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 05-24-2006, 01:15 AM   #31
nighthawk
Part Time Active User
 
nighthawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: -
Posts: 1,651
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife

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)

bingo

thats it right there, a 5 point racing harness
__________________

"There is a big difference between being fast and powerful and just being loud and annoying."
nighthawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 01:17 AM   #32
97Talonchik
discombobulated
 
97Talonchik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Chattanooga, TN
Posts: 1,257
Interesting concept. I'm afraid I might get motion sick if my seat was moving like that, but I'd give it a try. Why stop with cars? Such an idea might also be a good thought for airplane pilot seats and such as well (if they don't already have a similar device installed).
97Talonchik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 01:18 AM   #33
Scolson
CF Enthusiast
 
Scolson's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by 97Talonchik
Interesting concept. I'm afraid I might get motion sick if my seat was moving like that, but I'd give it a try. Why stop with cars? Such an idea might also be a good thought for airplane pilot seats and such as well (if they don't already have a similar device installed).
Planes generally bank when they turn corners.
__________________
-Chuck Norris is not hung like a horse / horses are hung like Chuck Norris.
-Chuck Norris lost his virginity before his dad did.
-Chuck Norris can make a woman climax by simply pointing at her and saying "booya".
-Chuck Norris only masturbates to pictures of Chuck Norris.
-Chuck Norris invented water.
Scolson is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 01:27 AM   #34
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scolson
Planes generally bank when they turn corners.
yeah, most of a plane's turning comes from the banking... after all, the majority of the force is from the lift on the wings, not rudders etc.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 01:53 AM   #35
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by windsonian
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.

Thanks for the compliment windsonian.
I think its more than a debate - more like world war III. Chill out guys :-)

I think you're exactly right about ChrisV. I would actually prefer people to criticise my and other people's ideas as long as they are honestly held views.

Yes I've had the idea at the back of my mind for years - it is only now that I've got around to getting it posted on this forum for peer review.


Of course I've got some other ideas as well that I suspect won't be so popular, such as the radar ejector seat - throws the passenger plus seat up out of the car if it detects an imminent major collision (lets hope there is no bridge above).

Or the spare wheel flywheel, which stores energy by spinning the spare wheel when the car stops at lights and junctions.

How about the "external airbag" which inflates when a radar device detects an imminent collision, and works to prevent the collision in the first place (OK I can see several severe problems with this one)

or finally the car hammock. A solution to inner city parking problems: Where you have two existing tall buildings close to each other you could fit up a network of cables, pulleys, rails, and motors between them. The idea is that the driver would drive onto the "hammock" a canvass square with steel wire reinforcements, with two major steel cables running the length. Then once the passengers and driver have got out hoist both ends up and leave it suspended in mid air.
A great idea, except that it might cause the buildings to collapse once 1000 cars have been stored on a busy morning.
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 01:53 AM   #36
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
<Answer>
OK, first of all, good response... I have developed more respect for you than I had after the 1st 2

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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.
ok, I think I see what you're getting at, but my point is that first you say that his idea is bad because the force that you are trying to reduce is an enjoyable one. then you say that his idea is bad because you cannot stop the force. These two contradict each other, unless you specify the differences between lateral and downward forces. The first statement would have to be specifically referring to lateral force, and the other specifically to vertical. However, you need to remember that his concept WAS to turn the lateral into vertical, thus making your second statement redundant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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....
No, I don't think it would, provided you gave enough info (eg X-rays not rays). He did not generalise that much. He told you what they were and where they were.
... and case in point is that you knew EXACTLY what he was talking about. Seems he communicated his point perfectly. That's scientific enough for me.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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.
True true, but the idea of engineering is to make it safe enough while getting maximum benefits.
Using your computer example: Now that we've got multi-GB solid state devices, should we all stop using HDD's because they're more likely to fail? The answer is no, because functionally they are still better. I know that it's not quite the same as safety, but there is still always a trade-off between the function it provides, and the potential pitfalls. If the function is an improvement, then maybe a SLIGHT decrease in safety is warranted.
Your last comment here is dead right. But for that exact reason, the idea should not be written off just because he can't give you safety data..... yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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.
Ok, will ignore the sarcasm

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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!
You have to remember though, that the whole point of it is to level out forces, not to add a compensatory one. If it were linked to the steering, and you say that the road is bad enough to warrant corrective steering, then the device would simply be levelling out the effects, not bumping you all over the shop for no reason.
Surely it would be a lockable device too, not just always on, with no isolating option.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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....
... shouldn't be the govt paying for it though (for the most part anyway). The people who are developing it should be doing the RnD

Once again, will ignore politically fuelled remarks

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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...
Refer to my lockable comment. Obviously it would change the look/feel of the car, but it should be able to be locked down, giving you your old functionality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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.
You just made my whole point there. I disagree with people dismissing it immediately because they don't like it now. It is a working concept that needs massaging and tweaking. It's not going to be released into cars as it is now. He came on here wanting feedback on his idea. To tell him it won't work, or that it's no good is just plain stupid. Give him the points why you think it won't.... or better still, where you think it could be improved. And then let him take it from there. In many situations, reasons that you say things won't work can be engineered around.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 02:04 AM   #37
Neil9327
CF Newbie
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 8
Quote:
Originally Posted by dodgerforlife
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)

Dodger: The idea is that the seat only tilts 20 degrees when the car is turning and you would otherwise slide over. So its to keep you feeling level in your seat whatever you are doing whether driving forward or sideways - er I mean turning (sorry I'm getting a little sleepy). Its about compensating for the centrifugal force.

In fact an aircraft is a good comparison here. Pilots never get pushed from side to side because (unless they are flying VERY badly) the wings in bank cause the aircraft to turn - creating the force into the turn path of the plane to counter the centrifugal force. And this bank is exactly what is needed to counteract the centrifugal force that would be caused. Am I making sense? No. Time for bed.
zzzzzzzz
Neil9327 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-24-2006, 03:40 AM   #38
windsonian
Dodger65's weirdo
 
windsonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Down Below
Posts: 2,081
Quote:
Originally Posted by Neil9327
Dodger: The idea is that the seat only tilts 20 degrees when the car is turning and you would otherwise slide over. So its to keep you feeling level in your seat whatever you are doing whether driving forward or sideways - er I mean turning (sorry I'm getting a little sleepy). Its about compensating for the centrifugal force.

In fact an aircraft is a good comparison here. Pilots never get pushed from side to side because (unless they are flying VERY badly) the wings in bank cause the aircraft to turn - creating the force into the turn path of the plane to counter the centrifugal force. And this bank is exactly what is needed to counteract the centrifugal force that would be caused. Am I making sense? No. Time for bed.
zzzzzzzz

centripetal, centripetal.
__________________
You can only be young once. But you can always be immature.
windsonian 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 01:01 AM.

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