Conversations with Complete Strangers

I'm sitting here from the comfort of my living room watching a new Channel 4 documentary on the atrocities that have occured in Sri Lanka since 2008, there has been a civil war going on there, many people have been killed and the war crimes are terrible. I'm learning all this thanks to the guy in the petrol station. I struck up conversation with him at the end of my pizza delivery shift. After telling him all about what it is like to work at Dominoes, as I thought that was what he was asking (my ability to understand English is pretty poor), he eventually got through to me that this documentary was on tonight. I would be in bed now if I hadn't asked "how are you?"


My first interesting visit of the evening was to Exxon. Yes the big blue chip fuel/oil company. Turns out they have a huge great big base tucked away and hidden by trees in a rather residential location. Quite literally it is at the end of s residential road. I was blown away by how well Exxon appeared to look after its employees. Everyone seemed happy and relaxed, the building was very impressive and vast. The two guys I spoke to said I should apply for a job there, and that I shall do.


I next delivered to a place called Cargills. Hidden behind security enforced gates in the heart of wealthy Cobham, was a place I initially thought was a five star hotel - until I spotted "visitor parking". There was golf course, and fields and forests to walk through. There was even a lake with fecking geese and swans in it! The place was beyond excessive. Eventually I found my way in through the front door and delivered my goods to the security guard. I asked him what goes on here. "Investment", he replied. I didn't get a tip.

Just do it

I built my first computer when I was 13. At the time I was an avid reader of PC Gamer, at an exciting time of game development. The PC Magazine was in its hay-day, and new monthly developments excited me. I can credit PC Gamer to getting me into a tough secondary grammar school through the cunning use of the word “atmospheric” in my interview; a word no eleven year old should conjure up on the spot when describing a random work of art. A couple of years after somehow beating the very well spoken (and well rehearsed) young lad sat next to me at the interview – I built my own PC.

I can also credit PC Gamer to a fine article on building your own gaming computer. At the time I had never considered the option, surely building one’s own computer is for goons (school lingo for geek) and techno-boffins, of which I was about as far from either as you could possibly be. Apparently this was not the case, according to PC Gamer. I began to carry around this magazine, I would like to say to all the exciting things I did (not do) at the time, but alas to school and home again. At the time the internet was like a mythical dragon to me, rumours of its power had spread. My sole guidance was literature, in the form of PC Gamer.

My gaming PC at home, once a monster to be revered and feared, was rapidly aging. Four-hundred megahertz of sheer power (your modern smartphone has over a thousand) and onboard graphics. Between the early 90s and mid noughties there was a computer renaissance. Processing power was increasing exponentially, and the technology going into the games was ever changing and evolving. I was a master of the old school, simply because I had no option. However I was a couch expert of the new school. PC Gamer told me to build my own gaming monster, on a budget, and that I did.

I was going to write a review of my PC, but no words can do it justice. Seven years of honourable service and not a step misplaced. If you want to do something right, do it yourself, or innocently follow the guidance of a magazine related to your hobby. I have recently built a mountain bike from scratch, but that’s another story; although I can say it kicks butt in so many ways. If you’re thinking of building something yourself, just do it. What’s the worst that can happen?

Engine speed, torque, power and... nitrous?!

I have been thinking a lot lately about the simple relationship between torque, speed and power. To clarify:

• Torgue = turning moment = "twisting" force
• Speed = the angular velocity of the crankshaft = the "rpm" your car displays (not its actual moving speed)
• Power = rate at which work is performed = how fast your car goes = all that men care about

There is a constant battle between speed and torque in the design of engines. They both together produce power, but are inversely related. Increase speed and you decrease torque. Increase torque and you descrease speed. Increase both and you increase power. In Layman's terms they are annoying.

I have a vested interested in nitrous oxide injection, what man doesn't you might say. When I was 17 I designed a progressive nitrous controller for my A level technology project, and became obsessed for about a year until my insurance company eventually convinced me my dreams could not become reality. Why am I talking about nitrous injection? Float around on forums and websites that discuss the use of N2O injection and you will find claims that the systems actually REDUCE engine fatigue (wear and tear). Madness you might say, or is it?

N2O injection massively increases an engines torque, and supposedly more so at lower engine RPMs. The proponents of N2O injection argue that running the engine at lower RPMs with nitrous does not cause as much damage as running the engine at higher RPMs without nitrous. Paradoxically most users would inject their N2O throughout the rev range, unless they are smart and have a controller...

Now I am not about to debate nitrous, no no no. Let us revisit the relationship between speed, torque and power... except lets throw in engine fatigue into the mix. Given all other conditions being equal, does an engine fatigue more at lower RPM and higher torque? Or is more fatigue experienced by a higher speed with less torque?

Is gently tapping something with a hammer lots of times better than beating the hell out of it a few times?

A few questions spring to mind.

• Does the greater revving engine actually produce more friction?
• Is a greater force experienced less frequently more potent than a weak force experienced often?
• Are the nitrous people bullshitting us?

I think this would be a very interesting research project, and is obviously an area not entirely understood by engineers. In fact is there anything fully understood by engineers?

Where are the disk brakes on road bikes?

Every single bike for sale in every single shop will either come with v-brakes, or no brakes. You already know this. I am here to ask the question why.
Racing cyclists are an interesting breed. They are like machines, seeking mechanical effeciency, top fuel consumption and a mechanically optimised set of wheels. It is simple why racers have v-brakes over disk brakes on their road bike, they are better because...

• They are lighter.
• They stop the bike as well as the thin tires will allow.
• They place less strain on the front fork.
• They are normal.

So why am I even bothering to write this when I already know that all designers already know that disk brakes are an inferior product for road bike use?

Well for starters, they might not be as inferior a product as one might think. Cross country mountain bikers have been using disk brakes for years over their old Vs. They identified that disk brakes work well under all weather conditions and are more predictable than their V friends.
The road needs a lightweight disk be designed. The advantage of extra stopping power is clearly negated by the limited grip which road tyres provide (there is only so much stopping force that can go through to the road - and Vs can apply all that force). Therefore, a reduced power disk brake, which equals the stopping power of top range V brakes needs to be designed. Perhaps one half the weight of a mountain bike disk brake.

How I can hear you screaming "BUT IT IS STILL HEAVIER THAN THE V BRAKES!!! I WILL LOSE EFFECIENCY!!!!". I propose to you that Mr Average, who cycles to work every day, doesn't care. Here lies the basis for my argument. Mr Average would much rather a predictable brake, that works as well in the wet, cold and mud as in the dry. He doesn't care about losing 2% effeciency. He just wants to get to work safe and sound, and look cool while doing so. Disk brakes on a road bike would be pretty bling indeed.

If the big companies put a mini disk brakes for road bikes on the market, they would sell. The technology would be further developed, they would sell more. The enevitable outcome is that disk brakes would out perform V-brakes as new materials are developed. Perhaps I will work on this myself. Hell one day we might even see electromagnetic brakes appear on bikes - that will be the day, and then I will think it is all wrong.