Slowmotion Motorsports Osiris UPREV Tune
#46
05-26-2010, 04:06 PM
#48
05-26-2010, 04:31 PM
lol going under my parents insurance has no benefit to me whatsoever... which is why i'm strongly considering switching over to ohio plates and getting my own policy. I have a clean driving record, and besides my mom, I probably have the best record in the family but I still pay about 1800/year ($150/mo). Plus I don't know if it's the same here too, but in Mass there's some messed up rule where if there are more cars than drivers, whatever non-primary car gets tagged to whoever has the highest points in the policy. (if multiple cars are non-primary, highest premium --> driver w/ highest points)
With that said, I'm hesitant to switch over because out-of-state ticket points don't transfer over to Mass (at least that's how it used to be anyway). Not that i'm a constant lead foot, but its just one of those things that make you feel a little more comfortable.
Jeremy, full-coverage and $100 deductable for that low is just unheard of... And here I was being all grateful that I only had to pay half of what I used to when I was in LA..
With that said, I'm hesitant to switch over because out-of-state ticket points don't transfer over to Mass (at least that's how it used to be anyway). Not that i'm a constant lead foot, but its just one of those things that make you feel a little more comfortable.
Jeremy, full-coverage and $100 deductable for that low is just unheard of... And here I was being all grateful that I only had to pay half of what I used to when I was in LA..
#49
05-26-2010, 05:10 PM
#50
05-26-2010, 11:48 PM
i go through USAA since the family is military (but i'm on my own plan), and I dropped from $160/mo on progressive down to $71/mo, going from a 08 civic to a 06 g35, the car is faster so I'm more prone to drive aggressively, yet the rates went down on full coverage haha
off soap box...but urge you to focus on coverage vs. price
#53
05-27-2010, 12:08 AM
#54
05-27-2010, 08:39 AM
not saying names or anything...
#55
05-27-2010, 01:03 PM
This should get things back on track:
The development of the steam engine provided a reason to compare the output of horses with that of the engines that could replace them. In 1702, Thomas Savery wrote in The Miner's Friend: "So that an engine which will raise as much water as two horses, working together at one time in such a work, can do, and for which there must be constantly kept ten or twelve horses for doing the same. Then I say, such an engine may be made large enough to do the work required in employing eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty horses to be constantly maintained and kept for doing such a work…" The idea was later used by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine. He had previously agreed to take royalties of one third of the savings in coal from the older Newcomen steam engines.[3] This royalty scheme did not work with customers who did not have existing steam engines but used horses instead. Watt determined that a horse could turn a mill wheel 144 times in an hour (or 2.4 times a minute). The wheel was 12 feet in radius, therefore the horse travelled 2.4 × 2π × 12 feet in one minute. Watt judged that the horse could pull with a force of 180 pounds. So:
This was rounded to an even 33,000 ft·lbf/min.
Others[who?] recount that Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 lbf (0.98 kN) 100 ft (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift. Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft·lbf/min figure.
Engineering in History recounts that John Smeaton initially estimated that a horse could produce 22,916 foot-pounds per minute. John Desaguliers increased that to 27,500 foot-pounds per minute. "Watt found by experiment in 1782 that a 'brewery horse' was able to produce 32,400 foot-pounds per minute." James Watt and Matthew Boulton standardized that figure at 33,000 the next year.
Most observers familiar with horses and their capabilities estimate that Watt was either a bit optimistic or intended to underpromise and overdeliver; few horses can maintain that effort for long. Regardless, comparison with a horse proved to be an enduring marketing tool.
A healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp briefly (see orders of magnitude) and sustain about 0.1 hp indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp briefly[6] and 0.3 hp for a period of several hours.
The development of the steam engine provided a reason to compare the output of horses with that of the engines that could replace them. In 1702, Thomas Savery wrote in The Miner's Friend: "So that an engine which will raise as much water as two horses, working together at one time in such a work, can do, and for which there must be constantly kept ten or twelve horses for doing the same. Then I say, such an engine may be made large enough to do the work required in employing eight, ten, fifteen, or twenty horses to be constantly maintained and kept for doing such a work…" The idea was later used by James Watt to help market his improved steam engine. He had previously agreed to take royalties of one third of the savings in coal from the older Newcomen steam engines.[3] This royalty scheme did not work with customers who did not have existing steam engines but used horses instead. Watt determined that a horse could turn a mill wheel 144 times in an hour (or 2.4 times a minute). The wheel was 12 feet in radius, therefore the horse travelled 2.4 × 2π × 12 feet in one minute. Watt judged that the horse could pull with a force of 180 pounds. So:
This was rounded to an even 33,000 ft·lbf/min.
Others[who?] recount that Watt determined that a pony could lift an average 220 lbf (0.98 kN) 100 ft (30 m) per minute over a four-hour working shift. Watt then judged a horse was 50% more powerful than a pony and thus arrived at the 33,000 ft·lbf/min figure.
Engineering in History recounts that John Smeaton initially estimated that a horse could produce 22,916 foot-pounds per minute. John Desaguliers increased that to 27,500 foot-pounds per minute. "Watt found by experiment in 1782 that a 'brewery horse' was able to produce 32,400 foot-pounds per minute." James Watt and Matthew Boulton standardized that figure at 33,000 the next year.
Most observers familiar with horses and their capabilities estimate that Watt was either a bit optimistic or intended to underpromise and overdeliver; few horses can maintain that effort for long. Regardless, comparison with a horse proved to be an enduring marketing tool.
A healthy human can produce about 1.2 hp briefly (see orders of magnitude) and sustain about 0.1 hp indefinitely; trained athletes can manage up to about 2.5 hp briefly[6] and 0.3 hp for a period of several hours.
