I recently came across "18 Amazing Stories About Scotland! – The Not Always Right World Tour!". It's definitely giggle-worthy. Fun and enjoyable reading.
While browsing around the site, I also came across a series titled "Never Pick A Fight With An Old Scottish Woman":
Click over there and enjoy them. Not always safe for work, but mildly so.
Peter
We've all seen the reports that vehicle insurance premiums are rising rapidly (I've seen numbers like a 20%+ increase in one year bandied about). An anonymous car dealer, posting on Twitter, explains.
We are in the midst of a "total loss" epidemic.
More than *20%* of vehicles are now declared a write-off by insurers after examining claims.
That's around *five* times higher than in 1980.
But why?
One big reason is that the cost of vehicle repairs has increased by almost 50% since the pandemic started—far exceeding inflation.
Another major driver?
Declining used car prices.
It may seem counterintuitive, but the rate at which used car prices have fallen over the past couple of years encourages salvaging instead of repair...
And all that contributes to an increase in vehicle write-offs.
There are lots of responses at the link, which are worth reading in themselves. A few examples:
I've had two vehicle insurance claims in the past year, one my own fault (backing into a brick postbox container that was hard to see behind my vehicle) and the other not (hitting a dog that ran out into the road, too close to miss it). In both cases, I was unpleasantly surprised at the quotes from repair shops. The insurance paid on both occasions, but I continue to feel ripped-off at the sums involved (particularly when the repair shops used third-party parts rather than original equipment).
That was confirmed to me by needing new headlights for my vehicle a few months ago. The dealership wanted $1,200 plus labor costs for OEM headlights, while a repair shop wanted $1,600 including labor to fit third-party headlights. (If I was in better physical shape, I could have done the installation myself, but I can't bend and twist like that any more.) By shopping around on eBay, then looking for a repair shop that charged a reasonable rate for the job, I got away with total costs of less than $600 - still expensive, IMHO, but much more realistic than the earlier quotes.
I think these figures indicate yet another reason to buy an older, cheaper vehicle as a runabout. Third-party-only insurance is a lot cheaper than comprehensive, and if you haven't paid a lot for your old car, it doesn't hurt as much to write it off and look for another one. Unfortunately, in the US at least, first Obama's "cash for clunkers" scheme, and then COVID-19's impact on sales, have clobbered the used car market, boosting values - or, rather, prices, because used vehicles just aren't that valuable as such - to insane levels. I guess there's no easy way out of this conundrum right now.
*Sigh*
Peter
I think several people have every reason to celebrate this weekend. First off, in Australia, a light aircraft carrying a family experienced engine failure, and made a skin-of-their-teeth landing at a local airport - missing trees and rooftops by literally inches. (A tip o' the hat to Australian reader Andrew for sending me the link to this video report.)
The pilot appears to be a former South African, like myself - his name and accent are unmistakeable. Kudos to him for a remarkable (and very fortunate) piece of piloting.
Next, closer to home, a skydiving flight narrowly avoided tragedy.
A pilot and six passengers on a skydiving flight jumped from a small plane just before the aircraft crashed in a Missouri field on Saturday, according to federal authorities.
The single-engine Cessna U206C crashed at about 1 p.m. near the Butler Memorial Airport, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) told Fox News Digital in a statement.
The agency said preliminary information indicates the plane was flying a “skydiving mission,” and that the pilot and all passengers escaped the plane before the crash.
. . .
Paramedics treated the pilot and passengers at the scene before they were all released, the sheriff’s office said.
First responders found the aircraft wreckage in a hayfield east of the airport’s runways, according to the sheriff’s office, which described the plane as a “total loss.”
There's more at the link.
This accident surprised me because the pilot was wearing a parachute. Skydiving pilots often don't wear one, partly due to space considerations (they typically cram as many skydivers as possible into the aircraft, leaving minimal room for the pilot) and partly because it usually takes time to get all the skydivers out of the plane, so that in an emergency, the pilot might not have time to get out himself. (To illustrate, a recent Swiss skydiving aircraft accident killed the pilot.) Congratulations to all concerned on their survival, and to the pilot on being more than usually safety-conscious.
I've flown many thousands of miles in single-engine light aircraft, bopping around the African continent; and my wife learned to fly in Alaska, and knows what it's like to land on sandbars, moraines, tundra and other "interesting" surfaces. We both have a lively appreciation for the dangers and difficulties involved in using small aircraft. In both these cases, we're very glad that nobody was harmed.
Peter
I had to laugh at this report.
Almost two centuries after California's gold rush, the United States is on the brink of a lithium rush. As demand for the material skyrockets, government geologists are rushing to figure out where the precious element is hiding.
In September 2023, scientists funded by a mining company reported finding what could be the largest deposit of lithium in an ancient US supervolcano. Now public researchers on the other side of the country have uncovered another untapped reservoir – one that could cover nearly half the nation's lithium demands.
It's hiding in wastewater from Pennsylvania's gas fracking industry.
Lithium is arguably the most important element in the nation's renewable energy transition – the material of choice for electric vehicle batteries. And yet, there is but one large-scale lithium mine in the US, meaning for the moment the country has to import what it needs.
. . .
Expanding America's lithium industry, however, is highly controversial, as mining can destroy natural environments, leach toxic chemicals, and intrude on sacred Indigenous land.
At the same time, however, lithium-ion batteries are considered a crucial technology in the world's transition to renewable energy, storing electricity generated by the wind and the Sun. Finding a source of lithium that doesn't cause more environmental destruction than necessary is key, but a clean solution is complicated.
Pennsylvania sits on a vein of sedimentary rock known as the Marcellus Shale, which is rich in natural gas. The geological foundation was deposited almost 400 million years ago by volcanic activity, and it contains lithium from volcanic ash.
Over vast stretches of time, deep groundwater has dissolved the lithium in these rocks, essentially "mining the subsurface", according to Justin Mackey, a researcher at the National Energy Technology Laboratory in Pennsylvania.
Mackey and his colleagues have now found that when wastewater is dredged up from the deep by fracking activities, it contains an astonishing amount of lithium.
There's more at the link.
Looks like the irresistible force is about to collide headlong with the immovable object, in environmental terms. The US government and the tree-huggers want to eliminate as much fossil fuel as possible, and are therefore pushing electric vehicles as the solution. On the other hand, if they want to do that, they have to have lithium for the EV's batteries: and a major source for lithium now appears to be the fracking technologies they've been trying to ban for years, on the grounds that they're a major source of pollution and other problems.
Which do they want most? Abundant batteries? Or abundant gasoline as a derivative of abundant batteries? Will they do without the latter, even though it means that obtaining the former will be more difficult and much more expensive? Or will they fuel the vehicles of those of us who reject EV's as being insufficiently developed to be practical, in order to have more EV's to sell to those who want them?
Oh, the irony is delicious . . .
Peter
It turns out that re-scheduling marijuana to a lower drug classification has left the trucking industry with a big problem and few options to solve it.
The trucking industry is raising concerns about President Joe Biden downgrading marijuana to a lower level of drug classification — especially how the move could threaten highway safety.
The American Trucking Associations’ and Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association’s questions about reclassifying cannabis from a Schedule I to a Schedule III drug include how it would affect carriers’ ability to test drivers for the substance.
“Absent an explicit allowance for continued employer marijuana testing of safety-sensitive workers, this change may have considerable negative consequences for highway safety and safety-sensitive industries,” the ATA said in a letter to three federal department heads.
There's more at the link.
It really is a big problem. Marijuana can affect one's reflexes, concentration, etc. just as badly as alcohol, particularly when it comes to synthetic marijuana or a high-strength varietal. Cops I speak to tell me it's already a very large problem in big cities, where the majority of drug users are to be found, and even in smaller towns it's making its presence felt.
I don't know how they're going to handle testing and disciplinary requirements. If marijuana is officially no longer considered as dangerous, can drivers be fired for using it? They (or their lawyers) could argue that if using it is not against the law, the drivers cannot be punished for using it. And how does one measure the actual level of intoxication? The alcohol content of blood can be measured, providing an objective result that can be used in court if necessary, but I'm not aware of any similar measurement that can quantify the "level of marijuana" one's smoked or eaten.
It's all very well to "liberalize" marijuana legislation to cater to society's changing views on its use, but if it adds (or makes worse) more danger on the roads, that's anything but OK. It's yet another worry when one's behind the wheel . . .
Peter
To my absolute lack of surprise, I learned that cruise lines have been carefully failing to inform their customers of additional fees, charges, imposts, etc. on top of their advertised prices. For once, California is doing the right thing by forcing them to disclose these charges.
Starting July 1, operators including Royal Caribbean International, Carnival Cruise Line, Celebrity Cruises and Princess Cruises will include the cost of port expenses, taxes and other fees in the price that potential passengers see. The additional charges can tack on more than $100 to the fare, or even double the cheapest base price on some short itineraries.
The changes kick in when California’s “Honest Pricing Law” goes into effect, restricting companies that do business in the state from advertising a price that is lower than what a consumer will ultimately have to pay.
. . .
For now, cruise lines like Carnival and Royal Caribbean promote bargain sailings, such as a seven-night Western Caribbean cruise “starting at” an average of $437 per person. But that number does not reflect the nearly $164 more that’s required for taxes, fees and port expenses and displayed in smaller print. A four-day Mexico cruise from Long Beach, Calif., shows the cheapest cabin for $234 - but the additional charges are an additional $240.
“The current ‘drip pricing’ technique where you show a low price and then tack on a lot of the extra fees later is a great attention disrupter but very misleading,” Doug Parker, founder of the podcast and news site Cruise Radio, said in an email.
Gratuities are also extra for most mainstream cruise lines, but tips will not need to be advertised up front. Cruise lines also offer optional drink or dining packages, shore excursions, and other add-ons that would increase the cost of a trip.
Parker said the cost of a seemingly inexpensive cruise can balloon with taxes, depending on the itinerary. He said the new policy will give families “a better idea on what the vacation will actually cost.”
There's more at the link.
I've been infuriated more times than I can tell to find unexplained, unauthorized charges tacked on to a bill or invoice. Hospitals are particularly egregious offenders. "Your procedure will cost you $4,999.99 out of pocket - your insurance pays for the rest!" Yeah . . . and then comes the anesthetist bill, the rehab bill, the clean sheets every day bill, and all the rest of it. Together they can add thousands of dollars to our costs, unforeseen and unbudgeted.
I'm glad this particular cesspool of financial chicanery will be drained; but I'm willing to bet the cruise lines will find new and innovative ways to screw yet more consumer dollars out of us. In their eyes, we're sheep to be sheared, and they're very good at shearing.
Peter
A report at The War Zone brought back many military (and other) memories.
After an extraordinary career spanning more than 80 years of service, and plenty of operational missions, the South African Air Force (SAAF) is preparing to retire its last C-47 Dakotas. Remarkably, the SAAF is moving to discard its C-47s while, at the same time, elsewhere around the globe, turboprop versions of the venerable transport continue to win orders.
The story of the Dakota in SAAF service stretches all the way back to 1943 when the service was fighting in World War Two. Most extraordinary, perhaps, is that among the very last Dakotas operated by the SAAF, most had been delivered during that conflict, having started life as C-47s manufactured for the U.S. Army Air Forces (USAAF).
By June next year the South African Air Force will have been operating C-47 Dakotas continuously for 80 years, albeit much upgraded. Even more astounding is that some airframes still in active service have been there from the start, with the oldest (6825) delivered in Feb 1944.
The SAAF’s Dakota fleet, however, saw its most extensive combat service during the long-running conflict in South West Africa (now known as Namibia) and Angola, supporting South African Defence Force (SADF) units during the so-called Border War between 1966 and 1989. The SADF relied heavily on the Dakota for troop transport, resupply, medical evacuation, paratrooping, and other missions, its importance was heightened by the sanctions on Apartheid South Africa that complicated the procurement of alternative equipment.
By the 1980s, the SAAF operated the largest fleet of Dakotas anywhere in the world — close to 50 in total. However, the demise of minority rule in South Africa, and the end of the Border War, saw the Dakota — and the SAAF more generally — switch increasingly to peacetime missions, especially humanitarian work. At the same time, Dakota squadrons were rationalized, and the fleet was reduced in size.
There's more at the link.
The SAAF's C-47's flew in combat zones many times over the years. They were the primary transport for secondary military air routes in South Africa and then-South West Africa (today Namibia), with C-130's and C-160's handling the busier routes. During the Rhodesian War many SAAF C-47's and Alouette III helicopters were "loaned" to Rhodesia, supplementing that country's small Air Force for "Fireforce" anti-terrorist missions and cross-border operations into Zambia and Mozambique. During South Africa's own Border War in the 1980's they were the shorter-range backbone of air transport operations, including one (shown below) that had an argument with a SA-7 Strela anti-aircraft missile and barely made it back to an airport in time to avoid crashing.
I flew many thousands of miles aboard SAAF C-47's, including one that was so old its logbook recorded it dropping paratroopers at Arnhem in 1944 as part of Operation Market Garden - the so-called "Bridge Too Far" airborne assault. It was in remarkably good shape for an aircraft that had been "rode hard and put away wet" for almost 40 years by the time I flew in it. That particular aircraft is still in service, having been converted to turboprop propulsion along with the SAAF's other surviving C-47's. I also traveled aboard the civilian DC-3 transports of Air Cape, flying along the Garden Route to and from Cape Town. Even in the 1980's, dirt and grass airfields were still in use at some of the small towns there, with no all-weather runways. Things could get bouncy during takeoff and landing, and occasionally the pilot would have to make a couple of low passes to chase a cow or two off the runway before he could land!
The SAAF Museum still has a flying example of the C-47 as built, with its original Pratt & Whitney engines. Here's its C-47 showing off at an air display. It's not a very good video, but it's the best I could find on YouTube.
I wonder what the SAAF will buy to replace its C-47's? There's no doubt that it needs a replacement, both for transport and for coastal maritime reconnaissance (both roles currently filled by the C-47), but the SAAF's aircraft fleet is in very parlous condition at present, with a minimal budget and very few skilled maintainers left to keep it flying. The service is a pale shadow of what it was in the 1980's, when it was undoubtedly the premier air force in sub-Saharan Africa, with skills and operational experience on a par with most NATO air arms.
Despite its age and long overdue need for replacement, it'll be sad to see the last of the SAAF's C-47's take a final bow and retire into history.
Peter
Apparently the United Arab Emirates has been seeding clouds in its sky in an attempt to produce more rain. It seems to have worked, not just very well, but perhaps too well. A storm was brewing anyway, and the seeding appears to have "encouraged" it. See for yourselves.
I can't believe they taxied that airliner right through floodwater like that! It'll require major maintenance before it flies again. The undercarriage will probably need fresh hydraulic fluid, and I think the engines are bound to have ingested rather more water than they prefer. If I'd been a passenger on that thing, and looked out of the window to see all that spray, I think I'd have been hammering on the cockpit door, demanding to be let off the plane before they tried to take off! I wonder if Boeing or Airbus offer a water-ski or flotation upgrade to their landing gear?
Oh, well. I suspect the cloud seeding company can probably apply for some sort of bonus after being so successful - just as long as they don't apply to the airlines!
Peter
I was amused to read this news report.
European low-cost carrier Wizz Air has struck a long-term deal with UK biofuels firm Firefly Green Fuels to source sustainable aviation fuel (SAF) made from sewage sludge, part of measures it hopes will enable it to achieve its newly set SAF usage targets.
Wizz today set out its goal of powering 10% of its flights with SAF by 2030 and has backed a new pathway being developed by Firefly, which aims to use human waste as a feedstock for the fuel.
The carrier is investing £5 million ($6.3 million) in Firefy to support the development and certification of SAF produced from sewage sludge.
”At Firefly we have chosen to address the decarbonisation of the aviation industry through the perhaps surprising medium of sewage – or to be accurate, through the medium of biosolids,” explained Firefly chief strategy officer Paul Hilditch during a press conference in London today.
There's more at the link.
An airliner fueled by sewage sludge . . . really?
You'll have to excuse my sometimes schoolboyish sense of humor.
Peter
... if ever there was a self-inflicted injury, this was it.
The Long Island doctor who was fatally thrown out of her family’s Airstream should never have been in the RV while it was in motion, the manufacturer says.
Dr. Monika Woroniecka, 58, was not following Airstream’s guidance when she was hurled out of the door of the moving trailer and onto State Route 12E in upstate New York around 3 p.m. Saturday, the company said.
“Airstream travel trailers are not designed to carry passengers while in motion,” the company said in a statement.
“The safety protocol detailed in Airstream’s operating manuals and shared on Airstream’s website advises owners that they cannot tow an Airstream with people inside,” the statement continued.
“Many states prohibit carrying passengers in a travel trailer or fifth wheel, and we advise owners to consult their state’s Department of Motor Vehicles for up-to-date regulations.”
It also is illegal in New York to tow passengers in a “house coach trailer” while it is hitched to a vehicle and on the road.
. . .
Woroniecka struck her head on the road median, police explained.
She was pronounced dead at Samaritan Medical Center.
There's more at the link.
I'd have thought this was absolutely basic, foundational knowledge: don't travel in any towed vehicle, ever! It's illegal almost everywhere I know, and almost all manufacturers of such vehicles warn against the practice as well. Yet now the deceased's daughter is apparently trying to put at least some of the blame for the tragedy on Airstream.
“This was an accident. Pure accident, and there’s nobody to blame. This is nobody’s fault,” Helena said.
“Sure, maybe Airstream doesn’t advise traveling inside the trailer. But we thought maybe that the last 20 minutes of an eight-hour drive on very quiet and slow country roads would be fine,” Helena said.
“And it’s perfectly legal to do so in some states.
“It was just a crazy accident,” she said.
Still, “The doors on the Airstream open the opposite way that you would expect. It doesn’t take an engineering degree to know that on any moving vehicle, whether a bus or a car or a trailer, doors should open against the wind, not towards it,” Helena told The Post.
“That seems like a significant safety oversight to me and seems like the only reason they do open that way is to protect the awning of the trailer.”
Again, more at the link.
No, young lady, this was no safety oversight, and there's no flaw in the design, because the door was never intended to be opened - from within or outside - while the trailer was in motion! When the trailer is parked, it's an entirely safe design.
As a pastor and chaplain, I've long since lost count of the number of surviving relatives of a victim of tragedy who've tried to blame anyone and anything they can think of for their loved one's death. It might be another driver, or a police officer or EMS vehicle that didn't respond quickly or effectively enough (in their opinion), or even the attending chaplain for not praying hard enough (yes, I've actually been accused of that!). People appear to find it impossible to accept that "pure" accidents happen, where someone is killed solely because they happened to be at the scene at the wrong time, or nature did her sometimes terminal thing (e.g. a lightning strike, or a tree falling due to internal rot) just when someone happened to be standing there.
Life happens. So does death. Sometimes there's no explanation possible. Sometimes somebody or something else is to blame. However, there are times - such as this incident - where the explanation is simply that the victim did something foolish, and paid the price.
May God rest Dr. Woroniecka's soul, and bring what comfort there may be to those who survive her. That's all one can say.
Peter
Problems with Pratt & Whitney's geared turbofan engine, used by most recent-production Airbus A320-family airliners, have grounded almost a third of the fleet.
Around three in every 10 jets powered by Pratt & Whitney’s PW1000G family of turbofans are now sidelined worldwide.
That is according to analysis of Cirium data, which reflects, though not perfectly, the extent to which airlines from all corners of the globe are finding their operations disrupted by P&W’s recall of its geared turbofan (GTF) engines.
P&W has said the number of jets parked due to the need for inspections and replacement engine parts will peak right about now, in the first half of 2024. The issue involves defects in metallic components introduced during a manufacturing process due to the use of contaminated powdered metal.
. . .
Carriers have made no secret about the scale of the problem. Several have said that one-quarter or more of their GTF-engined aircraft have been sidelined, causing financial pressure and prompting then to curtail expansion plans, revamp operations and seek replacement jets in an incredibly tight market. Airlines are also negotiating multi-million-dollar compensation packages with P&W.
“The problem of our aircraft being unproductive is the fact [that] we are paying twice. We have aircraft investments unproductive on the ground, and we have to rent, wet-lease [aircraft from] another company to produce the capacity in the market,” Swiss chief executive Dieter Vranckx said during a 4 April event in Washington DC.
. . .
On 29 March, Spirit said P&W had agreed to compensate it to the tune of $150-200 million, warning the issue will force it to remove “nearly all” its A320neo-family jets from service at some point. That package equates to P&W paying Spirit about $18,000 daily per grounded aircraft, financial firm Jefferies said in a 1 April report.
There's more at the link.
I wonder how much this is costing Pratt & Whitney overall, in terms of the repairs (which take 250-300 days per engine, according to the article, and must cost millions in themselves) plus the compensation they're having to pay airlines? Does their insurance cover this, or do they have to cover it out of their own resources? If the latter, can they afford to both pay the compensation, and stay in business? I imagine their Chief Financial Officer and his deputies are enduring sleepless nights trying to figure that out . . .
Peter
My vehicle, a Nissan Pathfinder, is a 2014 model. It's got almost 160,000 miles on the clock, but is in excellent condition overall, and I plan to drive it until it falls apart. (The Pathfinder's combination of a 3.5L engine and a CVT gearbox is well-known for its reliability, and many have made it past the quarter-million-mile mark.) Unfortunately, the same can't be said for the plastic covers on its headlights. As time passed, they "fogged over", becoming inefficient to the point of being dangerous. I had them restored twice, but they fogged up again within a year or two. This year, I decided the time had come to replace them with new units.
My first sticker shock came when pricing new headlights. Nissan wants about $1,200 for a pair of their OEM units, which is nothing more or less than daylight robbery! New bulbs all round would have added over $100 to that price. I shopped around, and found dealers on eBay offering aftermarket lighting units for much, much less. I ended up buying new headlights and new LED bulbs for a total of about $275 - much more wallet-friendly!
Next came fitting them. It's something anyone reasonably au fait with mechanical work can do for themselves, but given my physical restrictions (I'm partly disabled) I couldn't bend and twist enough to get it done. The local Nissan dealer wanted $400 minimum for the task, and that only if I bought the new headlights from them as well (at full retail price). A local repair shop quoted similarly. Fortunately, I remembered that the local Toyota dealer had recently moved to new premises. There had been a body shop behind their old building, but the operator had left when they did. After some inquiries, it emerged he'd moved his body shop to a tiny town called Temple, Oklahoma, about three-quarters of an hour's drive from my home. A quick phone call, and I arranged to drop my vehicle with him last week to get the work done. He charged $300, including putting new bulbs in the rear lights, installing a front spoiler (which I supplied) on the hood, and fixing a broken connection. The Nissan dealership wanted over $600 for all that work, so I thought half-price was pretty reasonable overall.
While delivering the vehicle to him, my wife and I spotted this on the back of an older building on the town's main street. Click the image for a larger view.
Laughing, we decided we had to try it; so next day, when we went to collect the vehicle, we stopped at the Rockin' H Steakhouse and Saloon. It's a pretty typical small-town steakhouse, with only US beers and not much variety; but the portions on the menu are ginormous, and well cooked, too. I had the smaller of their chicken-fried steaks, and I reckon (given its thickness as well as its size) there was a good pound of meat on my plate. (I asked for the brown gravy, instead of the traditional white - I prefer it.)
My wife ordered the 12-ounce ribeye. Given its thickness, we both thought there was more than 12oz. of meat there.
Neither of us could finish our portions, so we brought them home for feasting on later this past weekend. They were every bit as good the second time around.
The long and the short of it is, if you need a body shop in or near southern Oklahoma, Calfy Dent is a good choice; and if you want a good steak while you wait for your car, Rockin' H Steakhouse and Saloon is a good place to find one - despite their erroneous, albeit humorous advertising! (Neither outfit is compensating me in any way for mentioning them: I just like to tell my readers about good deals when I find them.)
Peter
My friend in meatspace and the blogosphere, Larry Correia, has been heard to say that he really wants to buy a tank. Being a bestselling author, his income can probably stretch to it, too: but being a very large gentleman, I think he'd have a problem fitting into anything small. However, I think the solution may be at hand, in terms of both his size and his wallet.
Spain is selling off its remaining M60 tanks, of 1960's vintage.
If you've ever fancied owning a tank, or are in the market to add to your own private armor collection, now's your chance. As it turns out, Spain has put a number of its M60 tanks up for auction, with the base price for the lot starting at just over $50,000. The sale of the tanks, the condition of which remains very much unclear, has prompted speculation about potential buyers, and whether they could end up in Ukraine or the scrap yard.
The entire lot of tanks has a stated “base price” of €46,924.93 [US $50,721.73 at current exchange rates], according to the official notice, which also includes details on another auction of anchor chains.
There's more at the link.
That price is not per tank, by the way: it's for all the surplus tanks. It's only the opening bid price, of course. I'm sure the final sale price will be higher. Nevertheless, those tanks are basically being sold at scrap-metal prices, and I'm sure that doesn't include their cannons or ammunition. I don't know how many are on auction now. Spain bought about 300 M60's in total, but until recently had only 16 still operational, replacing the rest of its fleet with German-made Leopard 2's. Nevertheless, even 16 would be a handy source of spare parts to keep them operational in the hands of a hobbyist owner.
Whoever wants them will have to move fast. Bids are due by April 22. Quick, get out your wallets and bank statements and start counting!
Peter
By now I'm sure we've all heard that the Francis Scott Key Bridge in Baltimore, Maryland, collapsed last night after being struck by a container ship. Casualty figures are as yet unknown, but are almost certain to be in double figures. Our sincere condolences to all involved.
However, the real impact of this bridge collapse is likely to be on supply chains serving the most populous part of the USA.
The bridge collapse has paralyzed a large swath of the largest inland port on the East Coast. The port is ranked 9th for total dollar value of cargo and 13th for cargo tonnage among US ports.
. . .
The bridge spans the Patapsco River and carries an estimated 11.5 million vehicles annually. In this collapse, the only shipping lane in and out of the port was severed.
Baltimore is the most inland port on the East Coast and is connected to the I-95 highway network. With no commercial vessels sailing in and out of port anytime soon, this is catastrophic for port operations and could spark supply chain snarls in the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast.
. . .
According to the Maryland government's website, the Port of Baltimore handled over 52 million tons of international cargo valued at more than $80 billion last year, ranking it as the ninth busiest port in the United States. The data shows that the port handled 847,158 autos and light trucks in 2023, the most of any US port. The port also handles farm and construction machinery, sugar, gypsum, and coal.
There's more at the link.
It's not just ships that will be affected. With so major a road transport artery shut down, trucks will be severely delayed by having to detour around the affected area (and, of course, by greatly increased traffic congestion due to everybody else having to take the same detour). Our supermarkets rely on truck transport to receive food and other essentials every day. This incident will almost certainly have a serious impact on consumers in north-eastern states. It'll take years to rebuild this bridge, and heaven knows where the money will come from. It'll almost certainly have to be borrowed, adding to our already excessive national debt.
Given all the existing pressures on supply chains, this is very bad news.
Peter
Stephan Pastis draws parallels. Click the image to be taken to a larger version at the "Pearls Before Swine" Web page.
The airlines appear to be nickel-and-diming travelers to death. I've heard a number of complaints after the holidays, and around the Superbowl, from friends who found they had to pay a lot more than just the ticket price when it came to surcharges, taxes, add-ons, baggage fees, and other bits and pieces.
I remember air travel in the 1970's, when the luxurious extras of the 1950's and 1960's were on their way out, but a lot were still available, and traveling was an experience to be savored. The seats were larger, there was more legroom, the meals were served on actual china with real knives and forks, and the air hostesses treated you like you were important to them. I can remember, on the inaugural BOAC 747 flight from Johannesburg to London, dining on filet mignon with lobster tail - and that was in economy class! Nowadays? Don't make me laugh! (How many of you remember BOAC, anyway?)
Oh, well. Since air travel has become as commoditized and financialized as anything else, I suppose it's only natural that everything surrounding it has gone the same way. I will give one shout-out to Southwest Airlines, though: when everyone else is charging for baggage, they continue to allow up to two bags per ticket-holder, and don't gouge you with extra fees for it.
Peter
It seems that electric vehicles (EV's) need to go on a diet.
Safety experts are grappling with an array of infrastructure burdens and dangers associated with electric vehicles, which can weigh up to 50% more than traditional automobiles thanks to their heavy lithium-ion batteries.
Heavy electric vehicles damage roads, bridges and parking garages. Some can plow through highway safety guardrails and pose a greater danger to gasoline-powered cars, pedestrians and bicyclists.
. . .
“Significantly increasing passenger vehicle weights combined with recently reduced structural design requirements will result in reduced factors of safety and increased maintenance and repair costs for parking structures,” the engineers wrote. “There are many cases of parking structure failures, and the growing demand for EVs will only increase the probability of failure.”
Another scary EV safety threat unfolded this fall at the Midwest Roadside Safety Facility in Nebraska.
Engineers pitted an electric-powered pickup truck against a standard highway guardrail.
They chose one of the heaviest EVs on the market — the 3.6-ton Rivian R1 — and sent it speeding straight toward the metal guardrail at 62 miles per hour.
In a second experiment, engineers hurtled a Rivian down the road at the same speed and steered it into the guardrail at an angle.
In both cases, the Rivians ripped through the guardrail and continued onto the other side of the road.
. . .
“[EV's] extra weight will afford them greater protection in a multi-vehicle crash,” Raul Arbelaez, vice president of the Vehicle Research Center at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, wrote in March. “Unfortunately, given the way these vehicles are currently designed, this increased protection comes at the expense of people in other vehicles.”
. . .
Eliminating many gas-powered vehicles and substituting heavier electric cars or SUVs could create crumbling residential roads built for lighter traffic volume.
Transportation engineers have warned that EVs could also shorten the life spans of bridges by adding to the stress, wear and tear caused by heavy commercial trucks.
There's more at the link.
That's definitely a matter for concern. One can compare it to firearms ballistics: a lighter bullet can be propelled to higher velocity, but it slows down quickly in flesh when it hits its target. A heavier bullet is slower, but its mass gives it more momentum, and it decelerates more slowly in flesh, allowing it to penetrate deeper. The same principles apply to vehicles. The lighter the vehicle, the less "penetrating power" it has in an accident. Heavier vehicles . . . not so much.
I'd been more focused on the problem of lithium batteries catching fire. They're very difficult to extinguish, and frequently flare up again without warning. Also, water exposure (particularly salt water) during flooding has led to serious battery issues with EV's. However, this report indicates we may have a much bigger problem to deal with. Rebuilding our infrastructure to handle the extra weight of EV's may be simply unaffordable.
Peter
I note that Toyota is introducing (overseas) its IMV 0, a bare-basics no-frills vehicle designed for simplicity, economy, and the toughness necessary to succeed in Third World markets, where road quality is often conspicuous by its absence and maintenance may be a shade-tree-mechanic affair.
Compared to the features of the Corolla sedan, Toyota’s entry-level model in the United States, the IMV 0 is in an entirely different universe. Forget LED headlights, power windows and door locks, or standard adaptive cruise control. The IMV 0 doesn’t even have any trim on the A-pillar. The instrument cluster dial that would normally show engine RPM is just a big blank circle. It doesn’t even have a shift light. Then again, the 2024 Corolla starts at $22,995. The IMV 0/Hilux Champ will be the equivalent of about $10,000 when it launches in Thailand.
And no, there are no plans to sell this truck in the United States, although it will be sold in Mexico. It’s nice to think that a bare-bones truck at a rock-bottom price could find a customer base in America, but that’s unlikely to sway Toyota, which is only making the thinnest of margins on the base model. And besides, a big reason we don’t already get these cheap foreign-market trucks is because importing them from North America comes with the 25 percent “Chicken Tax” tariff. Add in the cost of stability control, lane-keeping, automatic emergency braking included in the Toyota Safety Sense suite that is nearly standard across the U.S. lineup and it’s easy to see the price ballooning into Ford Maverick territory. That’s for a truck that doesn’t even have map pockets in the doors.
. . .
The closest equivalent to the interior of the IMV 0 we have in the United States is probably a rental moving van. Vinyl seats, rubber-lined floor, and a trio of HVAC controls under the hole where a radio might go. For this truck’s Southeast Asia and South American markets, less stuff also means less stuff to break. On the smooth surface of Toyota’s oval track, the IMV 0 feels slightly bouncy with nothing to settle the rear leaf springs. The steering is light, and the gear shifter is somewhat rubbery. The IMV 0 feels more rugged than cheap, the kind of vehicle that can stand up to the daily abuse of hauling cargo on under-developed roads. Acceleration is best described as present and accounted for - on our brief lap around the test track it was hard to tell exactly how slow or fast the IMV 0 is. But we’re not sure it even matters. There’s an innate appeal to the simplicity of the IMV 0, the singular focus of hauling people and stuff from point A to point B. They don’t ask you how, they ask you how many. And to that, the IMV 0 seems like a truck that gets the job done, one way or another.
There's more at the link.
I've driven untold thousands of miles in vehicles similar to this. For example, back in the early 1980's, Toyota in South Africa introduced what it called the Toyota Utility Vehicle, or TUV. It looked similar to, and was based on, the second-generation Kijang/Tamaraw utility vehicle marketed in Asia, pictured below. (Image courtesy of Wikipedia.)
It was a boxy, squared-off 2-seat pickup-type vehicle with no creature comforts. A 10-seater minibus version was later sold as well (and, when fully loaded, had one of the most bone-rattling suspensions I've ever had the misfortune to endure!). It had a very basic 1.3-liter four-cylinder engine, a four-on-the-floor manual transmission (with a clutch that made interesting noises if you weren't careful with it), and just about nothing else. Nevertheless, it sold well to motorists who couldn't afford anything better, and did the job for them. I recall them without any affection, but with a nod for their reliability - they always got me where I needed to be. Other manufacturers tried to compete with more-or-less stripped-down versions of basic pickup trucks, but none were as low-cost or as successful as the TUV.
None of these basic vehicles would pass current US safety regulations, and would lack just about every comfort to which US drivers have become accustomed; but they work, and they get untold millions of people around the world where they need to be every day, and back again. Given the current prices of US vehicles, you could probably buy two of the IMV 0 for one of even the cheapest vehicles currently sold here; three or four for the price of a typical American pickup truck. They'd get more done, and be far better value for money.
(Oh - and let's scrap the "chicken tax" while we're at it. Why should American taxpayers subsidize the Big Three and their oversized, unnecessarily tricked-out pickups when much cheaper alternatives are out there, if only we could get them? I wonder how much the Big Three are paying our politicians in "re-election contributions" or "consulting fees" to have them keep the tax in place?)
Peter
I'm a bit mind-boggled that Metro Transit in Minneapolis found it necessary to post on social media unusually detailed instructions about what is, and is not, acceptable and/or legal behavior by its customers. For example:
One fare = one seat. Your bag belongs on your lap, not taking up the seat next to you.
Interfering with the operator / movement of vehicle. Do not bother the operator or hold up vehicles. They're trying to get you to your destination safely and on time. This includes holding doors open on trains.
Vandalizing / littering. Respect your bus stop, station, bus, or train by putting your garbage in appropriate containers. Vandals who are caught damaging transit property can be arrested.
Threatening / spitting on others. This applies to your behavior with transit personnel as well as with fellow riders.
Pooping or peeing. Transit property is not a public restroom.
Sexual assault. Sexual contact without consent is forbidden.
Flammable or other hazardous items. Metro Transit prohibits flammable, explosive, radioactive, and hazardous items onboard. This includes gas-powered scooters, car or motorcycle batteries, and gasoline/fuel containers.
There are more rules at the link.
What sort of society do we live in (or, rather, do they live in up in Minneapolis) that it's even necessary to post these rules? When I was growing up, I was expected to use public transport (buses and commuter trains) without supervision as soon as I reached the equivalent of Grade 6. So was almost every other kid I knew. Nobody had to teach us rules like that, because our parents had already done so (and many more) in unmistakeable and thoroughly enforced ways. If I'd been stupid enough to poop or pee on public transit (except in medical emergency, of course), I'd have got a hefty clip over the ear from the conductor, probably a few more from fellow passengers, and an almighty beating from my father as soon as he learned about it! And as for "sexual contact without consent" . . . that would have landed me in jail, then in juvenile court, right smartly - that is, if I'd survived my parents' punishment for daring to even think about such a thing! (We also didn't have to worry about running into such behavior from others while using public transport. They'd have received an immediate "educational beatdown" from most other adults in sight if they'd tried!)
When I read that list, I could only, very humbly and sincerely, thank God that I don't live in a place where such rules of conduct have to be spelled out. Such expectations certainly would not have to be spelled out here, because many of those living in my area would take immediate and strong action if they saw anyone violating such strictures. Enforcement authorities would be needed only to clean up the mess! We're fortunate enough, in this part of the world, to live in a frequently self-correcting society. That's one of the reasons I like it here.
Peter
I note that the Pentagon is looking to develop an EMP (electromagnetic pulse) weapon to disable drone swarms.
Faced with the reality that drones are reshaping the modern battlefields in Ukraine and Gaza, the Pentagon has been tasked with finding a budget-friendly solution to eliminate these 'flying IEDs.' While missiles are too expensive, and laser beams are a distant dream, the next best cost-effective weapon US military officials are eyeing up could be electromagnetic pulse weapons to counter drone swarms.
. . .
The service outlined the drone-killing features of the new EMP weapon it is seeking:
"The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL/RI) is conducting market research to seek information from industry on the landscape of research and development (R&D) for available Electromagnetic Pulse (EMP) solutions towards countering multiple Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS). EMP solutions could be ground and/or aerial based that provide effective mitigation against Department of Defense (DoD) UAS groups 1, 2, and smaller group 3 aircraft.". . .
The proposed EMP weapon would be able to neutralize drones with a directed EMP blast to damage the electronic parts - this is a much cheaper solution than missiles that cost tens of thousands of dollars, if not hundreds of thousands, a piece.
There's more at the link.
This sounds like a very good idea from a military perspective, just as an anti-aircraft defense using laser beams or other directed energy weapons would be much more economical than one firing missiles (see, for example, Israel's "Iron Beam" system). So far, so good . . . but EMP weapons are no respecters of persons or property. What if your home, or your vehicle, is caught in the spread of such a weapon when it discharges? Say goodbye to every microchip and integrated circuit you own. Your car dies, your fridge, your washing-machine, probably your switchboard and everything electrical in your home as well - and none of them will come back on once the pulse dissipates. The damage will be permanent. The only fix will be to replace every affected component, appliance and vehicle.
You may say, "Well, I live far from every likely combat area, so that won't affect me." Think again. If it affects, say, 5% or 10% of those people in a country, the demand from those areas for replacement parts and equipment will be sudden and overwhelming. It'll suck in everything available everywhere, and then some. That means the rest of us will no longer be able to get the parts and services we need in lesser quantities to repair normal damage (e.g. power surges, lightning strikes, and so on). The orders we place for those parts will be added to those needed for the EMP-affected areas, and will probably be given a lower priority. Sucks to be us, I guess.
There's also the factor that such attacks will likely be more widespread than typical "front-line" warfare. Drones can be sent anywhere at any time. An enemy might smuggle drones into the USA, then launch a sudden, unexpected drone swarm attack on a major city (Washington D.C., anyone?), or a major economic target (a nuclear power plant, a series of transportation hubs, or whatever). That would expose many "behind-the-lines" areas to EMP damage, with all the consequences I mentioned above. Let that happen in more than one or two places and the attackers will have struck a crippling blow against any modern economy. To take just one example, what if the Internet goes down? I don't believe our current economy and system of government could function in its absence. Administration, banking, shopping . . . all would be interrupted. Chaos would ensue.
It's worth thinking beyond the obvious when one reads snippets of news like that. It might be a very effective weapon. It might also disrupt the very society it's intended to defend.
Peter
