was talking about leaning to releive back stress, Hobo. You don't lean a bike over to reduce G forces on your back so you don't feel them. He claims that reliving back stress is what adds to the enjoyment.

Please, try reading comprehension (something you constantly harp on):

"Perhaps the fact that you are always weighted downwards relative to the tilting bike rather than shoved to one side adds to the enjoyment of the biking experience."

THAT has nothing to do with WHY you lean a bike, nor why anyone enjoys it. LEANING the bike IS part of the enjoyment, but you lean the bike for reasons OTHER than removing the feeling of lateral forces. PERIOD.

PLUS, he said "perhaps," meaning he's never ridden one. I've ridden many, and have many friends who do. NO ONE in person, on any forum, or in any motorcycle magazine (including the great Peter Egan) have EVER said that removing the feeling of lateral forces by tilting the bike is part of the enjoyment.

the FACT is, "removing the feeling of lateral forces" has ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle. Is that f*cking clear enough for you?
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 03:01 PM   #23
vwhobo
CF's Anal Orifice
 
vwhobo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Redneck Hell
Posts: 8,630
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
No, he was talking about leaning to releive back stress, Hobo. You don't lean a bike over to reduce G forces on your back so you don't feel them. He claims that reliving back stress is what adds to the enjoyment.

Please, try reading comprehension (something you constantly harp on):

"Perhaps the fact that you are always weighted downwards relative to the tilting bike rather than shoved to one side adds to the enjoyment of the biking experience."

THAT has nothing to do with WHY you lean a bike, nor why anyone enjoys it. LEANING the bike IS part of the enjoyment, but you lean the bike for reasons OTHER than removing the feeling of lateral forces. PERIOD.

PLUS, he said "perhaps," meaning he's never ridden one. I've ridden many, and have many friends who do. NO ONE in person, on any forum, or in any motorcycle magazine (including the great Peter Egan) have EVER said that removing the feeling of lateral forces by tilting the bike is part of the enjoyment.

the FACT is, "removing the feeling of lateral forces" has ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle. Is that f*cking clear enough for you?
Damn, you sure get touchy when someone questions the validity of your opinion. Just doesn't seem right that your opinion takes priority over everyone else's, does it? How do you know that "perhaps the fact that you are always weighted downwards relative to the tilting bike rather than shoved to one side adds to the enjoyment of the biking experience" is an incorrect statement. Have you ever tried riding a motorcycle and not leaning into a turn to see what it feels like? No matter how much you type, or how correct you think you are, you're still basing most of your argument on your opinion. But then in your opinion, you're always right so that means everyone else is wrong. Why waste my time. Is that f*cking clear enough for you?

BTW Chris, don't preach to me about riding motorcycles. I spent 15 years as an MSF instructor and have raced and ridden bikes that you probably don't even know exist... At least without your Google search engine.
__________________
Thanks for the pic, jedimario.

"Everybody believes in something and everybody, by virtue of the fact that they believe in something, use that something to support their own existence."
Frank Vincent Zappa, 1940-1993

vwhobo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 05:52 PM   #24
theman352001
--- Voice of Reason ---
 
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 893
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
Okay, I'll play your little game. No, I do not pick out a few words and start flaming. And similar is defined as being related in nature or looks, but not the same. So stop trying to be "god"..
Where do these accusations come from? Where have I ever stated I wanted to be "God"? How does trying to explain the topic translate to me wanting to be "God"? Similar is also defined as:"having the same or some of the same characteristics". Silly english language, multiple meanings for words.


Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
Even if it is only 20 degrees, take your upper body and move to the side 20 degrees, my head would definitely be hitting the glass in my car, well before I hit the 20 degree mark. Even Neil said that 40 centimetres would be needed for a 30 degree angle, which would equate to 15 inches(roughly). So a 20 degree would probably need a good 30cms, which is 12 inches(roughly). So you would need to extend the sides of the car by at least two feet. G.
I'm sure with a little engineering, you wouldn't have to extend the sides of a car by 2 feet. As mentioned earlier, you put the seats closer together. There is some space saving. There may be other opportunities also. Ok, given your Honda Civic or other compact cars, implementing this idea may be more of a challenge. However, in my Trailblazer I would bet it could be done within the current body constraints.



Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
Excuse me, the goal is to reduce that motion. Neil stated that he hates the feeling, and wants to develop something to reduce it. So read the thread again there buddy. And why would you need to worry about sliding off the seats if there is side bolsters? I have never had a problem with sliding off of my seat, and yes, my seats do have bolsters. .
Fine, the goal is to reduce that (side) motion by trasferring it to the bottom of the seat and not to the sides. Happy?

I don't even feel like getting into the last point with you. You'll just argue until your fingers bleed.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
That has ZERO to do with the enjoyment of a motorcycle. The enjoyment comes from being as bare minimum as mechanicals can be, basically the rider, an engine, a couple of tires and some framework to hold it together. You are out in the elements, and there is a great feeling of freedom. I've had a few sport bikes.
.
Sorry ChrisV, I also enjoy leaning my bike into the curves. Please don't tell me what parts of riding a bike are enjoyable to me and what arent. That may not be part of your enjoyment but last time I heard, enjoyment is still subject to the person doing the enjoying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
You have to think of all the users, and right off the bat, you've elliminated half teh user base of a luxury car. No, scratch out luxury cars, and family sedans, for that matter, as it's just too complex and impractical for trips to the grocery store or the day care. And too hard to adjust to all body sizes, from the 6'4" man of the house to his 5' wife..
Do you really? There aren't specific markets to target within the entire auto industry? Sure it is nice to cover the entire industry to increase the money making potential, but perhaps this is a concept only certain drivers would go for.

I seem to recall also that Air Conditioning was too complex and expensive for the family sedans of the past. Now look, it is in almost all vehicles. The same can happen here.
__________________


Come to Wisconsin and smell our dairy air.
theman352001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 09:10 PM   #25
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by iluvgeometro
never in my life have i encounterd a more disturbing collection of car nerds and geeks. every one of you. including mustag.

Excellent. I love it when people call me a nerd. But remember iluvgeometro that its the nerds who make the world a better place, by thinking up and pushing forward the implementation of new ideas that improve the lives of millions.
<political_rant>And then people like George Bush go and kill loads of people in Iraq spending over a trillion dollars to get some free oil</political_rant>

Folks: Please don't get caught up with the exact nuances of what I have said - its the general ideas I want to convey and discuss.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Now, having a SEPARATE, semi-enclosed bubble inside the car's structure to have to get into besides getting into the car, or at least a cage of some sort (to keep that separate control cockpit rigid enough not to bind up in operation), or more importantly, two of them (and are you just going to make teh back seat passengers suffer? or is this strictly a 2 seater idea), and you have a real issue with getting people out in the case of an accident. And another more practical problem of getting people in. In a luxury car? Yeah, let's get your long coat, or a woman's dress inside easily on those trips to the restaurant on a chily autumn evening, or get in quickly when it's raining... and if you did get them in, would they get caught in the mechanism easily? Ergonomics is more than just "are the buttons easy to reach."

I should clarify what I mean by capsule. I think capsule is slightly misleading. What I mean is that the seat sits on top of a rigid framework or floor plate (we'll call this the "rockerframe") that extends forward to the footwell, and then up to incorporate the steering wheel (an "L" fallen to the left). This "rockerframe" is what tilts from side to side, under computer controlled hydraulics below. As it is under the seat it won't get in the way of long coats, flowing dresses, or exit in an emergency. But you might have to move the seat up an inch or two to make room for the rockerframe and hydraulics.
All passengers including back seat passenger could have their own tilting seats as well.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
and I don't want to think about the mass shift and movement of an internal cockpit assembly at 1G and shifting back and forth on a slalom, or through a series of esses.

What's the problem with these mass shifts? Remember that the tilt is controlled by computer driven hydraulics, its not a pure pendulum. So any stability issues, if any, could be detected and ironed out in real time by the computer.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
It's also harder to drive when you're not level with the ground surface.

Is it? I've never tried. Have you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
You'd have to tilt your head the opposite direction to get a clear view laterally in a corner if your whole cockpit is leaned 45 degrees or more over to the side.

That is a good point, but I don't agree: I think you would have to tilt your head up or down not in in the opposite direction. For example if you are doing a 1G turn to the right. The seat would be tilted at 45 degrees to the right (if you wanted perfect balance). To see to the left you would have to look down and to the left, and to see to the right you would have to look up and to the right. Now when you are turning to the right, you normally need to look to the right to see what is ahead "round the bend" much more than you need to look left. so you need to look up and to the right. And since your head is lower in the car as you are tilted, this increases the amount of windshield space above your head to see.
(you would also need good vision out of the side windows).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
And did you ever think about taking a quick turn into a parking lot, like so many people do on a daily basis? Halfway though the turn, made quickly through an available hole in traffic, the cockpit leans over to compensate for a .5+ G quick turn and you hit the lip of the entrance to the parking lot. Normally, that would give a nice vertical bump, but now youre tilted over to teh side and it tries to fling the cockpit section up and down (which to you is sideways)...

Another good point. I think the tilt computer could be programmed so that if the car hits a (modest) vertical bump while the seat is at 30 degrees right tilt, for example, it gives the rockerframe a rapid "booster" 5 degrees tilt to 35 degrees, and then releases it back to 30 degrees after a second. This would have the effect of causing the force on your back to be along the length of your back, not at an angle, so to YOU it IS an up-down bump, just like it would have been had the seat been level.
In addition to this, if the seat is level, and you hit a curb (or another car!) on one side, the computer could apply a "booster" tilt to offset some of the sideways motion involved. This would help prevent back injuries in side-swipe car crashes caused by lateral forces on the lower and upper back.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
How about simply cornering on bumpy roadways? In order for the "cockpit" to swing freely,

The cockpit does not swing freely - it is under computer controlled hydraulic control. Which will attempt to give the driver the sensation of swinging freely without the inertia or motion sickness.


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
I'm beginning to wonder how much driving you've done in your life, as you don't seem to have a firm grasp on everything involved...

I've been driving for 15 years. I think I have a firm grasp. But I'm happy to put my ideas forward to scrutiny and ridicule (delete where appropriate).


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
PLUS, he said "perhaps," meaning he's never ridden one. I've ridden many, and have many friends who do. NO ONE in person, on any forum, or in any motorcycle magazine (including the great Peter Egan) have EVER said that removing the feeling of lateral forces by tilting the bike is part of the enjoyment.

The fact that said "perhaps" in no way shows that I have never ridden a motorbike. But in fact I have never been on a powerful bike. But I did spend three months with a moped in Bermuda, but the speed limit was 20 MPH :-)
You can't turn a bike and NOT lean into the corner - the thing would fall over!


Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisV
Is that f*cking clear enough for you

"Language Timothy"
An English expression that will mean nothing to you yanks and aussies (and Canadians!).

Last edited by Neil9327 : 05-23-2006 at 09:15 PM.
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 11:20 PM   #26
ChrisV
The Big Meaney
 
ChrisV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: People's Republic of Maryland
Posts: 3,714
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
I'm sure with a little engineering, you wouldn't have to extend the sides of a car by 2 feet. As mentioned earlier, you put the seats closer together. There is some space saving. There may be other opportunities also. Ok, given your Honda Civic or other compact cars, implementing this idea may be more of a challenge. However, in my Trailblazer I would bet it could be done within the current body constraints.

Again, if you tilt the bottoms of the seats enhough to compensate for even half a G and dont move teh pedals and controls like teh shifter with it, you could be in for issues. If you tilt the seats not around the middle of teh body, but around a pivot point through thte bottom cusion, then the TOP of the seat has to lean ******ds quite a ways (as well as the shoulders and head of the person IN the seat) and could come into contact with the door/glass.

Quote:
Sorry ChrisV, I also enjoy leaning my bike into the curves. Please don't tell me what parts of riding a bike are enjoyable to me and what arent. That may not be part of your enjoyment but last time I heard, enjoyment is still subject to the person doing the enjoying.

Listen, you are runnign up there with Hobo for lack of reading comprehension. Read my post again, read what it was IN RESPONSE to, and then read my response TO hobo.

His claim was that the enjoyment of leaning the motorcycle comes from REMOVING THE FEEL OF G FORCES when leaning. That's NOT why YOU OR I enjoy leaning a f*cking motorcycle! I never SAID leaning the motorcycle into curves is not enjoyable! Therefore you are arguing with something I never said, NOR CLAIMED! God DAMN, has everyone gotten the reading comprehension of a retard lately??????

Do you or do you not enjoy leaning a motorcycle BECAUSE it removes teh sensation of lateral forces from your spine???? If youre going to argue with me, at least f*cking join the SAME arguement instead of making shit uop toargue with!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! F*ck, that pisses me off!


Quote:
Do you really? There aren't specific markets to target within the entire auto industry? Sure it is nice to cover the entire industry to increase the money making potential, but perhaps this is a concept only certain drivers would go for.

I seem to recall also that Air Conditioning was too complex and expensive for the family sedans of the past. Now look, it is in almost all vehicles. The same can happen here.

*sigh* do you people ever look at what I'm RESPONDING to before determining what I'm saying, so you can get a clue about CONTEXT?

First off, he WANTS something that might only be wanted by a small segemtn of the population. THEN, he described not just a tilting seat, but an entire tilting cockpit inside the car that housed the controls as well (so you could retain orientation with the pedals and shifter as you leaned). Now, he said well, if sports car owner's woudn't want it, how about luxury cars? So let's look at the uses a luxury car gets PUT to, shall we? Let's look again at how teh concept of a MOVING cage or cockpit INSIDE a car might affect ALL the uses a car gets put to OUTSIDE of feeling ornot feeliong cornering forces. THink of how a cockpit that rotates woudl have to be mounted in order to pivot and do what he wants it to do (remove the sensation of side loading on teh body, so you carry the cornering forces vertically on your spine).

In cold weather when the luxury car owner wears long coats, be that owner male or female. Or when the female luxury car owner passenger wears long dresses. How is that mechanism going to affect them getting INTO the car? How is that mechanism shelded from their coats getting caught in it? How is that mechanism going to be affecting rear seat passengers, and cargo loading in teh case of children or groceries?

How does an AC unit interfere with those?

Go back and look at the physics of what I responded with, pleas, and try to actually read it this time.
__________________
I'm not mean. You're just a wuss.



www.midatlantic7s.com
ChrisV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-23-2006, 11:39 PM   #27
Benson
seeking snappy title.
 
Benson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 543
Benson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 12:02 AM   #28
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
What's the problem with these mass shifts? Remember that the tilt is controlled by computer driven hydraulics, its not a pure pendulum. So any stability issues, if any, could be detected and ironed out in real time by the computer.
nicely explained.

don't worry about the debate you've sparked. it means that your idea has enough merit to be batted about. You've obviously put much thought into it.

ChrisV will use the problems that he has discovered to tell you it won't work. However, what you should be doing is taking these on board and incorporating solutions into the design. After all, this is what engineering is about. What Chris was doing was using engineering principles in a narrow manner to poo-hoo an idea that he may not personally like. Let's face it, who gives a crap, it's your idea, not his. Don't get drawn into defending your idea too much. If people tell you why it won't work, just take their comments on board, and develop ways to counteract the issues they've presented.

And btw ChrisV: I don't remember seeing him mention reducing back stress, or reducing g-forces. He was simply talking about changing the application direction of the force, which, to me at least, would make it more comfortable. If I was riding a bike, and all the cornering centripetal force went lateral to the bike, I think I would enjoy that a lot less than if at least some of it was transferred down through the seat.
... at least I'd get a good glute workout.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 12:55 AM   #29
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
Ok, I'll respond now ....
you didn't say less force, you said (paraphrased): "This is a silly idea, because 'real' drivers like the g-force" (implication: this idea will lessen the force)
then you said (paraphrased again): "You can't stop the force on the driver"

Am I wrong? If so, feel free to tell me what you meant.

I'm not too sure what point you are trying to make. Those are two different statements. The idea presented by Neil is to reduce the side to side/pushing motion on a driver. I said that anyone who enjoys driving likes that feeling. Then I went on to say that you can not escape physics, meaning that even if such an idea were brought to reality, that you would still feel g-force's, if in a different manner. I apologize if I did not make that clear enough.


Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
So, does that mean you can't be scientific without lingo? If I called x-ray diffraction "bouncing x-rays off powdered crystals", would that make me any less scientific? Methinks not.

No, but "bouncing those ray-things off of those crystally-things" would. Just like "fat bits at the side" is not as effective as say..."the supports on the side of the seat", which could be another term used in place of bolsters...


Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
These fittings can't be made safe? Is it possible that the positives outweigh the negatives? The seat would have to be securely bolted down at some point. The moving seat actually has the potential to absorb energy from an impact, possibly INCREASING SAFETY in a side impact. I'm not saying it would, but there's a possibility. Testing and calcs would be required to determine this, but I'm not going to make a blanket statement that I can't support accurately.

I understand what your saying, but from what I have seen, the more moving the parts, the more likely things are to break and fall apart. One instance I can think of off the top of my head is storage for computers. They are starting to enlarge solid-state storage devices(usb flash drives, memory cards), because a hard drive, if it fails, can fail drastically(read/write head crashing onto the platter and jamming). If it could be proven to be safer, then more power to it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
You're right, all innovations should be stopped, just in case the goverment makes people pay for them. If this is the case, the idea must be good. You obviously think it's good enough for the govt to adopt it as standard. Do you?

Yeah, I was being sarcastic there, I apologize. It's my little barb at the government, stepping into places where they some times do not belong. If it did turn out to be something good enough for the government to adopt, then why not? I would just hope that they wouldn't make it an industry wide standard.

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
No, I haven't. But the whole point of the device is that it is self regulating, ie, it minimises lateral stress on the driver, regardless of conditions. If you had to, you could always link it to the steering, so only corners engage it, not bumps. Look beyond the face value. It's a innovative concept, it can be massaged etc... it's not like it's already built.

And if Canadian roads and conditions are so bad as to drastically limit the effectiveness of this thing, then why would your government standardise it?

Well, linking it to the steering would be the only way to prevent your seat from going haywire on some of these roads. They are truly haggard. Although it still wouldn't complete stop it on some of them too haha!

And again, it was me just taking a barb at the goverment. I think that if the goverment has issues keeping our armed forces vehicles in flight, or afloat, etcetera, then they should not even think about doing something like that...


Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
Then I'm sure you can get dispensation to not use one, even if your government makes it mandatory. Much like people can get dispensation from wearing seatbelts ... over here at least.

I really don't know about that one, because they stopped doing seatbelt exemptions here, and they are probably on the verge of doing away with airbag-usage exemptions as well. Personally I would just like to not have it in the vehicle...

Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
So you think it's a bad innovation because you can't or wouldn't get benefit from it? What about things like new innovative sanitary pads for women? Are these bad too, just because you don't menstruate?

Not per say, but at this current juncture, yes I do believe that it is bad. At this time I would have to say the cons outweigh the pros. If it was more refined, and benefitted the general population, then it wouldn't be bad.
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 01:10 AM   #30
dodgerforlife
Resident CF Farmer
 
dodgerforlife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Farm in Saskatchewan...
Posts: 2,202
Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
Where do these accusations come from? Where have I ever stated I wanted to be "God"? How does trying to explain the topic translate to me wanting to be "God"? Similar is also defined as:"having the same or some of the same characteristics". Silly english language, multiple meanings for words.

Maybe you should read what you posted first and understand why I fired back an accusation against you. And you didn't state it, but the "holier-than-thou" attitude you were taking sure makes you seem like you want to be called God.

And I notice that you didn't quote the part where I said that there was a single similarity between the two ideas, that something would be actively tilting. But it does end there, and even you have to admit that....


Quote:
Originally Posted by theman352001
I'm sure with a little engineering, you wouldn't have to extend the sides of a car by 2 feet. As mentioned earlier, you put the seats closer together. There is some space saving. There may be other opportunities also. Ok, given your Honda Civic or other compact cars, implementing this idea may be more of a challenge. However, in my Trailblazer I would bet it could be done within the current body constraints.

Okay, maybe not in an already fullsized vehicle. But look at the current trend in cars, and the way they will be continuing to go...smaller. I know for certain in the Sundance I had, the SX 2.0 I have, my sister's Probe, or my friends Escort ZX2, that it would not be possible. The other thing to be considered is the actual mechanisms required to get the seat to tilt, and still be secure. Those would also take up room...





















Question, something I just thought of. If your going to tilt your whole body 20 degrees, would you not have to be exerting some mean ass force to stop your body from sliding anyways? Or would just have to be strapped into basically a racing seat with a 5 point harness?(which eliminates side to side motion anyways)
dodgerforlife is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Forum Jump



All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:16 PM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2002 - 2011 Car Forums. All rights reserved.