Club 80-90 Forums

In my younger days, when the pipes were lit and ideas were freely surrendered, a friend and I mused that the solution to car crashes was simply to design cars that were wedge-shaped each end so that in an impact one car would simply go over the top of another. This seemed sensible until motorcycles were added to the equation and broadside collisions. Then there was the added problem of the late-braking fools at roundabouts neatly stacked on the poor driver at the bottom who would then have to pull away VERY carefully indeed. Oh well.

Anyway, this week I was thinking over the idea of solar powered running lights - charge up in the day and illuminate at night. This too seemed to have some mileage to it except when the idea is fully panned out. Oncoming headlights or even streetlights would instantly extinguish yours! Back to the drawing board, well, unless you have a better idea....

This would be do-able, as long as you use enough comparators to verify where light is and is not coming from.

At the moment auto dimming mirrors compare light from in-front to light from behind to switch the auto-tint on and off. Same with auto lights as fitted to Mercedes, BMW, Audi and many Vauxhalls (including the wife's Vectra-C).

This current method already works well, and does not cause problematic dimming of the interior mirror at the wrong times.

Therefore this technology could be extended to operate the Daytime running lights instead of or even in conjunction with the auto-light switching facility.

When I was a kid, I always thought about designing an airplane's wheels to be motorized, and controlled by a sensor converting air speed to ground speed, thus in turn, when a plane lands on the landing strip, the wheels would match the speed, and in return, save ££ in tyre rubber wear on landings. Not sure if this ever happened without my knowing though lol.

Micky thats ok in principal but the added weight of motor and drives and sensors would probably cost more in the long run . added weight means less passengers means less money for the airlines.

Ah, there is that yes lol

Micky - this technique is already used on most of the larger aircraft.
Saves quite a bit of money (less tyre wear).

ill shut up then lol

Dazco wrote:ill shut up then lol

No you were quite correct with your statement.
There was a lot of analysis (Life Cycle Cost Analysis or Through Life Cost Analysis) carried to reach the decision.

For the smaller (single aisle aircraft) it doesn't pay but on something like the A380 spinning the wheels up to try and match the landing speed does save a lot of tyre stress (wear).

I should think so , i machine the landing struts for that beast , bloody big things.

Dazco wrote:I should think so , i machine the landing struts for that beast , bloody big things.

I flew on one to Sidney (in business class) awesome!
I've been onboard several of the airframes before they were fitted out - bloody enormous.

They should make runways like giant conveyor belts. They would take up a lot less space

Titus A Duxass wrote:Micky - this technique is already used on most of the larger aircraft.
Saves quite a bit of money (less tyre wear).

Cool, wonder when it was first implemented Paul? I mentioned my idea to my school teacher back in 1981 with I was 11. If the name name ***** Johnson comes up, I'll kill him

Mickyfin wrote: Cool, wonder when it was first implemented Paul? I mentioned my idea to my school teacher back in 1981 with I was 11. If the name name ***** Johnson comes up, I'll kill him

I'll have to go through my oracle.

First critical studies were carried out in the 1940's.

Ok, cheers for that mate, at least I know it wasn't my idea originally