[ucodegen]

Three comments on the LED traffic lights.
1) They use a small fraction of the energy that the normal ones do. Portland OR. replaced theirs, payback on cost was under 3 years. There are some energy ‘rebates’ tied to replacing the incandescent traffic lights with LED – don’t know the specifics on it. The reduction in energy costs ends up being a ‘recurring savings’ with a payout of about 33% on cost after the 3 year period due to energy savings alone.
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=111737
2) The LED lights last a lot longer than the incandescent (claimed 3x as long – they must be stressing the LEDs, because it should be longer. I hope they are using a heat sink in the mounting for the LEDs). This cuts the yearly maintenance cost in a third.
3) Not all LED traffic light lamps are made in the US.

Eyeballing the costs. 4 way intersection, 2 assemblies per direction – 3 lamps each : 24 bulb assemblies – approx $100/per lamp = $2,400 in material. The $5000/per may be high, but it is near the ballpark. It could be the ‘fat lazy union-workers’ ;-P who pad up the bill with slow bulb changes – though I see that labor costs are taken out of the $5000/intersection.

[ucodegen]

Three comments on the LED traffic lights.
1) They use a small fraction of the energy that the normal ones do. Portland OR. replaced theirs, payback on cost was under 3 years. There are some energy ‘rebates’ tied to replacing the incandescent traffic lights with LED – don’t know the specifics on it. The reduction in energy costs ends up being a ‘recurring savings’ with a payout of about 33% on cost after the 3 year period due to energy savings alone.
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=111737
2) The LED lights last a lot longer than the incandescent (claimed 3x as long – they must be stressing the LEDs, because it should be longer. I hope they are using a heat sink in the mounting for the LEDs). This cuts the yearly maintenance cost in a third.
3) Not all LED traffic light lamps are made in the US.

Eyeballing the costs. 4 way intersection, 2 assemblies per direction – 3 lamps each : 24 bulb assemblies – approx $100/per lamp = $2,400 in material. The $5000/per may be high, but it is near the ballpark. It could be the ‘fat lazy union-workers’ ;-P who pad up the bill with slow bulb changes – though I see that labor costs are taken out of the $5000/intersection.

[ucodegen]

Three comments on the LED traffic lights.
1) They use a small fraction of the energy that the normal ones do. Portland OR. replaced theirs, payback on cost was under 3 years. There are some energy ‘rebates’ tied to replacing the incandescent traffic lights with LED – don’t know the specifics on it. The reduction in energy costs ends up being a ‘recurring savings’ with a payout of about 33% on cost after the 3 year period due to energy savings alone.
http://www.portlandonline.com/shared/cfm/image.cfm?id=111737
2) The LED lights last a lot longer than the incandescent (claimed 3x as long – they must be stressing the LEDs, because it should be longer. I hope they are using a heat sink in the mounting for the LEDs). This cuts the yearly maintenance cost in a third.
3) Not all LED traffic light lamps are made in the US.

Eyeballing the costs. 4 way intersection, 2 assemblies per direction – 3 lamps each : 24 bulb assemblies – approx $100/per lamp = $2,400 in material. The $5000/per may be high, but it is near the ballpark. It could be the ‘fat lazy union-workers’ ;-P who pad up the bill with slow bulb changes – though I see that labor costs are taken out of the $5000/intersection.

[ucodegen]

One of the problems of going from an ‘image’ to a PDF, is that the file generally gets larger. PDFs store images as compressed rasters. PDFs then have to ‘wrap’ the image with the PDF encapsulation. As a result, PDFs do not make the image smaller– but do make it more portable. The exception to the PDFs make it bigger, is when the image that is generated by your software is not compressed (applies to some TIFF and BMP generators – though some may do a RLE type compression).

JPGs are compressed by ‘definition’. A PDF of a JPG is always going to be bigger.

As ‘flu’ noted, pay attention to what resolution you need and how much detail in the color. Some scanners will allow you to generate a ‘fax’ format (1 bit per pixel with primitive RLE-Run Length Encoding). This will tend to be the smallest, and is useful for sending documents – but not images. Another format to consider is also PNG.

Another way to create ‘PDFs’ is to use PDFCreator, which is a printer driver that looks like a printer but creates PDFs instead of printing.

[ucodegen]

One of the problems of going from an ‘image’ to a PDF, is that the file generally gets larger. PDFs store images as compressed rasters. PDFs then have to ‘wrap’ the image with the PDF encapsulation. As a result, PDFs do not make the image smaller– but do make it more portable. The exception to the PDFs make it bigger, is when the image that is generated by your software is not compressed (applies to some TIFF and BMP generators – though some may do a RLE type compression).

JPGs are compressed by ‘definition’. A PDF of a JPG is always going to be bigger.

As ‘flu’ noted, pay attention to what resolution you need and how much detail in the color. Some scanners will allow you to generate a ‘fax’ format (1 bit per pixel with primitive RLE-Run Length Encoding). This will tend to be the smallest, and is useful for sending documents – but not images. Another format to consider is also PNG.

Another way to create ‘PDFs’ is to use PDFCreator, which is a printer driver that looks like a printer but creates PDFs instead of printing.

[ucodegen]

One of the problems of going from an ‘image’ to a PDF, is that the file generally gets larger. PDFs store images as compressed rasters. PDFs then have to ‘wrap’ the image with the PDF encapsulation. As a result, PDFs do not make the image smaller– but do make it more portable. The exception to the PDFs make it bigger, is when the image that is generated by your software is not compressed (applies to some TIFF and BMP generators – though some may do a RLE type compression).

JPGs are compressed by ‘definition’. A PDF of a JPG is always going to be bigger.

As ‘flu’ noted, pay attention to what resolution you need and how much detail in the color. Some scanners will allow you to generate a ‘fax’ format (1 bit per pixel with primitive RLE-Run Length Encoding). This will tend to be the smallest, and is useful for sending documents – but not images. Another format to consider is also PNG.

Another way to create ‘PDFs’ is to use PDFCreator, which is a printer driver that looks like a printer but creates PDFs instead of printing.

[ucodegen]

One of the problems of going from an ‘image’ to a PDF, is that the file generally gets larger. PDFs store images as compressed rasters. PDFs then have to ‘wrap’ the image with the PDF encapsulation. As a result, PDFs do not make the image smaller– but do make it more portable. The exception to the PDFs make it bigger, is when the image that is generated by your software is not compressed (applies to some TIFF and BMP generators – though some may do a RLE type compression).

JPGs are compressed by ‘definition’. A PDF of a JPG is always going to be bigger.

As ‘flu’ noted, pay attention to what resolution you need and how much detail in the color. Some scanners will allow you to generate a ‘fax’ format (1 bit per pixel with primitive RLE-Run Length Encoding). This will tend to be the smallest, and is useful for sending documents – but not images. Another format to consider is also PNG.

Another way to create ‘PDFs’ is to use PDFCreator, which is a printer driver that looks like a printer but creates PDFs instead of printing.

[ucodegen]

One of the problems of going from an ‘image’ to a PDF, is that the file generally gets larger. PDFs store images as compressed rasters. PDFs then have to ‘wrap’ the image with the PDF encapsulation. As a result, PDFs do not make the image smaller– but do make it more portable. The exception to the PDFs make it bigger, is when the image that is generated by your software is not compressed (applies to some TIFF and BMP generators – though some may do a RLE type compression).

JPGs are compressed by ‘definition’. A PDF of a JPG is always going to be bigger.

As ‘flu’ noted, pay attention to what resolution you need and how much detail in the color. Some scanners will allow you to generate a ‘fax’ format (1 bit per pixel with primitive RLE-Run Length Encoding). This will tend to be the smallest, and is useful for sending documents – but not images. Another format to consider is also PNG.

Another way to create ‘PDFs’ is to use PDFCreator, which is a printer driver that looks like a printer but creates PDFs instead of printing.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
More straight to the point, fake buyers, fake neighbors, staged houses, have all been tried before to separate buyers from their money.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/01/pm_new_staging/
[/quote]

Did you look at the date of the post that the link goes to?.. April 1st.

Look at some of the comments.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
More straight to the point, fake buyers, fake neighbors, staged houses, have all been tried before to separate buyers from their money.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/01/pm_new_staging/
[/quote]

Did you look at the date of the post that the link goes to?.. April 1st.

Look at some of the comments.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
More straight to the point, fake buyers, fake neighbors, staged houses, have all been tried before to separate buyers from their money.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/01/pm_new_staging/
[/quote]

Did you look at the date of the post that the link goes to?.. April 1st.

Look at some of the comments.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
More straight to the point, fake buyers, fake neighbors, staged houses, have all been tried before to separate buyers from their money.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/01/pm_new_staging/
[/quote]

Did you look at the date of the post that the link goes to?.. April 1st.

Look at some of the comments.

[ucodegen]

[quote briansd1]
More straight to the point, fake buyers, fake neighbors, staged houses, have all been tried before to separate buyers from their money.

http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2009/04/01/pm_new_staging/
[/quote]

Did you look at the date of the post that the link goes to?.. April 1st.

Look at some of the comments.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[ucodegen]

[quote Werewolf]
I don’t think the Expedition example works b/c Expeditions aren’t driven the same way as the Mustangs are (I hope). Also aren’t Expeditions built on F150 frames? I think the F150 is built ‘Ford tough’ while a Ford car may not be
[/quote]

I would have to disagree here. I allowed for ‘abuse’ in driving behavior on Mustangs(clutch drops -etc) by referencing where Ford has placed independent rear suspension on a heavier vehicle. Heavier vehicles generate more stress on a driveline. Between street-hot-rodders and off-roaders, offroaders break more driveline components.. and Expeditions come in 4×4 variants.
The Expedition is a frame based, but it is not the F150.. That would be the Excursion which is F150. The Expedition derives from the F150 frame.

Also remember that the Thunderbirds from late 1980s to mid 1990s were also independent rear suspension. It can be done on a monocoque chassis – which the Mustang is, but the Expedition is not.

[quote Werewolf]
The Camaro is not a fair example b/c it’s a redeveloped product that was previously uncompetitive.
[/quote]
The Mustang was also redeveloped in 2005 – at which point they had a chance to add it. It is really not that hard to add it to the existing platform as well. There is enough room to take from under the back seats for most of the components.

[quote Werewolf]
Ford money guys focused on other things (Volvo, Jag, other brands) and other markets.
[/quote]
Jag is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2008). While owned by Ford, Ford could have blended some aspects of the Jag S body and the Mustang. They are about the same size. It turns out that originally the Mustang was to use the S type platform (known as DEW98) when the redesign occurred for 2005, but the plan was dropped. The DEW98 platform is 4 wheel independent double wishbone vs the D2C(which the Mustang currently uses) is a MacPherson front, 3 link live axle rear. Even though the DEW98 platform was dropped, significant portions were brought over to the D2C platform (which begs the question why not the independent rear suspension)
Volvo is no longer owned by Ford either (sold 2010)
Auston Martin is no longer owned by Ford (sold 2007)

[quote Werewolf]
Regarding the driveline stress, are you considering the aspect of sudden change / stress? I.E. is a stoplight clutchdrop start the same as pushing 2-3 tons of SUV or towing a boat?
[/quote]
Yes.. Pulling the boat can actually be worse, particularly if the vehicle has 4 wheel drive. Most 4 wheel drive systems have a ‘low’ gear in the transfer case that more than doubles the torque while halving the speed. The Expeditions crawl ratio is about 41:1. With an engine producing 365lb-ft of torque, the axle torque comes in at 14,965ft-lbs, which if applied to a mustang with perfect traction and weighing about 4,000lbs – would accelerate the Mustang at almost 4Gs – until you redline. The reality of it is that very few tires can support 1G before losing traction.

[quote Werewolf]
I would love the Stang to have IRS but a combination of tradition and pennypinching will block it
[/quote]
I think it is mostly the latter. Too many people still buy on style only.

[Author]

Posts