Nikon's patent applications for mirrorless camera system?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Nov 5, 2010.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    From nikonrumors.com:

    Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    interchangeable lens camera

    Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

    For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    mirrorless system. go to:

    http://nikonrumors.com/
    Bruce, Nov 5, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >On 2010-11-05 02:11:59 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> From nikonrumors.com:
    >>
    >> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >> interchangeable lens camera
    >>
    >> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
    >>
    >> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    >> mirrorless system. go to:
    >>
    >> http://nikonrumors.com/

    >
    >Check your source.
    >These are the folks responsible for these better efforts after all:
    >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/d3x3.jpg >
    >< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/D35jr VRiv_rs.jpg >



    So savage, Mr Duck. Thank you for the funny pictures. ;-)


    >I am surprised the drawings weren't in crayon.



    It is normal that patent applications give away no more information
    than is strictly needed for the specific application. Primitive
    sketches are the order of the day.

    The sketches were submitted with Nikon's patent application
    #2010-250149. There is a link to an article (in Japanese) about this
    application on the Nikon Rumors page. The application covers a novel
    lens mount.

    The Nikon Rumors article contains links to previous articles that also
    appear to be related to Nikon's mirrorless system, including a lens
    mount shutter (to keep dust off the sensor) and a novel approach to
    providing an electronic viewfinder (EVF). I apologise in advance for
    the fact that all these articles contain primitive sketches. ;-)
    Bruce, Nov 5, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/5/2010 12:33 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Neil Harrington"<> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >>
    >> Interesting that they seem to have reverted to a screwdriver-type
    >> mechanical AF coupling (#44 in the drawing). But I suppose that actually
    >> makes sense for this type of compact camera, as it will let them keep the
    >> lenses as small as possible.
    >>
    >> And #43 will control the diaphragm likewise, I presume.
    >>
    >> What's with #42a, b and c, I wonder? Hmmm.
    >>
    >> Interestinger and interestinger, as Alice might say.

    >
    > Also, my guess is this means we can forget about adapters for existing
    > Nikkors. Probably just as well.
    >
    >

    Don't take blustering Brucie's statements too seriously.

    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 5, 2010
    #3
  4. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    > Bruce<> wrote in
    > news::
    >
    >> From nikonrumors.com:
    >>
    >> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >> interchangeable lens camera
    >>
    >> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
    >>
    >> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    >> mirrorless system. go to:
    >>
    >> http://nikonrumors.com/
    >>

    >
    > No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the market
    > before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with DVD.


    I call that smart business.

    BTW I am still waiting for answers to prior questions.

    --
    Peter
    Just giving gentle reminders, not holding my breath.
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
    #4
  5. Bruce

    Rich Guest

    On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter <> wrote:
    > On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > Bruce<>  wrote in
    > >news::

    >
    > >>  From nikonrumors.com:

    >
    > >> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    > >> interchangeable lens camera

    >
    > >> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    > >> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

    >
    > >> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    > >> mirrorless system. go to:

    >
    > >>http://nikonrumors.com/

    >
    > > No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the market
    > > before jumping in.  Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with DVD.

    >
    > I call that smart business.


    I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    bankrupted GM.

    >
    > BTW I am still waiting for answers to prior questions.
    >


    Do they have anything to do with cameras?
    Rich, Nov 7, 2010
    #5
  6. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/7/2010 1:56 AM, Rich wrote:
    > On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter<> wrote:
    >> On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Bruce<> wrote in
    >>> news::

    >>
    >>>> From nikonrumors.com:

    >>
    >>>> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >>>> interchangeable lens camera

    >>
    >>>> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >>>> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

    >>
    >>>> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    >>>> mirrorless system. go to:

    >>
    >>>> http://nikonrumors.com/

    >>
    >>> No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the market
    >>> before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with DVD.

    >>
    >> I call that smart business.

    >
    > I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    > bankrupted GM.
    >
    >>
    >> BTW I am still waiting for answers to prior questions.
    >>

    >
    > Do they have anything to do with cameras?


    In context, more than some of your comments. Read them again

    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
    #6
  7. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/7/2010 1:56 AM, Rich wrote:
    > On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter<> wrote:
    >> On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>> Bruce<> wrote in
    >>> news::

    >>
    >>>> From nikonrumors.com:

    >>
    >>>> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >>>> interchangeable lens camera

    >>
    >>>> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >>>> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.

    >>
    >>>> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's upcoming
    >>>> mirrorless system. go to:

    >>
    >>>> http://nikonrumors.com/

    >>
    >>> No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the market
    >>> before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with DVD.

    >>
    >> I call that smart business.

    >
    > I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    > bankrupted GM.
    >
    >>
    >> BTW I am still waiting for answers to prior questions.
    >>

    >
    > Do they have anything to do with cameras?


    asked and answered.

    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 7, 2010
    #7
  8. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/11/2010 10:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > Rich wrote:
    >> On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter<> wrote:
    >>> On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Bruce<> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>
    >>>>> From nikonrumors.com:
    >>>
    >>>>> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >>>>> interchangeable lens camera
    >>>
    >>>>> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >>>>> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
    >>>
    >>>>> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's
    >>>>> upcoming mirrorless system. go to:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://nikonrumors.com/
    >>>
    >>>> No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the
    >>>> market before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with
    >>>> DVD.

    >
    > Whatever works, works. Nikon and Canon (and every other company for that
    > matter) are properly in business to maximize profits, not to introduce new
    > lines of products that may or may not appeal to consumers. That's not being
    > lazy or greedy, unless you characterize as "greed" anything that turns a
    > profit.
    >
    >>>
    >>> I call that smart business.

    >>
    >> I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    >> bankrupted GM.

    >
    > What bankrupted GM was mostly the UAW, not GM's decisions about product
    > lines.
    >
    >

    Most likely a combination of management arrogance, a culture of "B"
    school projections, stagnated innovation, coupled with UAW not wanting
    to give back.


    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 11, 2010
    #8
  9. "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Rich wrote:
    >> On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter <> wrote:
    >>> On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> Bruce<> wrote in
    >>>> news::
    >>>
    >>>>> From nikonrumors.com:
    >>>
    >>>>> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >>>>> interchangeable lens camera
    >>>
    >>>>> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >>>>> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
    >>>
    >>>>> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's
    >>>>> upcoming mirrorless system. go to:
    >>>
    >>>>> http://nikonrumors.com/
    >>>
    >>>> No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the
    >>>> market before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with
    >>>> DVD.

    >
    > Whatever works, works. Nikon and Canon (and every other company for that
    > matter) are properly in business to maximize profits, not to introduce new
    > lines of products that may or may not appeal to consumers. That's not
    > being lazy or greedy, unless you characterize as "greed" anything that
    > turns a profit.
    >
    >>>
    >>> I call that smart business.

    >>
    >> I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    >> bankrupted GM.

    >
    > What bankrupted GM was mostly the UAW, not GM's decisions about product
    > lines.


    Let's not forget GM's decision to come to all of those agreements with the
    UAW over all of those years. They played a bigger part in it than the UAW
    with all of the poor management decisions they made. They forgot the most
    important thing about the business - to build a good car that people want.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 11, 2010
    #9
  10. "peter" <> wrote in message
    news:4cdc0e01$0$5500$-secrets.com...
    > On 11/11/2010 10:00 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> Rich wrote:
    >>> On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter<> wrote:
    >>>> On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Bruce<> wrote in
    >>>>> news::
    >>>>
    >>>>>> From nikonrumors.com:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >>>>>> interchangeable lens camera
    >>>>
    >>>>>> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >>>>>> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
    >>>>
    >>>>>> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's
    >>>>>> upcoming mirrorless system. go to:
    >>>>
    >>>>>> http://nikonrumors.com/
    >>>>
    >>>>> No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the
    >>>>> market before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with
    >>>>> DVD.

    >>
    >> Whatever works, works. Nikon and Canon (and every other company for that
    >> matter) are properly in business to maximize profits, not to introduce
    >> new
    >> lines of products that may or may not appeal to consumers. That's not
    >> being
    >> lazy or greedy, unless you characterize as "greed" anything that turns a
    >> profit.
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> I call that smart business.
    >>>
    >>> I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    >>> bankrupted GM.

    >>
    >> What bankrupted GM was mostly the UAW, not GM's decisions about product
    >> lines.
    >>
    >>

    > Most likely a combination of management arrogance, a culture of "B" school
    > projections, stagnated innovation, coupled with UAW not wanting to give
    > back.


    There is, as you say, much more to it than the UAW. For many years, the
    chairmen running GM were "bean counters". There was no engineering blood in
    them, no love for cars. For far too long, GM wasn't building amny cars that
    stood up to the competitor's. There were the niche cars like the Corvette
    but not many volume sellers were up to par. They did good business selling
    trucks like the Suburban and their pickups but they relied far too heavily
    on those profits.

    A lot of Americans would travel in Europe and remark about the great cars GM
    sold over there but not here. Why they seemed to sell better cars in Europe
    than here was a bit of a mystery. Now that they've gotten some religion,
    we're seeing more of the Euro-designed cars here. Who would ave ever
    thought that we'd see a great car from Buick again? Now we have two very
    fine cars, the Lacrosse and Regal. They're fine because they're Opels.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 11, 2010
    #10
  11. "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    >
    > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <> wrote in message
    > news:ibh7en$rj0$-september.org...
    >> "Neil Harrington" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> Rich wrote:
    >>>> On Nov 6, 8:29 pm, peter <> wrote:
    >>>>> On 11/6/2010 11:24 AM, Rich wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> Bruce<> wrote in
    >>>>>> news::
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> From nikonrumors.com:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Patent application reveals new drawings of a Nikon mirrorless
    >>>>>>> interchangeable lens camera
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> Japanese patent application (2010-250149) contains some drawings of
    >>>>>>> the upcoming Nikon mirrorless interchangeable lens camera.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> For more details, and links to previous posts about Nikon's
    >>>>>>> upcoming mirrorless system. go to:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> http://nikonrumors.com/
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> No, lazy, greedy Nikon (and Canon) are letting the others build the
    >>>>>> market before jumping in. Kind of like how Disney and Sony did with
    >>>>>> DVD.
    >>>
    >>> Whatever works, works. Nikon and Canon (and every other company for that
    >>> matter) are properly in business to maximize profits, not to introduce
    >>> new lines of products that may or may not appeal to consumers. That's
    >>> not being lazy or greedy, unless you characterize as "greed" anything
    >>> that turns a profit.
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I call that smart business.
    >>>>
    >>>> I call it lack of innovation and the same lack of inertia that
    >>>> bankrupted GM.
    >>>
    >>> What bankrupted GM was mostly the UAW, not GM's decisions about product
    >>> lines.

    >>
    >> Let's not forget GM's decision to come to all of those agreements with
    >> the UAW over all of those years.

    >
    > Yes, that's true, but I think the union more or less had them (and the
    > other American auto makers) over a barrel. It's probably been easier for
    > foreign builders to come into the U.S. and set up shop in states where
    > there was little or no pre-existing union culture.


    I really don't know how much of a barrel GM or the other makers were over.
    But GM should have stayed in control of the course of their business and not
    let a union determine that course.

    >> They played a bigger part in it than the UAW with all of the poor
    >> management decisions they made. They forgot the most important thing
    >> about the business - to build a good car that people want.

    >
    > Actually they built some pretty good cars, though I don't doubt they built
    > some mediocre ones too. I've owned cars by all of the Big Three as well as
    > some German, British and Japanese cars. There have been very good ones and
    > pretty bad ones in all of those.


    Yes, there were some good cars but GM lagged far behind their competitor's
    overall. When you can look at Toyota, Nissin, and Honda and see that just
    about every car they produced was good, at the top or close to the top of
    their respective class, it makes GM loko outright poor. GM could never
    produce a compact that came close to the quality of the Japanese makes or
    VW. And to this day with the possible exception of the Chevy cobalt
    replacement, they still haven't produced a good compact. Although GM has
    given us great Vettes and some trucks, they also gave us the Vega, Citation,
    Monza, Chevette, Cavalier, Sunbird, those awful 1st generation minivans, and
    on and on. Let;s forget those cookie cutter boxes they made in the 80's.
    That has begun to change. With the new Buick Lacrosse and Regal, they have
    finally put a very good sedan on the road even if they got it from the
    Germans. I think it's about time they brought in their Euro cars, they were
    always better than most of the cars that were sold only in the US market.
    Chevy made a big stride with the current Malibu and the rest of their lineup
    is taking shape. Chrysler had some home runs like the 300C and the jeeps.
    ford has been more consistent, IMO, in producing better cars than the other
    two American makers. They also managed to keep their business afloat
    without a government handout. That's better mangement than GM or Chrysler
    has had.

    > I switched to Chevrolet about eleven years ago, mostly because of a really
    > excellent local dealer. The '99 Lumina I bought then was a thoroughly
    > satisfactory car that gave me no trouble whatever over the six years I
    > owned it. Then I sold it to my sister who wanted it for her winter place
    > in Florida; she's still using it there and loves it.


    As good as tha Lumina was to you, can you honestly say that it was the equal
    of a Camry or Accord? Not even close, IMO. The Japanses cars were so much
    more refined.

    > I just recently traded in my '05 Malibu LS V6 for the '10 1LT model, and
    > I'm delighted with it so far. Handles well, very comfortable, economical,
    > and has everything I want in a car. This is the first four-cylinder car
    > I've owned in nearly 20 years, and I must say I'm impressed with the zip.
    > I didn't think I'd be happy with a four until I tried this one out. That
    > double overhead cam 2.4 liter with variable valve timing coupled with the
    > six-speed transmission makes one very efficient drive train. I'm actually
    > getting 30+ mpg on the interstate and it isn't even broken in yet.


    I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler 300C!
    Never thought I'd see a day like that.

    > And it looks great, too -- unlike the rather clunky looking '05.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 15, 2010
    #11
  12. "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    news:2010111513243846517-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > On 2010-11-15 13:15:23 -0800, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <>
    > said:
    >
    >
    >>>

    >>
    >> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >> 300C!
    >> Never thought I'd see a day like that.

    >
    > ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down one
    > bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.


    Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and high
    MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back in the
    day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not too shabby.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 16, 2010
    #12
  13. "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On 10-11-15 16:24 , Savageduck wrote:
    >> On 2010-11-15 13:15:23 -0800, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <>
    >> said:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >>> 300C!
    >>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.

    >>
    >> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    >> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

    >
    > And if the same car were a lower power 4 banger to begin with it would get
    > somewhat over 30 mpg... it would have a smaller transmission, drivetrain,
    > wheels, brakes, supports, struts - all those things that waste energy to
    > accelerate and not recovered during braking.
    >
    > It is long past time to stop considering cars as toys for the older boys -
    > the resources aren't there, the pollution is.


    You'd be hard pressed to power a two-ton car with a four cylinder engine.
    Some of the weight would be excised with smaller and lighter components but
    you're not going to get a car of that size with it's solid build to move
    with a four cylinder engine like it does with a V8. BTW, when did I say
    that I considered my car a toy? I've got the resources to buy one, I work
    hard for my money. The pollution levels for current cars is very low
    compared to older ones. What's your beef?
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Nov 16, 2010
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Wilba Guest

    Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    > Savageduck wrote:
    >> Pete Stavrakoglou said:
    >>>
    >>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >>> 300C!
    >>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.

    >>
    >> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down one
    >> bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

    >
    > Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and high
    > MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back in the
    > day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not too
    > shabby.


    The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship - they
    got a million miles to the galleon.
    Wilba, Nov 16, 2010
    #14
  15. On 11/16/10 PDT 2:36 PM, Wilba wrote:
    > Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >> Savageduck wrote:
    >>> Pete Stavrakoglou said:
    >>>>
    >>>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >>>> 300C!
    >>>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    >>>
    >>> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    >>> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

    >>
    >> Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
    >> high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
    >> in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
    >> too shabby.

    >
    > The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
    > they got a million miles to the galleon.


    ;-)

    Not if they got picked upon in Teredo land.......

    --
    john mcwilliams
    John McWilliams, Nov 16, 2010
    #15
  16. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/16/2010 5:36 PM, Wilba wrote:
    > Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >> Savageduck wrote:
    >>> Pete Stavrakoglou said:
    >>>>
    >>>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >>>> 300C!
    >>>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    >>>
    >>> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    >>> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

    >>
    >> Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
    >> high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
    >> in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
    >> too shabby.

    >
    > The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
    > they got a million miles to the galleon.


    Last time I looked, nobody fed gasoline to horses, or camels.

    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 16, 2010
    #16
  17. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <ibu06v$472$-september.org>,
    says...
    >
    > "Alan Browne" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On 10-11-15 16:24 , Savageduck wrote:
    > >> On 2010-11-15 13:15:23 -0800, "Pete Stavrakoglou" <>
    > >> said:
    > >>
    > >>
    > >>>>
    > >>>
    > >>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    > >>> 300C!
    > >>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    > >>
    > >> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    > >> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.

    > >
    > > And if the same car were a lower power 4 banger to begin with it would get
    > > somewhat over 30 mpg... it would have a smaller transmission, drivetrain,
    > > wheels, brakes, supports, struts - all those things that waste energy to
    > > accelerate and not recovered during braking.
    > >
    > > It is long past time to stop considering cars as toys for the older boys -
    > > the resources aren't there, the pollution is.

    >
    > You'd be hard pressed to power a two-ton car with a four cylinder engine.
    > Some of the weight would be excised with smaller and lighter components but
    > you're not going to get a car of that size with it's solid build to move
    > with a four cylinder engine like it does with a V8. BTW, when did I say
    > that I considered my car a toy? I've got the resources to buy one, I work
    > hard for my money. The pollution levels for current cars is very low
    > compared to older ones. What's your beef?


    Uh, what makes anybody think that a four cylinder engine is necessarily
    small or low powered?
    J. Clarke, Nov 17, 2010
    #17
  18. Bruce

    J. Clarke Guest

    In article <4ce30fe0$0$5507$-secrets.com>,
    says...
    >
    > On 11/16/2010 5:36 PM, Wilba wrote:
    > > Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    > >> Savageduck wrote:
    > >>> Pete Stavrakoglou said:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    > >>>> 300C!
    > >>>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    > >>>
    > >>> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    > >>> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.
    > >>
    > >> Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
    > >> high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
    > >> in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
    > >> too shabby.

    > >
    > > The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
    > > they got a million miles to the galleon.

    >
    > Last time I looked, nobody fed gasoline to horses, or camels.


    No, but try to cross a desert on a horse without bringing any horse fuel
    and you'll be disabused of the notion that they do not use fuel. You're
    conflating "gasoline" with "fuel".
    J. Clarke, Nov 17, 2010
    #18
  19. Bruce

    peter Guest

    On 11/17/2010 6:41 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
    > In article<4ce30fe0$0$5507$-secrets.com>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> On 11/16/2010 5:36 PM, Wilba wrote:
    >>> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>>> Savageduck wrote:
    >>>>> Pete Stavrakoglou said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >>>>>> 300C!
    >>>>>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    >>>>> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
    >>>> high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
    >>>> in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
    >>>> too shabby.
    >>>
    >>> The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
    >>> they got a million miles to the galleon.

    >>
    >> Last time I looked, nobody fed gasoline to horses, or camels.

    >
    > No, but try to cross a desert on a horse without bringing any horse fuel
    > and you'll be disabused of the notion that they do not use fuel. You're
    > conflating "gasoline" with "fuel".
    >
    >


    You need a horse bricker. Works similar to the camel bricker.

    --
    Peter
    peter, Nov 17, 2010
    #19
  20. Bruce

    Wilba Guest

    Neil Ellwood wrote:
    > Wilba wrote:
    >> Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >>> Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> Pete Stavrakoglou said:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I was able to average 28 mpg on the open highway in my Hemi Chrysler
    >>>>> 300C!
    >>>>> Never thought I'd see a day like that.
    >>>>
    >>>> ...but the 300C, on the open Hwy, with cruise control set, shuts down
    >>>> one bank of cylinders to become a virtual 4 banger.
    >>>
    >>> Yes it does, and it is very effective. Still, you get V8 power and
    >>> high MPG. City mileage was quite respectable for a V8. Older V8s back
    >>> in the day would get 10 MPG, no it's almost double that for some. Not
    >>> too shabby.

    >>
    >> The most fuel efficient form of transport was the old sailing ship -
    >> they got a million miles to the galleon.

    >
    > Not quite true. Most wouldn't have even got to 100,000 miles and the
    > control systems used a great deal of manpower. Sails were very labour
    > intensive until 19th century.


    Yeah? Wow. Do you have references so that I can update my database? Thanks!
    Wilba, Nov 17, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    751
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  2. Rich

    Re: Nikon to go mirrorless

    Rich, Jul 19, 2010, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    268
    Bruce
    Jul 20, 2010
  3. Lawrence D'Oliveiro
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    345
    victor
    Aug 31, 2010
  4. Bruce
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    1,536
    John Turco
    Sep 25, 2010
  5. Lawrence D'Oliveiro

    If A Patent Is A Monopoly, Then A Patent Pool Is A Cartel

    Lawrence D'Oliveiro, Oct 29, 2010, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    486
    Gordon
    Oct 31, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page