Toutouxc

That’s surprising, because in my opinion Google doesn’t care about malicious anything. The other day I had to look for something on YouTube on my dad’s computer with a disabled ad-blocker. I saw like 30 ads in 15 minutes, every single one of them was a scam, literally not a single non-fraudulent ad. Google is full cartoon villain evil at this point.

It’s true that my first thought, as someone with actual diagnosed ADHD, was “how the hell is this related to ADHD?”.

Are people that much larger in the US? I’d happily raise three European-sized kids in the 130 sqm bachelor pad.

> the original LAN house was not very big: 1400 sqft. This made for a pretty awesome bachelor pad, but would have been a bit cramped for raising a family.

That’s 130 m^2. A fucking bachelor pad.

Infuriating, yes, but apparently getting shot for no reason is also quite popular. This sounds like the better deal.

Sadly, I don’t keep older conversations. Also now that you’ve asked, I expect Claude to be absolutely stellar for the next few weeks :D

The electric plane isn’t a 737, the fuselage looks quite slender.

> You are saying that they took off with a normal amount of power for a plane that size, then cruised around using an amount of power (45kw) that wouldn’t keep a two person plane 1/20th the weight airborne.

No, I’m not saying anything about 45 kW, you’re, again mistaking kW for kWh.

> Citing drag from a Tesla is kind of irrelevant because the whole way an airplane works is by creating lift via drag.

That’s already included in the drag coefficient that I quoted, and I know what induced drag is. Airliners are incredibly slippery because of their shape, a Skyhawk (or any other small GA plane) is a brick compared to that.

I’m not arguing about the $5 figure, it might as well be $20, I don’t know where they buy their electricity, but it’s still a very low number compared to anything burning Jet-A or avgas, and it’s absolutely a “low hundreds of kilowatt hours” number.

I have no idea what point you’re trying to make or how is my vacation “the key here”. I’m visiting a regular Czech town that just happens to be almost exactly 125 miles from another regular Czech town (the one where my parents live), and I used those two particular towns as an example of how 125 miles can be a pretty big deal in Europe (or really anywhere in the world that’s not the US).

I live in Czechia, in Europe, a first-world country with dense population and a very normal road network. I am now on vacation, and I’m exactly 205 km as the crow flies from where my parents live. If I wanted to drive to them right now, it would be a 309 km trip estimated to take 3.5 hours or, avoiding highways, a 252 km trip, over 4 hours.

I don’t care about the rest of your post, I just want you to understand that a completely straight highway through some corn fields isn’t how the rest of the planet drives.

Sorry, but you’re still weirdly switching from power (kilowatts) to energy (kilowatt hours). The electric plane could easily pull 1.5 megawatts for two minutes (on takeoff) and consume 50 kWh of energy, then spend the next 45 kWh cruising around and descend on the rest. (Or similar numbers, of course.)

That’s why I approximated the fuselage as two EVS (the frontal area) and I only looked up the drag coefficient of a 737 because it’s a well-known narrow-body airliner.

I don’t know what speeds they flew, but AFAIK most maiden flights are very tame. My point stands, low hundreds of kilowatthours of energy seems like the right ballpark.

I am, but it doesn’t take a genius to know that 125 miles as the crow flies is “less than 2 hours of driving” between like 6 specific pairs of destinations in the whole world.

I still don’t see what the problem is. The entire flight was likely just a few patterns and your earlier figure of 100 kWh (let’s assume they get their electricity for cheap) is already a serious amount of energy. It takes 100 kWh of energy to lift a 10.4ton object by about 3.2 km, so we’re obviously in the same ballpark for the maiden flight, and the rest is just drag. For drag, I’ll approximate the plane fuselage as two EVs that I drive. A 737 has a lower drag coefficient than my car, but a plane also has wings, so let’s say that evens out. Out of that 100 kWh, we probably only needed like a half for pure altitude, so we have 50 kWh for drag. An EV can sustain 200 km/h with about 60 kW of power, so let’s say 120 kW for the plane, and the flight was less than half an hour. Also, the plane got to convert all the potential energy back to kinetic energy on descent, so that was “free”.

Again, I believe that the napkin math checks out.

Even Ryanair turnarounds take like 30 minutes. A bit more than that and you can charge the plane comfortably. Fueling bigger planes is quite the ceremony.

Somewhat quieter, but not by much. We’re talking about prop planes here, where the prop is the noisy part.

As a rule of thumb, when you find yourself looking at an existing internal combustion vehicle and converting fossil fuel energies and efficiencies using battery gravimetric densities, you’re almost always at the “garbage in” stage of GIGO.

This plane isn’t a 737, it isn’t even a jet, it doesn’t run the motors the same way, the flight profiles are all different.

> 125 miles … That’s less than two hours of driving.

I don’t know where you live or what you drive, but I just punched in a destination 200 km away as the crow flies, the Alps are in the way and I’m looking at five hours of driving.

Also, water.

> Aircraft fly with a buffer of fuel though to avoid such situations, so why can't an electric aircraft fly with a similar buffer on it's range?

Because the required buffer is HUGE and we’re at a point where electric planes barely have enough energy for the actual route. So they’re doing the sensible thing here, flying the actual route electrically and falling back to combustion if the plane needs to divert.

> I am reasonably confident that there's essentially nothing that I am better than Fable at despite generally being substantively above average on human benchmarks

I genuinely don’t understand how an adult can say this with a straight face. I can take any single of my hobbies, start a mildly advanced conversation with Fable about the hobby and, within 5-10 turns, get it to contradict itself about something fundamental, lie or give bad or dangerous advice.

Roughly the usable lifetime? Based on what?

My experience is that if there’s water and mud on the ground, a fender doesn’t help much. Especially on a higher travel mountain bike (I ride 150mm of travel front and back) where you can’t get it close enough to the tire. After a while it turns into a gunked up rattling sagging mess. I’ve tried a few and ultimately stopped trying, even on an XC bike. I don’t meet people using them either.

Personally I’m not doing any downhill riding with the motor in my backpack. Or really anything hard with sharp edges. I like having a working spine.

Either it’s unsprung mass or a liability, and, well, actual e-bikes have converged on BB motors for a number of reasons.

“Cheap” meaning low-end, not actually cheap for people to buy with their salaries. Bikes are, unfortunately, surprisingly expensive nowadays, and the market isn’t doing great.

You’re probably right, I’d trust a cheap Decathlon bike not to be unsafe. But they’re really exceptional in this regard, most non-Decathlon gear at cheapest-Decathlon prices is trash.

I’m pretty sure I’d have preferred a poorly controlled motor over staring at my dad’s ass at 9 years old. Luckily we didn’t have either, we used a dog leash for towing.

Note that this is the most common and cheap approach: a hub motor, battery, controller, Hall-effect cadence sensor. There are renowned Chinese companies that sell those and you can find great deals if you shop around.

Power, not speed. Exactly because these kinds of kits don’t have a way to measure your power (effort), they need an external way to tell them how much you want them to be helping. So there are power levels (often 5) that change the power curve of the motor when it’s helping, usually helping more at lower speeds (likely uphill) and then fading out at higher speeds.

> severe movement in the frame that bring the rear wheel closer to the saddle might be problematic, even without full suspension

Sorry but what? The only alternative to a FS frame is a hardtail. Where “hard” means that the rear wheel doesn’t move relative to the saddle. Your road bike is a hardtail.

If the rear wheel moves relative to the saddle, it’s full suspension (full meaning front and back)

That’s interesting. Our winters are often wet and annoying. You don’t see many roadies out there before at least February. To be honest, I don’t think I’ve ever seen a proper road bike with mudguards in the wild.