Not a biggie,but look

[Frustrated Palm]

They are easy to fix, because there isnt too many complicated things to tinker with, not because they always break (unless it was a Ford, j/k). I would rather have an older engine, rather than a new one. Dont get me wrong though, I wouldnt mind a new engine, but there is a point where there is too much technology in a car. About 80% of a car these days is controlled by a computer. That's alot of control to the computer, I want some of that I want some of that control back...

TsLeng: Yeah, but the shuttle doesnt need too much computer power. Though it can be improved. Anyway, Im wasnt talking about a Four Function Calculator, I meant something along the lines of a Graphing calculator.

 

[TsLeng]

OK! We have different opinions so back on topic.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Originally posted by Frustrated Palm
They are easy to fix, because there isnt too many complicated things to tinker with, not because they always break (unless it was a Ford, j/k). I would rather have an older engine, rather than a new one. Dont get me wrong though, I wouldnt mind a new engine, but there is a point where there is too much technology in a car. About 80% of a car these days is controlled by a computer. That's alot of control to the computer, I want some of that I want some of that control back...

I was just giving you a hard time I like both old and new motors.....Somtimes though technology can give you MORE controll of your car. Take the R-34 GTR for example. The MFD (multi function display) give you tons of info so you know whats going on with your car. If you know whats wrong you can more easily fix it. Also if you have the right equipment you don't even have to open up the engine....just a few clicks and your car is running better again....Look at boost controllers, you can easily tell your turbo what to do without needing to pop the hood and replace pulleys....you can also tinker with feul maps, injector cycles ( for some strange reason GTR's are only programed at 80% duty cycle...think of all the power lost) the posibilites are endless.

 

[Frustrated Palm]

Originally posted by skylineGTR_guy
I was just giving you a hard time I like both old and new motors.....Somtimes though technology can give you MORE controll of your car. Take the R-34 GTR for example. The MFD (multi function display) give you tons of info so you know whats going on with your car. If you know whats wrong you can more easily fix it. Also if you have the right equipment you don't even have to open up the engine....just a few clicks and your car is running better again....Look at boost controllers, you can easily tell your turbo what to do without needing to pop the hood and replace pulleys....you can also tinker with feul maps, injector cycles ( for some strange reason GTR's are only programed at 80% duty cycle...think of all the power lost) the posibilites are endless.

Tell me this; who in the world has the time to look at 10 displays or more just to see what there car is doing when they are traveling at 120+ mph?

Plus, if you didnt have so much computer technology into the car, you wouldnt have some of the problems that they cause (even though they usually fix problems that a car without it can have).

IMO, people are getting lazier these days. Just because they dont want to get their nicey suave Gucci shirt dirty and do some work they need it automated. I hate to see the day when cars drive themselves. Even the manual transmission is going out (being replaced by that manumatic crap where you just click a button and it does the clutch work). Comon', a guy put a bottle opener on his dog's collar so that when he needed his beer opened all he had to do was whistle ...

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Originally posted by Frustrated Palm
Tell me this; who in the world has the time to look at 10 displays or more just to see what there car is doing when they are traveling at 120+ mph?

Plus, if you didnt have so much computer technology into the car, you wouldnt have some of the problems that they cause (even though they usually fix problems that a car without it can have).

IMO, people are getting lazier these days. Just because they dont want to get their nicey suave Gucci shirt dirty and do some work they need it automated. I hate to see the day when cars drive themselves. Even the manual transmission is going out (being replaced by that manumatic crap where you just click a button and it does the clutch work). Comon', a guy put a bottle opener on his dog's collar so that when he needed his beer opened all he had to do was whistle ...

ROFLMAO bottle opener...

Who has time to look at displays? lets see planes have WAY more gauges than even the most ricer car and the pilots have to look at them and theyre going even faster....to stay on the topic of cars....the MFD makes it so you DON't have to look at 10 displays it's all one one screen...if you want more info on a certain aspect then you can focus just on that....As for the tranny why should I do what a computer can do faster? I don't mean standard auto trannys (bad technology) but look at the new shifting systems being released (good technology)....a paddle shifter that shifts in 250 miliseconds...compare that to even the best racers in the world and it makes them look slow. I agree that technology can create problems but if you look at it technology has solved ALOT more problems than it has created...if not we would still be riding horses.....

 

[Frustrated Palm]

Originally posted by skylineGTR_guy
ROFLMAO bottle opener...

Who has time to look at displays? lets see planes have WAY more gauges than even the most ricer car and the pilots have to look at them and theyre going even faster

That's because they are either on Autopilot, or the fact that they are thousands of feet up and usually with a co-pilot.

I don't mean standard auto trannys (bad technology) but look at the new shifting systems being released (good technology)....a paddle shifter that shifts in 250 milisecondsB]

Where is the fun in that? Half the fun of using a Manual Trans is shifting it yourself. Plus the fact that it takes skill to do it well, so I feel proud that I can shift well, when others resort to using something that does it for them.

 

[TsLeng]

When something works better we use it.

If everyone does it the way you say it, how about a train driver that says I take pride in controlling the fire of a steam train when TGVs' are available.

 

[Frustrated Palm]

Im not saying that everyone should do it the way I say I do, I was just showing examples. Some cars just have too much high technology in them (some is not needed). I was answering to the question that new engines were better than older engines. In some ways, yes, but other ways, no.

BTW, controlling a Steam Powered Engine has an experience that you cant get from a computer controlled one . The smell, the noise, the scenes. I'd like to conroll a new one too, as they both look fun ...

 

[alikax]

Originally posted by Frustrated Palm
Tell me this; who in the world has the time to look at 10 displays or more just to see what there car is doing when they are traveling at 120+ mph?

hmm... BMW owners?

 

[ShobThaBob]

Or maybe someone who is just driving in a straight line and doesnt need to worry about running into things. Not the smartest idea in the world...but what could it hurt?

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Originally posted by ShobThaBob
Not the smartest idea in the world...but what could it hurt?

Neck, spine, arms, legs...nothing important.

What about those HUD displays that some cars have? thats gotta be annoying.

 

[Fenrir51]

Originally posted by Frustrated Palm
What do you mean that the shuttle cant be improved. Today's calculators have more power than the computer on the shuttle.

Ahahah did you learn anything in school? Shuttles of today are way more powerful then any handheld calculator sold. Sure the OLD shuttles were like that but thats from the 60's/70's. You really thought they used old tech in a shuttle? Rofl rofl rofl.

 

[Firebird]

Originally posted by Fenrir51
Ahahah did you learn anything in school? Shuttles of today are way more powerful then any handheld calculator sold. Sure the OLD shuttles were like that but thats from the 60's/70's. You really thought they used old tech in a shuttle? Rofl rofl rofl.

For your enlightenment the space shuttles use IBM AP-101 computers, which are, oh...on the order of 25 years old. Their processors, Intel 8086's, run at 4.77MHz. For reference's sake a Texas Instruments TI-92 calculator is twice as fast. My home PC is almost 500 times faster.

The computers have no hard drive. Nor do they have disk drives. Everything is stored on tapes.

The computers have about 8kB of RAM. My TI-83 calculator has 4000 times that.

The shuttles themselves are quite old. The first shuttle, Enterprise, was built in 1976. Subsequent shuttles are almost as old. Challenger dated to 1978. Columbia dated back to 1979, and was still in use until its demise earlier this year. Discovery is 20 years old, Atlantis is a few months away from being 20, and even Challenger's replacement, Endeavour, is almost 14 years old.



Don't be so sure you learned anything in school... Space shuttles in the 60's?

 

[Firebird]

And as far as the new HEMI goes it is not some technological dinosaur as one of our Malaysian members seems to think.

It has the aforementioned dual spark plugs per cylinder, electronic throttle control, sequential multi-port fuel injection, distributor-less ignition, etc.; in other words it has everything every other modern day engine has.

It's also dimensionally quite small for a V8 (it's about the size of a DOHC V6), and is also quite light (also about the weight of a DOHC V6).

 

[Fenrir51]

Originally posted by Firebird
For your enlightenment the space shuttles use IBM AP-101 computers, which are, oh...on the order of 25 years old. Their processors, Intel 8086's, run at 4.77MHz. For reference's sake a Texas Instruments TI-92 calculator is twice as fast. My home PC is almost 500 times faster.

The computers have no hard drive. Nor do they have disk drives. Everything is stored on tapes.

The computers have about 8kB of RAM. My TI-83 calculator has 4000 times that.

The shuttles themselves are quite old. The first shuttle, Enterprise, was built in 1976. Subsequent shuttles are almost as old. Challenger dated to 1978. Columbia dated back to 1979, and was still in use until its demise earlier this year. Discovery is 20 years old, Atlantis is a few months away from being 20, and even Challenger's replacement, Endeavour, is almost 14 years old.



Don't be so sure you learned anything in school... Space
shuttles in the 60's?

Would you like me to say rocket then?

Oh yeah i find it hard to believe that this is weaker then my ti-83

 

[Firebird]

Originally posted by Fenrir51
Would you like me to say rocket then?

Yes, rocket would be historically correct.

Originally posted by Fenrir51

Oh yeah i find it hard to believe that this is weaker then my ti-83

It doesn't really matter what you believe (I won't even get into the fact that that pdf file describes updates that do not even exist...). The fact is they're still running very old hardware.

It isn't really a bad thing either. The computers are comparatively light, use little power, and considering about the only thing they are doing is relaying input from sensors to outputs on screens and recording the information on tapes along the way they don't really need to be any more powerful. There's been much talk about how NASA should update the shuttles' computer systems, but the fact is they don't really need to from a technological standpoint. The only real problem is that finding some of the outdated parts is a pain in the ass.

 

[Fenrir51]

Originally posted by Firebird

It doesn't really matter what you believe (I won't even get into the fact that that pdf file describes updates that do not even exist...). The fact is they're still running very old hardware.

If they dont exist why would the list them? Also tell me why they dont exist and i might believe you. If it didnt matter what i believed you wouldnt have posted too btw.

 

[skylineGTR_guy]

Originally posted by Fenrir51
If they dont exist why would the list them? Also tell me why they dont exist and i might believe you. If it didnt matter what i believed you wouldnt have posted too btw.

If you read th pdf it says that that stuff should be ready by 2005....it's not even 2004 yet

 

[Firebird]

Originally posted by Fenrir51
If they dont exist why would the list them? Also tell me why they dont exist and i might believe you. If it didnt matter what i believed you wouldnt have posted too btw.

Buddy, the pdf explicitly says that it is plans for a 2005 update. As in they were planning to update the shuttles' cockpit, etc.

 

[Slicks]

Ok. Lemme just get this outta the way. 2 plugs/cylinder is NOT new. Hell, Jaguars, Aston Martins, and Ferarri's of the late 50's and 60's were using that setup.

New engines are advanced, yes, but remember: the more complex it is, the harder (and sometimes more costly) it is to fix. For example, while you can do things yourself on your old car, you often need to pay a dealership to fix your new car.

Take the new Prius (ugly little thing, IMHO). It gets an EPA 51 or so on the highway. Toyota is even doubting these #'s, and would like to have them lowered, although it can't be done. Oh, and I think even some dealership shop people would get scared to fix it.
Now, take a mid-80's Golf Deisel. It'll get 50+ MPG highway. It costs less to buy, and it can be fixed in your garage if you have the know-how. Of course, it is a diesel, so emmisions arent as good.

So many cars have so much technology, and often, it's useless. So what if your Focus gets 35 MPG on the highway. So does my (parents) old '82 Mercedes 300SD (S-class equivalent).

I just want to say that there is sooooo much useless complicated things out there that really arent necessary.


And BTW: what does space shuttles have to do with cars?

 

[NIAL8U]

man you guys crack me up, so what if a space shuttle has less computer brains than a caculator, GTP may not stay on topic for long but if you want to discuss computers, im sure there are forums out there