Old joke: "Why does a dog lick his balls? Because he can."

HP is relatively cheap and easy to get these days, so why not? We're pretty much limited only by our personal standards and budgets.

Regarding the S2000, I appreciate it as is. My mods are for personalization, not performance.

 

I dont think he meant rwhp. He just meant like the ouput from 240 to 280, for the better ratio.

You don't need a supercharger for that.. Exhaust, headers, and a good air intake should take you close to that!

 

That's what my motorcycle allows me to do - half revs, half throttle, and still scoot away from everybody briskly. And personally, I find that rather boring. Out accelerating a Tahoe has absolutely zero impact on my excitement level. Going full-out with a vehicle does, even if it's a similar acceleration to said Tahoe, and the S2000's power to weight ratio allows me to do that more often than if I had, say, a Z06. <shrug> YMMV. (There's a limit of course - in my Miata test drives, for example, I found the acceleration to be too slow to be very exciting, regardless of how hard it was flogged. So there's a balance. The S2000 has good balance. Although, as said before, it can stand a few extra ponies without becoming ridiculous.)

 

No.. you wouldn't get more cars through (depending on how far away the lane ends). If the merge occurrs 50-100 feet from the light, then the process of people trying to merge will probably cause congestion back to the light, so some people won't get through that could've gotten through if everyone had already filed into a single line (before the light). Two lines that are having to merge will get fewer people through than a single-file line because the merging process never goes smoothly. Theoretically, you should get the same number of people through, because the end pipe is the same size, but that's not the way it works in reality, since there is "turbulence" at the point where the pipe goes from 2 lanes to 1.

My general rule of thumb is this:
I will allow people a reasonable amount of space to merge after the first indication (sign) that shows that the lane ends ahead. After that, I close the space and they're on their own, because I assume that if they haven't merged then they don't intend to merge. This applies especially to a particular 3->2 lane merge that occurs on my trip home, because there is also a left turn at the same location that the left lane ends. So, as far as I'm concerned... if they don't merge as soon as they see the "left lane ends" sign, then they better be planning to take that left turn.

 

[QUOTE=mxt_77,Mar 21 2008, 08:18 AM] No.. you wouldn't get more cars through (depending on how far away the lane ends).

 

You have to remember, while your light is red, that "pipe" being the road ahead is draining. When the light turns green, you can move twice as many cars through the intersection and they can merge after the light, instead of everyone waiting in a single line that gets cut off by a red light. After the light turns red, any cars trough the intersection can merge and progress. Plus, cars start off from a stop in a progressive manner - everybody doesn't all hit the gas at once, so you get a rubber band effect. Doubling the traffic stacked at the light gets more cars through - this is why you often see two-lane roads go to one after the intersection, not before.

I wn't go into the safety issues of stacking both lanes at this point.

At any rate, I'm not out to change how you drive, I'll just wave as I pass by in the less congested lane and use my signal to let the SUV in front of you with 50 yards of open space in front of it know I'm coming over. In the end, all you control is the space between you and the car in front of you.

 

True enough.

And that space has no vacancy I waited in line patiently for that table by the window and figure folks that want the same view have the same opportunity I had to wait in line for it.

I figured the reasons the lanes merged after the light was to allow the extra lane to exist before the intersection as a drain point for folks turning off and not continuing on...an extra avenue of egress for those not going straight. If you merge those lanes before the light, you will 'trap' folks needing to turn...who will then turn when the light permits movement and thus slow down the other traffic moving straight.

Of course this process does not work well when that disappearing lane is being used by people that do not want to turn, but rather just want to zoom the light and cut off everyone else waiting in line.

 

I agree.. but like I said, the efficiency of this depends on how far it is from the light to the merge. If they are very close, then the merging traffic will back up to the point that they will slow up the people who have not made it through the light yet. In this case, you will get fewer cars through the light. However, if the merge is far enough ahead, then the "turbulence" from the merge will not reach the light, and the "draining" effect that you mention will be effective. Obviously, there's an optimal spacing between the point of the merge and the light based on the speed limit, the length of the light, and the ever changing factor... the human influence.

 

If the lane thats ending is just for turning at the intersection, it would be a turn only lane. Why would the state pay to pave extra road beyond the intersection for merging? Cars turning right onto the road could make do with one lane as well as two. The design and cost of the pavement extending beyond the intersection is all to move more cars through the intersections.

 

The reason behind these intersections (which tend to cause no end of bad feelings) is that the state/county/city has a long range plan to make the road two lanes. So rather than build a one-lane intersection which they will then have to rebuild anyway, they build a two-lane intersection and then just close off the second lane once you go through the intersection.

And yes, it's kind of a "boy racer" type of move to ignore the obvious queue and jump up to the front of the other lane, then try to accelerate fast enough to cut somebody off.

As seen in this discussion, some people seem to think that is reasonable and fair, and other people are really annoyed by it. As I have grown older I have taken the attitude that I don't care either way, because it's just another example of the petty BS that some people take way too personally while driving.