
oldsmobile-digest      Monday, February 23 2004      Volume 01 : Number 4789



442 not a Muscle Car
Badging vs Engine Size
Re: Of Airbags and Crush Zones
REALLY bad parts car...
Re: What is a muscle car?  was: muscle cars handling
Re: REALLY bad parts car...
Re: REALLY bad parts car...
Re: seatbelts
RE:  455 Stuck Valve update
WAS: engine flush >>NOW: magnetic clamp for oil filters
Re: Of Airbags and Crush Zones
Needed - DS Door Handle Hub
RE: seatbelts
RE: engine flush
Re: more physics
Re: Sub: unipoints
Re: What is a muscle car?  was: muscle cars handling
Re: seatbelts
RE: Starter problems, 93 fwd Pontiac and 64 Olds Super 88.
RE: seatbelts
RE: Starter problems, 93 fwd Pontiac and 64 Olds Super 88.
RE: Starter problems, 93 fwd Pontiac and 64 Olds Super 88.
Re: more physics
Re: more physics

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:58:40 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: 442 not a Muscle Car

"In the Oldsmobile line the Cutlass would have been the "regular" model
while the 442 was the muscle car because of the big engine _and_ badging.

A F-85 with a 455 would not, therefore, be a factory musclecar but
rather a sleeper."
================
Hmmm....
so the 1972 442 with the base model 350-2bbl engine, but wearing 442 ID and 
suspension... is... not even a sleeper. Or, is it REALLY "asleep"... as 
in... can't even wake it no matter what? :-)

Yes, it's true, the 1972 442 could be had with the bottom of the line 
engine. Story behind that one.....
- -----------------------
Chris Witt
1303 W. Miller Rd.
Lansing MI 48911

RocketScience442@hotmail.com

Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days

_________________________________________________________________
Say “good-bye” to spam, viruses and pop-ups with MSN Premium -- free trial 
offer! http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200359ave/direct/01/

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:01:54 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: Badging vs Engine Size

One thing that set Olds apart from the others
was that Olds rarely included the engine displacement as part of the
badging, unlike the other GM divisions and most of the other marques.
==============
Well, maybe that's why  I get folks asking me if that car "really gots [sic] 
a four forty two in it?"

Who among us has not been there?
- -----------------------
Chris Witt
1303 W. Miller Rd.
Lansing MI 48911

RocketScience442@hotmail.com

Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days

_________________________________________________________________
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. 
locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:33:20 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: Of Airbags and Crush Zones

  totally agree with that, needless to say  we have never had a bmw with a simple problem
  ron
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: "swanny" <swannys78@adelphia.net>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 5:45 PM
  Subject: Re: Of Airbags and Crush Zones


  > BMW.........Big-Money-Wasted
  > ----- Original Message -----
  > From: <77w30442@comcast.net>
  > To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  > Sent: Thursday, February 19, 2004 11:07 PM
  > Subject: Re: Of Airbags and Crush Zones
  > 
  > 
  > > tell that to the owner of the 2002 bmw  that had his side air bag deployed
  > when he hit a pot hole. bmw is sitting in salvage yard car was totaled after
  > it hit gaurd rail after startling driver.
  > > yes sir technoligy is great
  > > ron
  > >
  > >
  > 
  > 

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 14:29:04 -0500
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
Subject: REALLY bad parts car...

Holey Moley
I thought my parts car [per 442.com] was the biggest POS that was ever 
bought

look at this:
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6783&item=2461520431

I am sorry, I just do not see $400 worth of anything there. At least my POS 
had axles, engine parts, kickdown switch, switch pitch trans, etc. And twice 
as mauch rusty steel. And it was free plus the towing costs.
- -----------------------
Chris Witt
1303 W. Miller Rd.
Lansing MI 48911

RocketScience442@hotmail.com

Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days

_________________________________________________________________
Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. 
http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 20:07:18 +0000
From: Steve Harrison <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: What is a muscle car?  was: muscle cars handling

At 04:16 PM 2/21/2004 -0700, you wrote:
>Nice math, Steve.. but in 1966, not a handful of Americans had a clue as to 
>what a liter was.

Hot-rodders got their introduction when the '64 Goat badge bragged 6.5
Liter for the 389  ;o\  Clearly, Poncho was trying to tie the GTO name into
the existing "high-faluting" Ferrari GTO of the time. That '66 Galaxie was
perhaps the next American "muscle-car" to state its displacement on
exterior badging in liters. From there, the rest of the pack followed.

And besides, any high school kid who took chemistry learned to use liters
and cc's, although there was no attempt to compare those to the
tablespoons, pints, quarts and gallons used at home (did Texas kids of the
period speak in terms of 55-gallon barrels of oil?  :o)))

SteveH

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:12:38 -0500
From: "ron fama" <77w30442@comcast.net>
Subject: Re: REALLY bad parts car...

  that is a big hunk of  junk  i saw  a fews that may be useable 
  left rotor  and spindle ,hood chrome  3 peices
  maybe all 3olds for 400.00 the vista  looked to be in better shape from the shot
  ron
  From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
  To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
  Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 2:29 PM
  Subject: REALLY bad parts car...


  > Holey Moley
  > I thought my parts car [per 442.com] was the biggest POS that was ever 
  > bought
  > 
  > look at this:
  > http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6783&item=2461520431
  > 
  > I am sorry, I just do not see $400 worth of anything there. At least my POS 
  > had axles, engine parts, kickdown switch, switch pitch trans, etc. And twice 
  > as mauch rusty steel. And it was free plus the towing costs.
  > -----------------------
  > Chris Witt
  > 1303 W. Miller Rd.
  > Lansing MI 48911
  > 
  > RocketScience442@hotmail.com
  > 
  > Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
  > Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days
  > 
  > _________________________________________________________________
  > Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday. 
  > http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
  > 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:11:19 -0600
From: "jbschuren" <jbschuren@houston.rr.com>
Subject: Re: REALLY bad parts car...

some cars must be left to die.....


- ----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Christopher Witt" <rocketscience442@hotmail.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 22, 2004 1:29 PM
Subject: REALLY bad parts car...


> Holey Moley
> I thought my parts car [per 442.com] was the biggest POS that was ever
> bought
>
> look at this:
>
http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=6783&item=2461520431
>
> I am sorry, I just do not see $400 worth of anything there. At least my
POS
> had axles, engine parts, kickdown switch, switch pitch trans, etc. And
twice
> as mauch rusty steel. And it was free plus the towing costs.
> -----------------------
> Chris Witt
> 1303 W. Miller Rd.
> Lansing MI 48911
>
> RocketScience442@hotmail.com
>
> Cell 517-449-0432 weekends or short weekday calls or leave message.
> Home 517-882-9747 thru 10-11pm MI time most days
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Stay informed on Election 2004 and the race to Super Tuesday.
> http://special.msn.com/msn/election2004.armx
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:07:14 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: Re: seatbelts

At Sunday, 22 February 2004, you wrote:

>>How long would you get away with using a racing seat 
>>belt on the street?
>>rom what I understand, a 5pt harness is not DOT approved 
>>and you can beF ticketed for wearing one.
>
>That is not correct.
>
>An unethical cop can give you a ticket for anything, but 
>if you were cited for using racing seat belts in your car, 
>first, the judge will throw it out, and second, you can file >unprofessional 
conduct charges against the cop with his 
>department's IAD.

No. Your automobile's factory-equipped safety systems cannot be replaced 
with a non-DOT-approved system. That's been the law in most states 
for many decades. That's why they will ticket you for substituting 
something other than a DOT-approved taillight lens.

If it's considered safety equipment, you are not allowed to fool 
with it less you not only degrade the efficacy of your own vehicle,
but also endanger others, both within your vehicle and on the highway 
with you.

SteveH
>
>Milton Schick
>1964 442 Cutlass
>imp@theriver.com
>




===================================================================
EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
===================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 08:33:07 -0600
From: "Reed, Stephen" <sreed@chatsworth.com>
Subject: RE:  455 Stuck Valve update

Tom,

>For those of you following the saga of my stuck exhaust valve...
>The head had evidence of galling on the number 2 exhaust valve guide which
>is where it must have hung open then the piston hit it.  The builder said he
>also noticed the exhaust guides call for a slightly larger ream size than
>the intake guides.  Can any of you confirm this or is this a function of the
>guides and the valves?  He is going to measure all the guides on that head
>thinking maybe they used the intake sized reamer on all the valves....which
>if true he'll  need the other head to check it as well.

>Tom J.

I've had a busy weekend, and I'm on digest so sorry for the late reply....

It absolutely makes sense for the exhaust valve to have more clearance than the intake.  I thought the clearance was designed into the valve stem.

I used to ream the valve guides to .343 (11/32).  The machinist should have larger reamers .344 also, but I thought the clearance was designed into the valve.

Steve Reed
'96 9C1 Chevy Caprice
'70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode)
'68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine)
Austin, TX
http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:17:01 -0600
From: "Reed, Stephen" <sreed@chatsworth.com>
Subject: WAS: engine flush >>NOW: magnetic clamp for oil filters

>>Hi All
>>    My recently aquired 80 toro has been neglected in the maintainance 
>>dept. A recent oil change left me thinking it needs to be changed again!
>>I hope to change the oil and filter every 500 miles for a couple of 
>>thousand miles to try and clean the crankcase, oil pan etc. Any thoughts 
>>or suggestions on an engine flush of any kind?
>>think spring
>>John Kelsey
>>Dayton Ohio

>It sounds like you have some money to spend.

>I would like to see you try the magnetic clamp that goes on the oil filter
>(no I don't know the name - did I see it in Eastwood?) and report back with
>your results.  It seems wicked cool, I would like to hear a first-hand
>account.

Brian,
	I bought on of those for my daily driver.  I figured since I don't know about the previous history on the engine, it would be a good idea, and wouldn't hurt at all to 'install' one of these babies.
	I'll let ya know the next time I do an oil change.  I'll take the hack saw to the filter and see if my filter's metal exterior looks anything like the advertisement I saw.

Right now, the name of the company is escaping me....

OK I just checked my bank account online, and found the company.  It's called Filtermag.  Their URL is here:
http://www.filtermag.com/


Steve Reed
'96 9C1 Chevy Caprice
'70 Cutlass Supreme Ragtop (In Reassembly mode)
'68 Cutlass Supreme (Seized Engine)
Austin, TX
http://www.sreed.0catch.com/html/cars.html

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 15:32:09 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: Of Airbags and Crush Zones

>tell that to the owner of the 2002 bmw that had his side
>air bag deployed when he hit a pot hole.

He hit a pothole and a side airbag deployed??? I assume he filed a DOT 
report on that malfunction, and that BMW is investigating it as well. After 
all, the car was still under warranty, so BMW would be on the hook for this 
reimbursement, not just his insurance company, as it would be an obvious 
equipment malfunction if that's how it happened. Surely there's more to this 
story than what you are telling us here.

- -- Andy (who has a buyer picking up our '83 BMW 528e tonight; hooray! :-)

_________________________________________________________________
Dream of owning a home? Find out how in the First-time Home Buying Guide. 
http://special.msn.com/home/firsthome.armx

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:54:41 -0800
From: Greg Tjosvold <tjosvold@polar7.com>
Subject: Needed - DS Door Handle Hub

Hi Gang,

I'm looking for a driver side door handle bit (I'm not sure what to call 
it! Check http://www.car-diaries.com/rocket/parts/ for a picture.) for my 
56 Olds 88 .  This is the part where the door handle attaches. The spring 
is broken in mine (and on all the parts cars I've seen). It appears that it 
is the same Oldsmobile part on the 56, 58 and I assume 57.

Anyone have a parts car kicking around with one of these in working order? 
I'm getting tired exiting the car from the passenger side. :-)

'Best,

Nanook


====================
http://www.car-diaries.com
Every car has a story 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:39:02 -0500
From: Tom Bejma <tomcb@prplastics.com>
Subject: RE: seatbelts

> -----Original Message-----
> From: SteveH [mailto:k0xp@dandy.net]
> Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 9:07 AM
> To: oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca
> Subject: Re: seatbelts
> 
> 
> At Sunday, 22 February 2004, you wrote:
> 
> If it's considered safety equipment, you are not allowed to fool 
> with it less you not only degrade the efficacy of your own vehicle,
> but also endanger others, both within your vehicle and on the highway 
> with you.

How is replacing a 35 year old seat belt with a brand new, much
stronger and proven race system endangering others?

I'll eat the ticket to make sure my wife, kids and myself are belted
in the Cutlass with the best available lap belt made - even if our
ever so "wise" government (DOT) has not seen fit to approve the system.

Tom Bejma
Harrison Twp., MI
> 
> SteveH
> >
> >Milton Schick
> >1964 442 Cutlass
> >imp@theriver.com
> >
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ===================================================================
> EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
> ===================================================================
> 
> 

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 17:06:34 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: engine flush

>My recently aquired 80 toro has been neglected in the maintainance dept. A 
>recent oil change left me thinking
>it needs to be changed again!
>
>I hope to change the oil and filter every 500 miles for
>a couple of thousand miles to try and clean the crankcase,
>oil pan etc.

A fine plan. You shouldn't need more than a couple of 500-mile oil and 
filter changes before you start to notice that the oil is staying cleaner 
much longer.

>Any thoughts or suggestions on an engine flush of any kind?

No need. Keep in mind that the reason your fresh oil is going dirty so fast 
at the moment is because it's doing exactly what it's supposed to do: its 
detergents are loosening, picking up and carrying off the accumulated old 
crud to the filter. Let it do its thing at its own rate, changing oil and 
filter every 500 miles, and it'll get all caught up within 1000-1500 miles.

I would not suggest using an engine flush that will break loose all the goop 
all at once and start circulating it around; I would let the detergent 
additives in the fresh oil carry it off at a controlled rate.

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Take off on a romantic weekend or a family adventure to these great U.S. 
locations. http://special.msn.com/local/hotdestinations.armx

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:30:36 -0500
From: King V <king_v@mindless.com>
Subject: Re: more physics

At 11:50 AM 02/22/2004 -0500, Chris Witt wrote:
>Scenario 2:
>2 identical cars meet head-on at 50 mph....
>Presumably both crumple and come more or less to rest at the point of 
>impact, each
>unit experiencing essentially the same crash timing [travel speed to 0] asin 
>hitting
>an immovable object such as a bridge abutment. Like #1 above.
>K.E. = 0.5Mv^2 + 0.5Mv^2, or...
>   KE = ([0.5M]*2500) * 2
>[intentionally NOT combining numerics in order to readily compare to the  
>figures in Scenario 1]
>
>So, is 50mph +50mph = 100 mph?
>

Now see . . this bothers me for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.
The math looks right and all.... but it seems that this scenario should be
no different than one car just sitting there not moving, and the other
hitting it at 100MPH, which would give you the same formula as you have in
Scenario 3.


>Scenario 3:
>Car of mass M hits immovable wall at _100_ MPH.
>Kinetic Energy was 1/2Mv^2, or...
>   KE =  [0.5M]*_10,000_
>Which is of course 2x the energy involved in Scenario #2

I realize as well that the immoveable wall is different than the "parked
car" I describe above, as the parked car will absorb some of the energy and
start moving backwards.


>Of course, in a car- car crash, mass wins.

Well, all other factors being equal.  But wasn't there some article stating
that larger-yet-lighter cars are actually safer?  I always figured because
less mass=less force added to the total amount of kinetic energy, and
larger of course means "more metal and stuff to get through before it
starts mangling your body"



Another question . . it's been WAY too long since I've taken physics, and
my memory's WAY rustier than even that hunk of scrap metal posing as a
parts car on eBay....

But isn't it Force = Mass x Acceleration?  I mean, I always sort of in my
head figured acceleration to be a square function of Velocity . .  but as I
(try to) remember now, it was always feet/second^2  or meters/second^2 . .
so I'm guessing now that it's how quickly your velocity gets reduced to
zero that's the key factor, rather than the velocity itself....

At least I think . . like I said, it's been WAY too long since I've done
this, and I may well be mixing up the pieces that I still remember.

But if anyone can clarify and/or refresh my memory, I'd appreciate it.
On-list if people think a physics refresher course might be interesting,
off-list if you think it'll annoy people!


	- Joe "I hope I'm not forgetting faster than I'm learning" Vahabzadeh

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:25:13 -0300
From: "Tour Op & Travel Agency Trade 2000" <travelchile@manquehue.net>
Subject: Re: Sub: unipoints

The Echlin stuff is good only up to 4000-4500rpm, if you try to rev higher
you will be happier with a quality set from Accel/Mallory/Moroso?
The high reeving sets will not keep Dwell for much time and you will have to
check it often
rgds
Matt

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:21:01 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: What is a muscle car?  was: muscle cars handling

> Hot-rodders got their introduction when the '64 Goat badge bragged 6.5
> Liter for the 389  ;o\  Clearly, Poncho was trying to tie the GTO name
into
> the existing "high-faluting" Ferrari GTO of the time.


Not clearly, Pontiac did it on purpose. There were even ads that used the
name, Grand Tursimo Obligato (last 2 misspelled), to tie everything with the
racing elite of Europe.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:39:28 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: seatbelts

Sorry, I can't agree on the use of 3" seat belts for a vehicle that was
*not* originally equipped with factory shoulder harness being illegal.

For a vehicle equipped with factory shoulder harness, if everything was
replaced with a racing 4 point system, from an engineering standpoint, the
cop wouldn't have a leg to stand on. I would fight that tooth-and-nail as
far as it was necessary.

Furthermore, DOT regs usually allow anything with a DOT approval on a
vehicle to be replaced with something else, as long as it can be shown the
replacement exceeds DOT standards. 3" seat belts exceed DOT standards for
lap belts. Where the argument would start is with the shoulder belt.

Again, for vehicles originally equipped with lap belts only (what,
pre-1970?? I can't recollect when shoulder belts were first required.), 3"
racing belts would be fine.

I know this application would be okay in Missoura (because it was
specifically asked) and am 98% positive there is no problem in Arizona. Now
with the Massachusetts or New Jersey Gestapo, that could be a different
matter. :-)

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "SteveH" <k0xp@dandy.net>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 7:07 AM
Subject: Re: seatbelts


> At Sunday, 22 February 2004, you wrote:
>
> >>How long would you get away with using a racing seat
> >>belt on the street?
> >>rom what I understand, a 5pt harness is not DOT approved
> >>and you can beF ticketed for wearing one.
> >
> >That is not correct.
> >
> >An unethical cop can give you a ticket for anything, but
> >if you were cited for using racing seat belts in your car,
> >first, the judge will throw it out, and second, you can file
>unprofessional
> conduct charges against the cop with his
> >department's IAD.
>
> No. Your automobile's factory-equipped safety systems cannot be replaced
> with a non-DOT-approved system. That's been the law in most states
> for many decades. That's why they will ticket you for substituting
> something other than a DOT-approved taillight lens.
>
> If it's considered safety equipment, you are not allowed to fool
> with it less you not only degrade the efficacy of your own vehicle,
> but also endanger others, both within your vehicle and on the highway
> with you.
>
> SteveH
> >
> >Milton Schick
> >1964 442 Cutlass
> >imp@theriver.com
> >
>
>
>
>
> ===================================================================
> EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
> ===================================================================
>
>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 10:55:50 -0800
From: "John Holt sr" <johnlholtsr@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Starter problems, 93 fwd Pontiac and 64 Olds Super 88.

<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>Andrew, SteveH&nbsp;here is the rest of the story. I&nbsp;revisited the starter problem on 93 Pontiac again saturday. Here is what I found. 12.5 volts at the battery, still wont start, no click nothing, while turning the ignition to start, voltage drops to 12.0 at the battery. Followed purple 10g wire back from solenoid to trans..&nbsp;from there i cannot find which wire is the excite wire from switch, but i find 16g purple in harness going to body&nbsp;bulkhead connector... it has 11.5 volts when switch on to start,,?? followed back under steering column to actual switch. Found all wires spliced, like a theft recovery??. Yellow 10g wire coming out of switch has 12.2 volts only in start position. I tried jumping a 10g direct from battery + to purple 10g at solenoid, still nothing. So,, took starter out, bench tested with wires going from solenoid excite to battery connection, then from batt conn to + on batt, and grounding case, still nothing. Off to PepBoys, they put it on their starter tester,, didnt budge. So got another 'rebuilt' , stopped by Sonic burger,, ahhhhhh, installed rebuilt, fired right up. I still dont understand what went wrong with the starter though, and I dont understand the voltage drop from the start switch to the solenoid, is that normal? I thot you might be interested to hear the rest of the story. thanks for your patience John</DIV><BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><STRONG><U>John</U></STRONG></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2752??PS=">Get fast, reliable access with MSN 9 Dial-up. Click here for Special Offer!</a> </html>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:58:52 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: RE: seatbelts

At Monday, 23 February 2004, you wrote:
>How is replacing a 35 year old seat belt with a brand new, much
>stronger and proven race system endangering others?
>
>I'll eat the ticket to make sure my wife, kids and myself are belted
>in the Cutlass with the best available lap belt made - even if our
>ever so "wise" government (DOT) has not seen fit to approve the system.

Oh, you can replace it, as long as it's DOT-approved.

Hey, I didn't make or advocate the laws; go chew on yer congressperson 
if you don't like em.

SteveH



===================================================================
EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
===================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 11:19:35 -0800
From: "John Holt sr" <johnlholtsr@hotmail.com>
Subject: RE: Starter problems, 93 fwd Pontiac and 64 Olds Super 88.

<html><div style='background-color:'>Some final notes,, I&nbsp;chkd the battery connections, by chking voltage at other locations and got the same readings&nbsp;as at the battery,&nbsp;and the alt is chging 14.7 volts. Sure hope she doesnt call me back. ;-)..one other thing i noticed is that the battery connection bolt head&nbsp;on neg side was rounded, from someone else using 12 point or&nbsp;some other type wrench, I always use a&nbsp;6 point..&nbsp;so had to snug it&nbsp;with other means until I can get a new fastener for it.&nbsp;It is tight though, and I know&nbsp;that its possible to pull the nut out the battery by tightening it too much, been there done that. I always&nbsp;try and get batteries with top as well as side mounts when possible. thanks to all&nbsp;who gave their input, hopefully that car rides off into the sunsetand&nbsp;never comes back,,&nbsp;:-&gt;,,, Now to pull the&nbsp;64's Super 88, starter and check for worn teeth, etc etc, and rebuild the brake master cyl, and the wheel cylinders, and rekey the trunk lock, got&nbsp;a&nbsp;push button in the glove box&nbsp;just in case,, &nbsp;<BR><BR><BR>
<DIV><STRONG><U>John</U></STRONG></DIV></div><br clear=all><hr> <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2731??PS=">Store more e-mails with MSN Hotmail Extra Storage – 4 plans to choose from!</a> </html>

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 14:14:07 -0500
From: SteveH <k0xp@dandy.net>
Subject: RE: Starter problems, 93 fwd Pontiac and 64 Olds Super 88.

At Monday, 23 February 2004, you wrote:
>I still dont understand what went wrong with the starter 
>though, and I dont understand the voltage drop from the 
>start switch to the solenoid, is that normal? I thot you 
>might be interested to hear the rest of the story.

I don't know what the starter for your '93 looked like; but if it 
had the divorced solenoid like all earlier GM V8 starters, then it 
sounds like your solenoid quit working. The solenoid has a big, high-
current switch built into the back side which switches the battery 
to the starter motor itself. The solenoid also pulls in a big steel 
plunger that actuates a lever which shoves a gear assembly out of 
the starter housing and into the snout, where the gear engages the 
flywheel of the engine. If that wasn't happening, then something 
was holding the solenoid from operating, perhaps a broken metal piece 
in that lever mechanism.

The slight voltage drop you observed was probably due to the ignition 
switch applying power to the solenoid, even though the solenoid, 
itself, could not mechanically-actuate; the relatively-low current 
draw of the solenoid caused the battery voltage to drop slightly.


If your starter was built as described above, then the solenoid, 
itself, could have been replaced for about $20 or less. However, 
a whole new (rebuilt, I guess) starter assembly is better  ;o)

SteveH



===================================================================
EASY access to your email http://webmail.dandy.net/mr2/nph-mr.cgi
===================================================================

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 19:40:43 +0000
From: "Andrew C. Green" <acg_o@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: more physics

>>So, is 50mph +50mph = 100 mph?
>>
>
>Now see . . this bothers me for reasons I can't quite put my finger
>on. The math looks right and all.... but it seems that this scenario
>should be no different than one car just sitting there not moving,
>and the other hitting it at 100MPH, which would give you the same
>formula as you have in Scenario 3.

Assuming for the sake of simplicity that the cars are identical and 
traveling at the same 50-mph speed, the head-on collision would have the 
same forces as hitting an immovable object at 100 mph, since the oncoming 
car is delivering a force equal to that of the opposing car, similar to the 
complete resistance delivered by the immovable object.

Striking a parked car at 100 mph is a "softer" impact since the parked car 
absorbs the force of impact in both its own deformation and its propulsion 
away from the point of impact.

Note, incidentally, that in those IIHS offset barrier crashes that Dateline 
NBC loves to broadcast way too much, the vehicle is hitting a deformable 
barrier rather than a fixed one, even though (if I remember right), they're 
simulating a crash into an oncoming car.

>Well, all other factors being equal. But wasn't there some article
>stating that larger-yet-lighter cars are actually safer?

Maybe so (and please don't take offense, this is not aimed at you 
specifically, but anytime we're going to cite articles, let's try to 
actually _find_ the articles via Google or similar if possible so that 
everyone can read them). I think the "larger" aspect would benefit the car's 
own occupants with better crash space, although the "lighter" aspect would 
probably more benefit whoever the car runs into, since there's less force to 
dissipate via bending metal (his or yours).

>Another question . . it's been WAY too long since I've taken physics,
>and my memory's WAY rustier than even that hunk of scrap metal posing
>as a parts car on eBay....

Speaking of which, a rusty car has potential for a lot more deformation in a 
crash, and not always in controlled, intentional ways that will benefit the 
occupants. When my wife hit a bridge abutment in her rusty '72 Buick Skylark 
Sun Coupe many many years ago, it was a big-enough car to absorb the crash 
without giving her major injuries (broken nose from the steering wheel, 
despite use of seat belts, was the worst injury), but the car deformed in 
some weird ways, such as a buckled driver's door.

- -- Andy

_________________________________________________________________
Click, drag and drop. My MSN is the simple way to design your homepage. 
http://click.atdmt.com/AVE/go/onm00200364ave/direct/01/

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 12:48:14 -0700
From: "Infinite Space Systems, Inc." <imp@theriver.com>
Subject: Re: more physics

George,

Second law of motion.
F = ma, where
"F" is the vector sum of all forces acting on the body;
"m" is the mass of the body;
"a" is the vector acceleration.

The first law of motion is contained in the second law (F = ma) as a special
case. If F = 0, then a = 0. If the resultant force acting on a body is zero,
other vectors at different directions and angles, then the acceleration on
the body is zero. Therefore, in the absence of applied forces, a body will
move at constant velocity or be at rest, i.e., zero velocity, which is what
the first law of motion says. Of Newton's 3 laws of motion, only 2 are
independent, the 2nd and 3rd. The division of translational particle
dynamics that includes only systems for which the resultant force, "F", is
zero is called "statics." The 3rd law of motion is for every action, there
is an equal and opposing reaction.

Now for momentum, notice the subtle difference, which is what I think you
might have been getting at.

p = mv, where
"p" is the momentum vector of a single body;
"m" is the mass of the body;
"v" is the velocity of the body, **not** the acceleration. Velocity and
acceleration are very different. Confusing velocity and acceleration causes
all sorts of errors, like Mars landers descending way too fast.

Then, we have kinetic energy, which is what Chris was getting at. KE is the
operating equation for a car crash.

KE = 1/2(m x v squared), where
"KE" is the kinetic energy released at the impact;
"m" is the mass of the body;
"v" is the velocity of the body which **must be squared**.

Now, to exercise your mind even more, lets consider a different case: the
Space Shuttle and a meeting with a piece of orbital debris, like could have
happened with Columbia. First, keep in mind the Space Shuttle is like an
immovable wall compared to being struck by an object that weighs only an
ounce. But, the velocities involved make all the difference in the world.

This exercise will really illustrate what velocity does. That's why the
Army, Marines, and Air Force Security are adopting LOSAT, Line Of Sight Anti
Tank. This hyper velocity kinetic missile travels at Mach 6. The impact on a
tank is incredible.

?A common aerospace fastener is a 1960 series alloy steel allen cap screw. A
three-eights inch by one and three-quarter inch allen cap screw weighs one
point zero three ounces. At an orbital
velocity of 17,500 miles per hour, it would have a kinetic energy impact of
about 650,000 foot pounds. If this bolt collided head on with the Space
Shuttle, also cruising in orbit at 17,500 MPH, the resulting combined 35,000
MPH impact would release over 2,600,000 foot pounds of kinetic energy, based
on the mass of the bolt striking the immovable Space Shuttle, but with the
velocity of the Space Shuttle added into the kinetic energy equation.
Squaring the velocity for kinetic energy does many interesting things. The
energy released in the head on hit is the same as a four thousand pound
automobile crashing into an immovable concrete wall at one 140 MPH. An
impact like that would turn the bolt into an incandescent penetrator,
suitable for tearing through the toughest main battle tank armor. A debris
impact of this type on a typical spacecraft structure would be devastating.

Milton Schick
1964 442 Cutlass
imp@theriver.com


- ----- Original Message -----
From: "King V" <king_v@mindless.com>
To: <oldsmobile@chebucto.ns.ca>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 10:30 AM
Subject: Re: more physics


> At 11:50 AM 02/22/2004 -0500, Chris Witt wrote:
> >Scenario 2:
> >2 identical cars meet head-on at 50 mph....
> >Presumably both crumple and come more or less to rest at the point of
> >impact, each
> >unit experiencing essentially the same crash timing [travel speed to 0]
asin
> >hitting
> >an immovable object such as a bridge abutment. Like #1 above.
> >K.E. = 0.5Mv^2 + 0.5Mv^2, or...
> >   KE = ([0.5M]*2500) * 2
> >[intentionally NOT combining numerics in order to readily compare to the
> >figures in Scenario 1]
> >
> >So, is 50mph +50mph = 100 mph?
> >
>
> Now see . . this bothers me for reasons I can't quite put my finger on.
> The math looks right and all.... but it seems that this scenario should be
> no different than one car just sitting there not moving, and the other
> hitting it at 100MPH, which would give you the same formula as you have in
> Scenario 3.
>
>
> >Scenario 3:
> >Car of mass M hits immovable wall at _100_ MPH.
> >Kinetic Energy was 1/2Mv^2, or...
> >   KE =  [0.5M]*_10,000_
> >Which is of course 2x the energy involved in Scenario #2
>
> I realize as well that the immoveable wall is different than the "parked
> car" I describe above, as the parked car will absorb some of the energy
and
> start moving backwards.
>
>
> >Of course, in a car- car crash, mass wins.
>
> Well, all other factors being equal.  But wasn't there some article
stating
> that larger-yet-lighter cars are actually safer?  I always figured because
> less mass=less force added to the total amount of kinetic energy, and
> larger of course means "more metal and stuff to get through before it
> starts mangling your body"
>
>
>
> Another question . . it's been WAY too long since I've taken physics, and
> my memory's WAY rustier than even that hunk of scrap metal posing as a
> parts car on eBay....
>
> But isn't it Force = Mass x Acceleration?  I mean, I always sort of in my
> head figured acceleration to be a square function of Velocity . .  but as
I
> (try to) remember now, it was always feet/second^2  or meters/second^2 . .
> so I'm guessing now that it's how quickly your velocity gets reduced to
> zero that's the key factor, rather than the velocity itself....
>
> At least I think . . like I said, it's been WAY too long since I've done
> this, and I may well be mixing up the pieces that I still remember.
>
> But if anyone can clarify and/or refresh my memory, I'd appreciate it.
> On-list if people think a physics refresher course might be interesting,
> off-list if you think it'll annoy people!
>
>
> - Joe "I hope I'm not forgetting faster than I'm learning" Vahabzadeh
>

------------------------------

End of oldsmobile-digest V1 #4789
*********************************
