Dame Sarah Storey teaches safe passing; Cyclist's viral reply to Elon Musk claiming traffic cannot be defeated; Perfect pro racing photos; Two wheels good: Snake Pass still cyclists' paradise; Group riding (+Poll); Weekend action + more on the live blog

I think they're going for the 1970s Bond Villain vibe and, in fairness to them, absolutely nailing it.

Rich_cb wrote:

I think they're going for the 1970s Bond Villain vibe and, in fairness to them, absolutely nailing it.

.

.

How very 6th-form ish 3rd-form ish.

.

.

You're quite right, even a 3rd-former should know that. Which incidentally I did, even back when we didn't have all that crystal clear evidence how they're so comprehensively fucking up the planet.

marmotte27 wrote:

You're quite right, even a 3rd-former should know that. Which incidentally I did, even back when we didn't have all that crystal clear evidence how they're so comprehensively fucking up the planet.

Y'know, I don't think you can get better than G. K. Chesterton's riposte (or was it Ian McCaskill?):

Michael Fish wrote:

The problem with this country, sir, is me

So you just have to get everyone else to sign up to that idea, then get enough folks pointed in the same direction away from Mr. Musk's shiny toys and he's out of business!  Simples!

Having said that we're currently having a "natural experiment" where a state - Putin's government - takes on some multinationals as a part of his war (e.g. media platforms like Twitter / Facebook).  Let's see how that goes.

(I'm think we should all keep a wary eye on Mr. Musk. Given the size and financial / communicative power of large organisations there is likely to be tension between their power and the state.  It works both ways. China has got foreign multinationals to cooperate with it (warning - complex story) - so "it's too early to say" whether they could be a liberalising force - and in the UK large concerns have very successfully bent the government to their agenda).

Flintshire Boy wrote:

How very 6th-form ish 3rd-form ish.

You were home from school early today. Did you bunk off Maths again? Could have been English, judging by the standard of your posts.

marmotte27 wrote:

You've got to hand it to those capitalists, they're very good at what they do: exploiting human gullibility. First the make shitloads of money selling you stuff you didn't need. Then they make shitloads of money selling you the pretended solution to the problems created by the stuff you didn't need. And when time finally comes to clean up the whole mess, they'll profit shitloads from that too. Unless we stop them now.

It's not just gullibility that they're exploiting. Anywhere that there's people without lots of money, a business will pop up to make as much money out of them as possible (e.g. payday loans, electricity key meters, tv screens for hire). It's a sad state of affairs where we are now reliant on the whims of incredibly rich people to possibly stop parts of our planet from becoming inhospitable to people. All our governments seem to have been purchased and no longer work for us.

hawkinspeter wrote:

All our governments seem to have been purchased and no longer work for us.

The scary thing is that that comment is when we're being 'glass half full'...

You're familiar with this Twitter thing right ?

And where would most the worlds media content come from these days if they didnt...

Plus I'm fairly sure I've been stuck in traffic jams in Holland and Belgium, so theres that aspect too.

This is one of the biggest gripes I have with Musk. He's looking for ways of getting us off this planet and on to others, he's digging tunnels for his cars to hide in, inventing chips to be embedded in humans brains and yet, if he created a Tesla bike, they'd sell in their millions and he'd be cutting traffic levels.

He's too busy being clever instead of using his common sense and seeing that he can positively affect things NOW.

With the amount of brains at work in his companies I'm sure they could come up with something that actually does some good.

No one is in the "business" of doing good, in the business of making profit, on the other hand...

.

You have a job? You get a salary? (Or perhaps you do it for free).

.

How DARE you? Profiting personally from others.

.

Shocking!

.

Oh, you're quite as original as that other poster up there.

To be fair, I think that his rocketry business is quite a bit "greener" than anything that's gone before.  Methane powered engines rather than fossil fuels, stainless steel rather than lots of exotic materials, and boatloads of reusability - in an industry where most launch vehicles are single use, Musks company aims to fly both the first stage and now the second stage vehicles back to earth. Granted, space flight is a long way from being green, but SpaceX is as close to green as you get. 
 

Richard D wrote:

To be fair, I think that his rocketry business is quite a bit "greener" than anything that's gone before.  Methane powered engines rather than fossil fuels, stainless steel rather than lots of exotic materials, and boatloads of reusability - in an industry where most launch vehicles are single use, Musks company aims to fly both the first stage and now the second stage vehicles back to earth. Granted, space flight is a long way from being green, but SpaceX is as close to green as you get. 

Thought I'd look up the approximate CO2 figures for a launch (i.e. not including construction) and it's less than I thought - approximately equivalent to flying 341 people across the Atlantic: https://www.treehugger.com/spacex-launch-puts-out-much-co-flying-people-across-atlantic-4857958

Looks like private jets are far more of a problem than space launches.

I think helicopters are even worse, as they burn fuel to generate lift and forward motion, whereas with planes the lift comes from the forward motion.

Either way, the problem with private aircraft compared to space flights is their relative ubiquity, and Musk, Branson et all want to make space flight commonplace  which is only going to make things worse.

SimoninSpalding wrote:

I think helicopters are even worse, as they burn fuel to generate lift and forward motion, whereas with planes the lift comes from the forward motion.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with your logic - the lift isn't "free" with the forward motion; instead the wings will be creating drag at the same time as lift and therefore an aeroplane's engines will be working harder to provide the lift in addition to the forward motion. (A clear demonstration of this is the "Drag Reduction System" on F1 cars - tilt the wing so it's not creating so much (downwards) lift and you get more speed). 

That said, while the carbon emissions of helicopters seem to be less well studied than those of planes, the scant evidence I have found would seem to agree with the point overall (e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency_in_transport#Air_transpo... suggests 11.9 L of fuel per 100 passenger-km for a 12-person helicopter versus typically <5 L/100pkm for aircraft of various sizes).

Technically they both burn fuel to generate lift and forward motion - unless the helicopter is stationary in which case all the energy is going into lift.

But yes - helicopters are less efficient than planes (reasons being helicopters have compromises because the same structure has to provide lift and motive power and also can have lower lift-to-drag ratio).

Also yes - lots of our "problems" come about because a particular technology succeeds so well that it becomes commonplace. Luxuries becoming necessities and all that.

chrisonatrike wrote:

Technically they both burn fuel to generate lift and forward motion - unless the helicopter is stationary in which case all the energy is going into lift.

What about if the aeroplane is stationery?

mdavidford wrote:

chrisonatrike wrote:

Technically they both burn fuel to generate lift and forward motion - unless the helicopter is stationary in which case all the energy is going into lift.

What about if the aeroplane is stationery?

Creased me up!

hawkinspeter wrote:

Looks like private jets are far more of a problem than space launches.

Elon has one of them as well of course because video conferencing doesn't work and his time is worth more than your climate.