h a l f b a k e r y
A riddle wrapped in a mystery inside a rich, flaky crust

meta:

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.

 user: pass:
register,

# RealMPH Speedometer

Would show you how fast you're REALLY traveling.
 (+3, -7) [vote for, against]

The idea would be to take into account ALL the time you spent (Directly and indirectly) on the car, and divide it by the miles driven, as a running total.
For example, you might be physically traveling at 40mph, but since you had to spend an hour's worth of your time making money to pay for (insurance, gas, repairs, whatever), that hour would be deducted, and your RealMPH would be downgraded appropriately. Depreciation would also be figured in.
I realize that the calculations would be hairy, and probably require an onboard equivolent of Quicken - But maybe it would give people a slightly more rational view of their car's value in their life.
 — Orb2069, Mar 22 2002

Half-baked http://www.halfbake...20Speed_20Indicator

Heli-Costs http://www.robinsonheli.com/R44EOC.pdf
The R44 is a widely used lower end reliable helicopter. (sorry it's an acrobat file) [dag, Mar 22 2002]

Neelandan: I think there's a slight diffrence in message between your provided and what's here, mainly the addition of one's personal effort into it.
Mephista:The idea is to have the car do all the work, of course - You spend \$5 on gas, you hit the [gas] key and 5.00.
The headspace around this comes from a comment a coworker made: "Don't you feel like you're wasting your life with all that time you spend bicycling to work"? (I don't own a car, haven't for the last 12+ years, aside from the occasional rental)
 — Orb2069, Mar 22 2002

A recent test claimed that, over a three year period, the new Range Rover costs the same to run as a small helicopter. Similarly irrelevant.
 — angel, Mar 22 2002

 angel]: I must see the data on that test. Helicopters, piston or turbine, are phenomenally expensive to run. Usually far more than most people's most pessimistic guesses. A Hughes 530E, for example, flown 520 hours a year (10 hours a week) costs over \$250,000US/year. True it's a turbine machine but it is a small ship.

Gawd, I'm never even going to drive past the Range Rover shop.
 — bristolz, Mar 22 2002

Baked. My former (and last) BMW had this feature.
 — phoenix, Mar 22 2002

I don't think I want to know the results of that calculation. It would be too depressing.
 — bspollard, Mar 22 2002

[Angel]: - I'd be interested in a link/source for that test...
[UnaBubba]: Useless in what way? Monitoring your diet serves two purposes - Actually finding out what you eat, and forcing you to pay attention to it. How can you make an intelligent decision on a subject without unbiased (Or at least of-known-bias) data?
Speaking of known bias, how many of you fishboners own a \$15K+ car?
 — Orb2069, Mar 22 2002

 [bristolz], [angel] is right about costs. Some are roughly the same as a top end land vehicle. The Hughes 500 series is an expensive example. A Robinson R44 is broken down in the [link].

The R22, among others, is even cheaper than the R44. I can say the time saved is well worth it, if you have a long commute and a place to land. They are not a good grocery getter though, unless you live quite remotely.
 — dag, Mar 22 2002

 My bias for non-piston ships is showing . . . . Okay, [dag], I'll concede but ONLY for the Robinson craft. While they are a popular helicopter, I think it is fair to assert that they are an atypical helicopter using a unique cost model (0 timing the entire craft every 2200 hours, for starters). I would like to see the analysis done against, say, a Hughes/Schweizer, Brantley or an Enstrom.

Still, I am a little skeptical of the rosy cost picture your link presents (Robinson sales literature) but in the case of the R22 I agree that, per mile, an expensive car may cost more.
 — bristolz, Mar 22 2002

 Agreed on the non-piston powerplants. In thrust we trust.

 I don't mean to try to plug the Robinsons, I wouldn't eagerly ride in one, although they do sell well. Looking at the site again, you were kind in not busting their balls completely in more of the estimates.

 As far as rotorcraft in general, my tastes veer to the kind with chainguns and hellfires, with a touch of low observability, personally. And while I'm on the subject, drop the pilot and make it autonomous.

And leave out the RealMPH Speedometer.
 — dag, Mar 23 2002

 I think this should be 'real MPG' instead of MPH, although I hate ideas starting 'a real' in any case, and fishbone them immediately.

As it is, it makes little or no sense. You spend ten minutes putting gas in the car and it makes your speedometer read as if you were going slower?
 — StarChaser, Mar 23 2002

[StarChaser] - Well, diden't it? If it takes you an hour to go twenty miles, you effectively traveled at twenty miles an hour, even if you missed your exit and spent most of the hour lost, zipping around at 70+mph
 — Orb2069, Mar 25 2002

Maybe it would be Average Ground Speed?
 — bristolz, Mar 25 2002

Sounds like a pretty useless idea, but I might try to talk my way out of a speeding ticket with it someday. If the cop buys it, I'll come back and give you a croissant for sure.
 — spartanica, Mar 27 2002

[bris] and [Orb], [dag] is on the button; the Robinson R44 was the craft cited in the test I read. It was in the 'Mail on Sunday' (UK), March 16th. If it's still lying around at home, I'll scan the article and link to it.
The escape clause was that they didn't factor in the (recommended) full maintainance costs of the helicopter, but they also didn't include any out-of-warranty repairs for the Range Rover.
 — angel, Mar 27 2002

 // If it takes you an hour to go twenty miles, you effectively traveled at twenty miles an hour, even if you missed your exit and spent most of the hour lost, zipping around at 70+mph //

 No. If you spent most of an hour zipping around at 70+ mph, you must have driven a lot further than 20 miles.

What you're talking about is a point A to point B average.
 — waugsqueke, Mar 27 2002

 I liked the idea... It's not harmful to get a little bit more rational... I'm doing this manually and very interesting results usually came out... For eg. with my yearly milage no car in the market justify its extra cost to be more economic in a given price-class in the next 20 years... Plus, manufacturers mark the usual life of a car no more than 200K miles but their hidden or implied extra costs for being economical just don't justify within this milage even in the countries where the gas is most expensive...

 The usege of such a device may pretty enlighten the buyers and eventually more logical and well designed and fairly priced cars could came out from the manufacturers... At least, least chance to pay for the manufacturers efforts of the useless yearly skin change... More chance to pay for reosonable real improvements...

 The ever increasing gap between the developed technology and the thechnology put into practice is frightening me... but I digress.

 halfbaked but very nice spark, and an mph calculator for when you use the public transport or your bike would be nice for comparison to find out the real value of the invention of car...

I can't believe this beautiful idea is fishboned... people don't want to get rational... Forgot the renaiscence and enlightment? Of course we did :)
 — Aykam, May 17 2002

 [annotate]

back: main index