Safari snorkel Top - which way?

Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
some reason to do it.

(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
it's only fair to let it see where its going...)

In article <[email protected]>, 'T'
<[email protected]> writes
>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
>some reason to do it.
>
>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
>it's only fair to let it see where its going...)

Arguably you get less crud into the air filter with it facing backwards.
I can see it causing a low intake pressure at speed, but heck...

My one is a mushroom, but I'm tempted to put a baffle in to achieve the
same effect. I usually pick bits of straw out of the filter around
harvest time, so muck does evidently get drawn in as it is now.

Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY, BRISTOL www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, 'T'
> <[email protected]> writes
>>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
>>some reason to do it.
>>
>>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
>>it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>
> Arguably you get less crud into the air filter with it facing backwards.
> I can see it causing a low intake pressure at speed, but heck...
>
> My one is a mushroom, but I'm tempted to put a baffle in to achieve the
> same effect. I usually pick bits of straw out of the filter around
> harvest time, so muck does evidently get drawn in as it is now.
>
> Regards,
>
> Simonm.
>

The snorkel is primarily to get the air intake up above the dust when
operating in very dusty conditions. Assuming you have a diesel engine, the
airflow into it will be such that anything round it will get sucked in
regardless of the direction it is facing, so you might as well have it
facing forward where you will get a slight boost in manifold pressure at
speed rather than a slight reduction - help to make up for the friction
losses of the longer intake and increased aerodynamic drag.
JD

In article <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, 'T'
>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>>>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
>>>some reason to do it.
>>>
>>>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
>>>it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>>
>> Arguably you get less crud into the air filter with it facing backwards.
>> I can see it causing a low intake pressure at speed, but heck...
>>
>> My one is a mushroom, but I'm tempted to put a baffle in to achieve the
>> same effect. I usually pick bits of straw out of the filter around
>> harvest time, so muck does evidently get drawn in as it is now.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Simonm.
>>
>
>The snorkel is primarily to get the air intake up above the dust when
>operating in very dusty conditions. Assuming you have a diesel engine, the
>airflow into it will be such that anything round it will get sucked in
>regardless of the direction it is facing, so you might as well have it
>facing forward where you will get a slight boost in manifold pressure at
>speed rather than a slight reduction - help to make up for the friction
>losses of the longer intake and increased aerodynamic drag.

I take your point, especially about boosting the input pressure (and the
downtube isn't that wide - mine looks like a piece of rainwater
downpipe), but if something punctures the filter I think you may have a
bigger problem than low pressure.

Once a decent sized bit of rubbish gets into the pipe it'd be like doing
the Cresta run, and it will hit the filter with some speed. I'd have
thought the snorkel would be worse than an ordinary inlet for that,
partly because the length of pipe would encourage laminar flow and
partly because the smaller diameter would increase the velocity (for a
given volume).

Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.


Regards,

Simonm.

--
simonm|at|muircom|dot|demon|.|c|oh|dot|u|kay
SIMON MUIR, UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY, BRISTOL www.ukip.org
EUROPEANS AGAINST THE EU www.members.aol.com/eurofaq
GT250A'76 R80/RT'86 110CSW TD'88 www.kc3ltd.co.uk/profile/eurofollie/

Do some maths regarding the amount of air an engine gulps, and you'll soon
see that it matters not a jot - you can't ram it in quicker...

--
Neil

On or around Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:50:02 +0000 (UTC), "'T'" <[email protected]>
enlightened us thusly:

>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
>some reason to do it.
>
>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
>it's only fair to let it see where its going...)

pointing forwards you get a minor ram-air effect, but you also collect a lot
of dust, rain etc. as you go along. backwards makes that a bit less likely.
Also too much ram-air can upset gas systems on LPG vehicles.
--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:50:02 +0000 (UTC), "'T'" <[email protected]>
scribbled the following nonsense:

>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
>some reason to do it.
>
>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
>it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>
>
>
>

I tend to point it forwards for road use, mainly because on a long run
with the window open, SWMBO gets fed up of the intake noise which is
more pronounced when pointing backwards and towards the window.

Off road I point it backwards, I have seen people hit water too hard
and spalsh water up the windscreen and onto the roof. I figure that
If I do this, pointing backwards it will be less likely to swallow
water.
--

Simon Isaacs

Peterborough 4x4 Club Newsletter Editor and Webmaster
Green Lane Association (GLASS) Commercial Officer
101 Ambi, undsergoing camper conversion
Part owner of 1976 S3 LWT, Fully restored, ready for sale! Make me an offer!
Suzuki SJ410 (Wife's) 3" lift kit fitted, body shell now restored and mounted on chassis, waiting on a windscreen and MOT
Series 3 88" Rolling chassis...what to do next
1993 200 TDi Discovery
1994 200 TDi Discovery body sheel, being bobbed and modded.....
1979 Range Ruster body shell and chassis

SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:

> In article <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>>SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, 'T'
>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I
>>>>see
>>>>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must
>>>>be some reason to do it.
>>>>
>>>>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i
>>>>reckon it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>>>
>>> Arguably you get less crud into the air filter with it facing backwards.
>>> I can see it causing a low intake pressure at speed, but heck...
>>>
>>> My one is a mushroom, but I'm tempted to put a baffle in to achieve the
>>> same effect. I usually pick bits of straw out of the filter around
>>> harvest time, so muck does evidently get drawn in as it is now.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Simonm.
>>>
>>
>>The snorkel is primarily to get the air intake up above the dust when
>>operating in very dusty conditions. Assuming you have a diesel engine, the
>>airflow into it will be such that anything round it will get sucked in
>>regardless of the direction it is facing, so you might as well have it
>>facing forward where you will get a slight boost in manifold pressure at
>>speed rather than a slight reduction - help to make up for the friction
>>losses of the longer intake and increased aerodynamic drag.
>
> I take your point, especially about boosting the input pressure (and the
> downtube isn't that wide - mine looks like a piece of rainwater
> downpipe), but if something punctures the filter I think you may have a
> bigger problem than low pressure.
>
> Once a decent sized bit of rubbish gets into the pipe it'd be like doing
> the Cresta run, and it will hit the filter with some speed. I'd have
> thought the snorkel would be worse than an ordinary inlet for that,
> partly because the length of pipe would encourage laminar flow and
> partly because the smaller diameter would increase the velocity (for a
> given volume).
>
> Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
> airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Simonm.
>

The aircleaner is designed so as not to be likely to be damaged by this sort
of thing. Actually airflow through the snorkel is likely to be pretty
turbulent, although the velocity will, as you say, be pretty high.
The pressure loss due to the snorkel will, in fact be greater than any
possible gain from facing forward, pointing out that unless you operate in
a very dusty area, or engage in deep wading (and for this a snorkel is only
one of the required items), there is no reason for using a snorkel. As a
fashion accessory they are relatively harmless, but will result in a very
minor loss of power.
JD

so JD was, like...
> > The pressure loss due to the snorkel will, in fact be greater than any
> possible gain from facing forward, pointing out that unless you
> operate in a very dusty area, or engage in deep wading (and for this
> a snorkel is only one of the required items), there is no reason for
> using a snorkel. As a fashion accessory they are relatively harmless,
> but will result in a very minor loss of power.
> JD

ISTR a post from Pantelis a while back that said he had noticed a
considerable improvement in performance with a snorkel fitted. Pantelis?
You there?

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

"SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
> airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.

What about a spinning stainless steel top as you see on the stacks of entral
heating boilers. Should set up a nice cyclonic effect too for increased
performance.

;0)

Lee D

Hi,
as a long term user of the snorkel I leave the ram head facing
forward to get as much cool air as possible.

When fitted correctly, there are small gaps (4 from memory) around the
lower edge where the head fits the snorkel, and these allow any water
that gets "blown" in to exit on the outside.

How many trucks do you see that make their swan going backwards? With
fuel costs being what they are, they all face forward to get the
maximum benefit from the ram head.

Some people also face the opening towards the windscreen and say this
gives them the cool air but with less debris, flying insects etc

In convoy work, or extreme dusty work, then we decapitate the swan's
head, and put on the mushroom (cyclonic precleaner). These are
amazingly efficient but you do hear the turbo a lot more.

I guess if Peter, Safari designer and manufacturer, had wanted the ram
head to face backwards then I'm sure he would have put the Safari name
in a different location, and given his experience with turbos and
snorkels I'm happy to trust his judgement on this one.


Cheers

Phillip
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 08:50:02 +0000 (UTC), "'T'" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must be
>some reason to do it.
>
>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i reckon
>it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>
>
>
>

On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 22:30:46 +0100, "Lee_D"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>"SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
>> airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.
>
>What about a spinning stainless steel top as you see on the stacks of entral
>heating boilers. Should set up a nice cyclonic effect too for increased
>performance.

You could rig up some kind of turbo driven by the airflow as you drove
along

Rich Hi,

this is true and it has also been noticed by other owners of Camel Trophy
evented vehicles fitted with Mantec snorkels and using 200 and 300 Tdi
engines.

Take care
Pantelis

"Richard Brookman" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> so JD was, like...
> > > The pressure loss due to the snorkel will, in fact be greater than any
> > possible gain from facing forward, pointing out that unless you
> > operate in a very dusty area, or engage in deep wading (and for this
> > a snorkel is only one of the required items), there is no reason for
> > using a snorkel. As a fashion accessory they are relatively harmless,
> > but will result in a very minor loss of power.
> > JD
>
> ISTR a post from Pantelis a while back that said he had noticed a
> considerable improvement in performance with a snorkel fitted. Pantelis?
> You there?
>
> --
> Rich
> ==============================
> Disco 300 Tdi auto
> S2a 88" SW
> Tiggrr (V8 trialler)
>
>

On or around Mon, 12 Sep 2005 15:12:31 +0000 (UTC), "Neil Brownlee"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>Do some maths regarding the amount of air an engine gulps, and you'll soon
>see that it matters not a jot - you can't ram it in quicker...

I did that, once.[2] concluded that the size of blower you need is
considerable, to make any useful contribution. Probably do better to
arrange an oxygen feed... but then you need an awful lot of oxygen too.

however, ram-air does work - if you take a pipe with cross-section n sq.in.
and attach a funnel 2n sq.in. in diameter to the front of it, then travel
through the air, the pressure in the pipe increases, even though the engine
is sucking air out of the other end of the pipe. Increased pressure "for
free" [1] increases the O2 content, making it possible to burn more fuel.

's only relevant at significant forward speeds, though.

Too-small a blower doesn't have the same effect: it absorbs power in the
first place, and then if the airflow exceeds what the blower is capable of
generating, it actually creates a restriction in the inlet instead. A
small-ish blower could be useful at low revs, provided you have a means of
diverting inlet air around it at higher revs.


[1] TANSTAFFL - in this case, more drag from moving the vehicle through the
air.

[2] consider a 2.5 litre engine, of 4-stroke design. every revolution, the
engine sweeps a volume of 1.25l, thus for every revolution, 1.25l of air is
sucked into the engine. depending on conditions, this air may or may not be
at normal pressure. If the engine is now running at 2500 rpm, then every
minute, 2500*1.25 = 3125l/m of air goes through it. If you prefer cfm,
well, 1 cu.ft. is about 28 litres (28.32 to 2dp) so that's 110-odd cfm.

which is a lot. now consider the average inlet tube, which is about 6cm
diameter. CSA of that is 9*pi or a bit over 28, (conincdentally almost the
same as the cfm above...), so 1l of air occupies about 35cm of such a tube,
so if you're looking for 3125l/m than that's going to be 3125*35 cm/min =
111607. *60 for cm/hr, [6696428] but that's silly, so divide it by 100,000
you get 66.9 km/h.

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"Brevis esse laboro, Obscurus fio" (it is when I struggle to be
brief that I become obscure) Horace (65 - 8 BC) Ars Poetica, 25

On a similar vein I have a mantec snorkel with a cyclonic top but have been
thinking about getting the Safari 'ram' type head instead. Does anyone know
where I could get one of these that fits the mantec snorkel?

Thanks

Tony.



"Lee_D" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "SpamTrapSeeSig" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
>> airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.
>
> What about a spinning stainless steel top as you see on the stacks of
> entral heating boilers. Should set up a nice cyclonic effect too for
> increased performance.
>
> ;0)
>
> Lee D
>

We have a 'top hat' or whatever its called top on our V8 90. The engine is
mildly tuned and produces approx 200bhp. When we had on the rolling road
with the snorkel connected it reduced engine output by approx 40bhp. So now
what I do is for normal day use I stick with the K&N's and for off road I
connect up the snorkel.
Richard



"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>
>> In article <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]> writes
>>>SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <[email protected]>, 'T'
>>>> <[email protected]> writes
>>>>>Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I
>>>>>see
>>>>>some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why? Must
>>>>>be some reason to do it.
>>>>>
>>>>>(if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing, i
>>>>>reckon it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>>>>
>>>> Arguably you get less crud into the air filter with it facing
>>>> backwards.
>>>> I can see it causing a low intake pressure at speed, but heck...
>>>>
>>>> My one is a mushroom, but I'm tempted to put a baffle in to achieve the
>>>> same effect. I usually pick bits of straw out of the filter around
>>>> harvest time, so muck does evidently get drawn in as it is now.
>>>>
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Simonm.
>>>>
>>>
>>>The snorkel is primarily to get the air intake up above the dust when
>>>operating in very dusty conditions. Assuming you have a diesel engine,
>>>the
>>>airflow into it will be such that anything round it will get sucked in
>>>regardless of the direction it is facing, so you might as well have it
>>>facing forward where you will get a slight boost in manifold pressure at
>>>speed rather than a slight reduction - help to make up for the friction
>>>losses of the longer intake and increased aerodynamic drag.
>>
>> I take your point, especially about boosting the input pressure (and the
>> downtube isn't that wide - mine looks like a piece of rainwater
>> downpipe), but if something punctures the filter I think you may have a
>> bigger problem than low pressure.
>>
>> Once a decent sized bit of rubbish gets into the pipe it'd be like doing
>> the Cresta run, and it will hit the filter with some speed. I'd have
>> thought the snorkel would be worse than an ordinary inlet for that,
>> partly because the length of pipe would encourage laminar flow and
>> partly because the smaller diameter would increase the velocity (for a
>> given volume).
>>
>> Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
>> airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Simonm.
>>
>
> The aircleaner is designed so as not to be likely to be damaged by this
> sort
> of thing. Actually airflow through the snorkel is likely to be pretty
> turbulent, although the velocity will, as you say, be pretty high.
> The pressure loss due to the snorkel will, in fact be greater than any
> possible gain from facing forward, pointing out that unless you operate in
> a very dusty area, or engage in deep wading (and for this a snorkel is
> only
> one of the required items), there is no reason for using a snorkel. As a
> fashion accessory they are relatively harmless, but will result in a very
> minor loss of power.
> JD

Richard wrote:
> We have a 'top hat' or whatever its called top on our V8 90. The
> engine is mildly tuned and produces approx 200bhp. When we had on the
> rolling road with the snorkel connected it reduced engine output by
> approx 40bhp. So now what I do is for normal day use I stick with the
> K&N's and for off road I connect up the snorkel.
> Richard
>
>
>
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>>
>>> In article <[email protected]>, JD <[email protected]>
>>> writes
>>>> SpamTrapSeeSig wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <[email protected]>,
>>>>> 'T' <[email protected]> writes
>>>>>> Just got a safari snorkel. Fitted wuth the top facing forward. But I see
>>>>>> some people with them fitted with the top facing backwards. Why?
>>>>>> Must be some reason to do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> (if you are going to clamp a black swan to your Land Rover wing,
>>>>>> i reckon it's only fair to let it see where its going...)
>>>>>
>>>>> Arguably you get less crud into the air filter with it facing
>>>>> backwards.
>>>>> I can see it causing a low intake pressure at speed, but heck...
>>>>>
>>>>> My one is a mushroom, but I'm tempted to put a baffle in to
>>>>> achieve the same effect. I usually pick bits of straw out of the
>>>>> filter around harvest time, so muck does evidently get drawn in
>>>>> as it is now. Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Simonm.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The snorkel is primarily to get the air intake up above the dust
>>>> when operating in very dusty conditions. Assuming you have a
>>>> diesel engine, the
>>>> airflow into it will be such that anything round it will get
>>>> sucked in regardless of the direction it is facing, so you might
>>>> as well have it facing forward where you will get a slight boost
>>>> in manifold pressure at speed rather than a slight reduction -
>>>> help to make up for the friction losses of the longer intake and
>>>> increased aerodynamic drag.
>>>
>>> I take your point, especially about boosting the input pressure
>>> (and the downtube isn't that wide - mine looks like a piece of
>>> rainwater downpipe), but if something punctures the filter I think
>>> you may have a bigger problem than low pressure.
>>>
>>> Once a decent sized bit of rubbish gets into the pipe it'd be like
>>> doing the Cresta run, and it will hit the filter with some speed.
>>> I'd have thought the snorkel would be worse than an ordinary inlet
>>> for that, partly because the length of pipe would encourage laminar
>>> flow and partly because the smaller diameter would increase the
>>> velocity (for a given volume).
>>>
>>> Having said that though, I don't recall dozens of failures through
>>> airborne rubbish getting into the turbo, so perhaps it's moot.
>>>
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Simonm.
>>>
>>
>> The aircleaner is designed so as not to be likely to be damaged by
>> this sort
>> of thing. Actually airflow through the snorkel is likely to be pretty
>> turbulent, although the velocity will, as you say, be pretty high.
>> The pressure loss due to the snorkel will, in fact be greater than
>> any possible gain from facing forward, pointing out that unless you
>> operate in a very dusty area, or engage in deep wading (and for this
>> a snorkel is only
>> one of the required items), there is no reason for using a snorkel.
>> As a fashion accessory they are relatively harmless, but will result
>> in a very minor loss of power.
>> JD

I have just re-posted your post to show you what a ****ing mess it looks, it is IMPOSSIBLE to follow,
will you please stop top posting ffs.

--
Subaru WRX (Annabel)

Landrover 110 County Station Wagon (Tyson)

'"Say hello to my little friend"

so Austin Shackles was, like...

> [2] consider a 2.5 litre engine, of 4-stroke design. every
> revolution, the engine sweeps a volume of 1.25l, thus for every
> revolution, 1.25l of air is sucked into the engine. depending on
> conditions, this air may or may not be at normal pressure. If the
> engine is now running at 2500 rpm, then every minute, 2500*1.25 =
> 3125l/m of air goes through it. If you prefer cfm, well, 1 cu.ft. is
> about 28 litres (28.32 to 2dp) so that's 110-odd cfm.
>
> which is a lot. now consider the average inlet tube, which is about
> 6cm diameter. CSA of that is 9*pi or a bit over 28, (conincdentally
> almost the same as the cfm above...), so 1l of air occupies about
> 35cm of such a tube, so if you're looking for 3125l/m than that's
> going to be 3125*35 cm/min = 111607. *60 for cm/hr, [6696428] but
> that's silly, so divide it by 100,000 you get 66.9 km/h.

Wow. I'm off to bed after reading that.

--
Rich
==============================
Disco 300 Tdi auto
S2a 88" SW
Tiggrr (V8 trialler)

On or around Tue, 13 Sep 2005 22:15:07 +0100, "Richard Brookman"
<[email protected]> enlightened us thusly:

>so Austin Shackles was, like...
>
>> [2] consider a 2.5 litre engine, of 4-stroke design. every
>> revolution, the engine sweeps a volume of 1.25l, thus for every
>> revolution, 1.25l of air is sucked into the engine. depending on
>> conditions, this air may or may not be at normal pressure. If the
>> engine is now running at 2500 rpm, then every minute, 2500*1.25 =
>> 3125l/m of air goes through it. If you prefer cfm, well, 1 cu.ft. is
>> about 28 litres (28.32 to 2dp) so that's 110-odd cfm.
>>
>> which is a lot. now consider the average inlet tube, which is about
>> 6cm diameter. CSA of that is 9*pi or a bit over 28, (conincdentally
>> almost the same as the cfm above...), so 1l of air occupies about
>> 35cm of such a tube, so if you're looking for 3125l/m than that's
>> going to be 3125*35 cm/min = 111607. *60 for cm/hr, [6696428] but
>> that's silly, so divide it by 100,000 you get 66.9 km/h.
>
>Wow. I'm off to bed after reading that.

hehe. 's not a problem to me, doing that sort of thing. I used to do it in
me head while travlleing on slow roads.

one day I'll reprise the thing about why, in a queue of traffic separated by
1-second intervals, the 8th and 9th cars (IIRC) inevitably collide in the
event of the one in front stopping... cue cross-thread...

--
Austin Shackles. www.ddol-las.net my opinions are just that
"There is plenty of time to win this game, and to thrash the Spaniards
too" Sir Francis Drake (1540? - 1596) Attr. saying when the Armarda was
sighted, 20th July 1588

"Austin Shackles" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> one day I'll reprise the thing about why, in a queue of traffic separated
> by
> 1-second intervals, the 8th and 9th cars (IIRC) inevitably collide in the
> event of the one in front stopping... cue cross-thread...

Depends who's at the front! ;o)

Lee D