tankplanker @ tankplanker @lemmy.world

Posts

5

Comments

692

Joined

2 yr. ago

While parts don't need to be made to the same standard nor do you need the same depth of safety components, I completely disagree that we should not be applying the same hygiene to part province and maintenance schedules. Obviously this should apply to track side components such as signalling, the track etc. as well, just like it should for the parts of an airport that a plane will interact with.

Avoiding utter maintenance shit shows like the train crash in India that killed 300 people seem just as attractive to fix as they do with planes. Or the toxic spills that America has had that may not have killed as many people but are still expensive and hugely disrupting.

Part of getting maintenance schedules followed properly and using quality parts is right to repair, part availability, and being able to prove part provenance and quality. A method to audit a part is essential for this, if we do whats needed by allowing 3rd parties to make parts to original spec for a reasonable cost, like we should to lower cost. Lower cost, more chance companies will avoid cutting corners, particularly if there is a proper audit trail for the part and you can actually prove that it is the *part *as well.

The article is about right to repair, third party parts, and systems designed to block both of them, which I applied to an existing problem that applies to planes for certain and almost certainly other forms of public transport. Even a shit idea can be repurposed to improving the common good.

Its not hypothetical, its a widespread issue for aircraft: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/airline-scandal-fake-parts-scandal-b2459534.html

and did you even read what I wrote?

Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong,

With the fake parts scandal for airplanes I wonder if this should be mandatory for parts that impact public safety for public transport like trains, buses, planes and so on.

Dont get me wrong, I want a full right to repair enshrined in law and using a system like this just to prevent it is clearly wrong, but if it could be adapted to allow for critical parts to be made under license by third parties and helped prevent fake parts then may be a small amount of good can come from this shitty practice.

I cannot suggest a widely recommended brand as I don't have experience of anything I would recommend, however have you considered a medium to dark roast? Most people drinking coffee outside the speciality scene will be expecting a traditional Italian style coffee. This might not be what you are trying to go for but you might get some mileage out of it.

While this is local to the UK and not supermarket cheap it is cheaper than a mid to high end light roast, single origin bean: https://ravecoffee.co.uk/products/the-italian-job-blend?variant=3150416248858 I have had it for group holidays where I am making the coffee and it has gone down well.

Again, only reason that happened was the veto, veto is easy to remove, its a complete non issue. Any team or group of teams trying to veto something on a safety issue of that level in modern F1 isn't going to get very far.

If one or two teams fuck up, thats their problem, if half the grid fucks up, thats the FIAs problem. You must have missed all the complaints about tyre pressures...

Its not even just longer lasting, the tyres deliberatey have a short operating window in the sake of creating false drama, its that the ability of any tyre manufacturer in a series as complicated as F1 to make than predictable and reliable. All too often one of the two race tyres is abysmal. This often makes the race uncompetitive.

The strongest example of this is the quali tyre, it often cannot take a single full lap even after being babied on the outlap, for a full flat out lap. If that isn't completely unacceptable to you, then I am going to call Poes law here.

We've already had a repeat of 2005 under pirelli or you forgetting the multiple TDs issued for tyres to make the race happen under their watch? Or the punctures suffered such as Max's blow out at Baku?

2005 only didn't happen because Bridgestone teams vetoed a speed reduction on one corner despite it being requested on safety grounds. Very very easy to prevent that veto or the need for it from happening again. And it's rubbish to suggest we haven't had similar last minute changes for safety reasons under pirelli.

You still missing the point that the tyres are artificially nobbled for F1, they are nowhere near optimal.

I'm not the one claiming that they can, just that it's patiently false that those tyres would be competitive as you originally claimed, if you actually read what I said, I said the opposite.

The excuse that pirell could make dog shit slow tyres that lasted an entire race is just garbage. Their competitors would just make faster tyres, especially as a single stop is mandated by the two compound rule.

Your lack of understanding of how much the tyres are gamed by pirelli at the request of FIA to provide artificial cliffs for tyre life and video game style performance deltas between compounds when both are impossible irl is the problem here.

Again your lack of understanding that pirell has had some serious safety issues over multiple seasons makes a mockery of 2005 as an excuse for anybody but Michelin.

I'm not seeing how Michelins problems at one race would prevent this? It's not like Pirelli hasn't had multiple races with issues of exploding tyres or concerns about it happening. Sure, Michelin might still be shy but it wouldn't prevent another company if the deal was right.

People always talk about the Pirelli claim of tyres lasting all race, which misses the point on both what I want for the rule change and Pirells statement. Tyres for race cars are a balance between performance and lifespan.

Do you really think that Pirelli could make an all out tyre that could lap at a qualifying pace for an entire race? It's not a cost free benefit, the tyres they talk about are going to be slower. Besides we still have the two compound rule, so it's pointless for the to make them.

Tyres that last an entire race would be slower than ones that do not. With out tyre competition it's the same for everyone so who is more kind on tyres, such as a team with bags of performance in the bank, has a big advantage in the race. With competition between tyres you can claw back performance at the expense of laps per tyre lifespan.

The current quali tyres often cannot even do a full lap flat out, that is pathetic and down to policy not tyre limitations as the policy for false competition has gone too far. It has also made the tyres too hard to understand for all teams and made the cars too sensitive to conditions.

There is a significant scalp market for the limited release Porsche and other premium cars in the UK. Its not uncommon to double your money on some cars just for sitting in the queue for the car for 12 months or so from using a small deposit of say £5k.

Hard part is getting on the list to buy one, you need to be in good standing with the dealer from purchasing a lot of cars, which most scalpers are. You can then sell the place on the waiting list, or finance the car, run it for a short period if you want, then sell it for a big profit.

We already have a rule that mandates a single pit stop as they have to run two different compounds of tyres so you are not going to see zero pit stops unless it rains all race, and then only if they can make inters last an entire race, which is extremely unlikely.

Whole point is to scrap that stupid rule. Its a hold over when the cars had too big a performance gap between the top and bottom.

Reintroduce another tyre supplier on top of Pirelli forcing competition rather than the artificial throttling of tyre life we get now in order to make racing closer. I am sick of Pirelli being told what to do with tyres to introduce competition. Lets have the cars being able to max out the tyres for longer. Make it mandatory that the grid is evenly split between brands and not by PU.

It was bad during Michaels time with Bridgestone as Bridgestone only made tyres for Michael and Michael tested endlessly to provide data to improve the tyres (and rest of the car). Testing is limited now, although we will probably need a few testing days just for tyres over and above the current schedule.

Yeah the DF grinders are like that without theirs or water, the messy grinder in the video looks like a DF to me. I could not put up with it without RDT.

My sculptor has the knock ring that keeps the mess constrained really well, that is a proper magnet for chaff.

Interesting, would need some clever placement to target between the burrs. I will stick with water, much easier.

Leave it to James to get the author of the paper for his video.

Bit I hadn't picked up before is that Ionisers like on the df64 are in the wrong part of the workflow to reduce static in order to improve coffee uniformity as they are on the exit rather than before the chamber. Obviously they still reduce mess.

Its also a terrible way of reducing charging time for anything that doesn't have an enormous battery like an electric Lorry/Semi. Even then its like 30 minutes for 70% charge for the Tesla Semi, which is roughly the same as a mandated break anyway for the driver.

What is more useful is making sure all EV batteries are easily swappable by third parties as this will massively extend the lifespan of EVs if you do not need to go back to the main dealer for a much marked up battery replacement when the cars battery stops holding a useful amount of charge past the 10 year mark.

Whatever works for you.

I am too focused on getting the exact weight of grounds out to make my recipes exactly repeatable (and pretty much essential for espresso anyway), which is so much harder to do with the majority of affordable grinders, to even entertain using a hopper. Then the retention caused by not being able to use bellows and RDT shudders

I am only going through about a kilo of espresso and a touch less than that of pour over beans a month, so its not like I am high volume.

And that's a perfectly valid choice.

Beans and water quality >>>>> technique >>> grinder >>>>> espresso or pour over gear, for coffee quality anyway. You'll get most of the way there just getting the first two right

Personally an extra minute a day isn't going to kill me and I like tasty coffee. Modern home grinders are trending towards single dose anyway, so it becomes closer to the norm than hoppers that are better suited to commercial grinders due to the throughput of coffee beans they need.

https://youtu.be/LtwKO3jIAdk

That jump is crazy!