[MARTINSR]

Where's the next question? My brother has never heard of this and only says it's a "flaw" it certainly wasn't meant to be that way, just simple feedback.

Brian

[Dave57210]

OK- now I was having a real problem trying to "stump the panel" - so I had to think outside the box a bit - and still couldn't come with much

So - here's an easy one

In many drawings of race cars at speed - or for that matter whenever someone wants to depict a car going really fast, the wheels are drawn as ovals, leaning forward. Yes we know it is effective, but why is this done, and where/how did it originate?

[MARTINSR]

Originally Posted by Dave57210

OK- now I was having a real problem trying to "stump the panel" - so I had to think outside the box a bit - and still couldn't come with much

So - here's an easy one

In many drawings of race cars at speed - or for that matter whenever someone wants to depict a car going really fast, the wheels are drawn as ovals, leaning forward. Yes we know it is effective, but why is this done, and where/how did it originate?

You call that an "easy one"? You are talking about "concept" and "thinking", I need something like how many holes in a five lug wheel?

Brian

[61bone]

Early cameras had a slow shutterspeed and photos of cars at speed came out with the wheels ovaled and leaning forward and it translated to a sense of speed. Artists used that image to give a sense of speed to drawings of not only cars but airplanes, rocks, animals, trees and just about anything else that they wanted to convey was moving fast.

[Dave57210]

Absolutely right! Not only did the cameras have a slow shutter speed (because of early film technology), but they had a shutter that moved vertically (Nearly all "modern" cameras use a horizontally acting shutter) which meant that the car had moved during the time the shutter was moving. This meant that the portion of the picture involving the bottom of the wheel was captured first and the tops of the wheels were captured later - hence the image of the wheels leaning forward. The faster the car was going, the more exaggerated the "lean".

Your turn '61Bone!

[61bone]

A good combustible mixture is about 15-1 by weight so how much air would you need to burn 1 gallon of gasoline at a normal mixture at sea level?

[redsdad]

Approx. 94 lbs. (although I think 15:1 is a little lean).

That approx. 1162 cubic feet or approx. the amount of air in a 12' x 12' room with an 8' ceiling.

[Dave57210]

A gallon of gas weighs 6 lb (at least that's what they taught us in flight school) -so if you are gonna run 15:1 by weight, the answer would be 6 X 15, or 90 lb of air, or approx 1200 cu ft

[61bone]

I had an error in my figures, so I'm giving this one to Redsdad as first reply.
Your floor.

[redsdad]

Same question. This time consider stoichiometric for nitromethane and air. How much air for 1 gal. of nitro? Pounds or cubic feet.

[61bone]

Nitro weighs 9.4 lbs per gallon and stoichiometric is 1.7-1 so I guess 15.98 lbs of air. Air weighs 1 1/4 oz per cubic foot at sea level which is 27.84 cubic feet.

[redsdad]

Special note to Dave57210.

Sometimes I miss the fine print. The answer I sent to you was in UK gallons, not US gallons. Brain phart on my part.

61bone got it. The floor is yours.

[Dave57210]

No problem Redsdad

Being from Canada, I am "tri-lingual" - We used to use "Imperial gallons", but I also had to get used to the relatively "tiny" US gallon. Then Canada went metric, so that we could more easily export products to other parts of the world So now we also "speak metric".

And y' know what's funny? A tankfull of gas still takes me the same distance and it is still "2 tankfulls" to get back & forth to work for a week, whether the gas is measured in liters, US gallons or Imperial gallons!

[61bone]

In 1959, Goodyear was given the task of developing LSR tires for the Challenger I. How thick was the tread?

[Dave57210]

Strikes me that they were ultra-thin because the engineers tried to keep the centrifugal forces under control through use of light-weight wheels & tires, but, as to actual thickness - ya got me!