Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2012 December 17

Welcome to the Wikipedia Miscellaneous Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

December 17

CoppBob

I'm have no idea where this question should go but I'm going to post this here because this is the closest I could think to a relevant area. My question would require an extreme amount of research and centers around a man who went by the user name of CoppBob. He was on Wikipedia from 2004 to October 2, 2009 and was the claimed age of 88 years old when he last edited, the oldest Wikipedian ever. He said that he lived in Ann Arbor, Michigan, got a degree in junior science and political science in 1947 and 1950 respectively, was widowed in 2005, and was living in an independent retirement community by 2008. Before he retired, he has worked as a international labor affairs manager for the Ford Motor Company. At this point he'd be 91, and while possible; the likeliness that he is still alive is only fair because his digital footprint seems to stop around the time he last edited Wikipedia. The main reasons that I want to know is personal curiosity and because I don't want his death to be unknown to the community, some of whom were friends with him and miss him. If you need to relocate this to another forum, please tell me where you plan to put it by messaging me on my talk page. Thank you, --Thebirdlover (talk) 00:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

He included an email address in his last edit here: [1]. You could attempt to contact him there. Hopefully either he will answer or somebody will on his behalf (I took over my Dad's email address after he died). Also, since that lists his first and last name, and you have his birth year and city, those should be sufficient for a web search. StuRat (talk) 01:43, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Google is your friend; there are footprints where he states his age as 91. --jpgordon^{::==( o )} 02:49, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Economic multiplier on steroids?

What would happen to the economy if all saved money had to be spent or at least large portions of it. Including corporations i.e. if government made corporation spend most of their money by a certain time or be subject to tax. instead of Keeping billions out of circulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.149.220 (talk) 03:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Massive short term benefit because of the increase in investment, followed by a very delicate economy (due to no-one or no business entity having substantial savings) or a collapse of some kind is my guess. The delicate economy outcome seems more likely to me, despite not having any formal business knowledge whatsoever... HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 03:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

forgot to mention, depends what % tax you use/used. That would change the balance of what they spent before the taxing vs what they chose to save (despite the taxing). HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 03:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I'd expect people and corporations to hide their assets from the taxman any way they could. StuRat (talk) 04:11, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• "Saved" money is not just sitting as a pile of cash in a vault. Saved money is invested money that is held in he form of stocks and bonds and loans and so forth. Such a tax would be devastating to the economy, a direct attack on that portion of marginal wealth that goes into building new enterprises and starting new businesses. Download George Reisman's college textbook Capitalism as a pdf for free here. μηδείς (talk) 04:36, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My economic politics are way to the left of Medeis', but I'd cautiously agree with this. Suppose you want to start a business. Ordinarily, you would go to the bank and ask for a small business loan. The bank provides this money out of its deposits (broadly speaking). When you repay the loan, the interest you pay is used to deliver interest for the bank's investors. The proposed tax would destroy this system. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• For the general idea of increasing the velocity of money by having saved money lose its value over time (taxation would be one possible way of accomplishing this), thus "forcing" people to spend it before it becomes worthless, see, for example, Demurrage (currency), Freigeld, and Wörgl#The Wörgl Experiment. Deor (talk) 13:35, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

As Medeis suggests above, the premise of the question is wrong. Money that a person or business does not spend itself is spent by whoever they lend it to via a financial intermediary. See Circular flow of income. Duoduoduo (talk) 15:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I think it's more complicated. In a properly working financial system and economy, savings should be converted almost automatically into productive investment by financial intermediaries. However, that assumes that there are attractive investment opportunities available. In fact, what we have throughout the developed world, and increasingly in places like China, is overinvestment in capital which is either producing well below capacity due to a lack of demand or producing near capacity but not very profitably due to prices depressed by a lack of demand. As a result, there is a shortage of attractive investment opportunities, and those with significant assets (the rich, corporations) are sitting on cash, which is not generating a very good return. Because the economy is depressed, those with more modest assets (the middle classes) are also sitting on cash, saving money against a possible job loss or because poor yields compel more aggressive saving for retirement.

Now, this cash admittedly doesn't just sit there. It is invested, but typically in ways that are especially ineffective for stimulating the economy. Not so much at this moment, but in recent years, much of this cash has inflated asset bubbles that have destroyed wealth when they have burst. Especially in Europe but also in the United States, a lot of money has lately been sunk into building up banks' cash reserves to strengthen them against future financial crises. This ends up getting invested in government bonds, which are also a major target for retail investors. (As a result, some have argued that the prices of "safe" (U.S., German) government bonds have been inflated relative to their yields to create a new asset bubble.) Some government spending stimulates the economy, or at least keeps it from shrinking further, by paying for unemployment or healthcare benefits, which indirectly support employment. In the United States, a great deal of government spending goes toward military materiel, logistics, wages and benefits, which again supports employment. Relatively little government spending, in an era when government spending is being demonized, counts as productive investment that might support future job growth. (There is room for productive government investment in infrastructure, but in the United States at least, this is being deferred in the name of austerity.) However, in the current situation, arguably too little of the world's wealth is being invested productively because there is too little effective demand. There are two possible ways to remedy this: 1) penalize savers or wealth holders, perhaps targeted above a certain age-adjusted threshold, to encourage spending and 2) tax wealth to pay for government-funded productive investment in infrastructure and perhaps education. A savings tax, targeted particularly at savings not productively invested, and perhaps targeted above a per-capita threshhold that would rise with age to protect people's retirement funds, could accomplish both goals. Marco polo (talk) 17:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The problem of a lack of good investment opportunities will only be exacerbated by panic spending to avoid a tax on savings. Instead of spending money wisely on good value items when they need them, and letting the money otherwise stay invested as savings, people will buy high-cost and luxury items that they don't need, jewelry, furs, fancy cars, big houses, expensive meals, etc. For the most part these are not 'capital' items that yield a return like education, or knee replacement bought a few years from now when you can't enjoy driving your fancy sports car any more. There would be a temporary boom in the housing and other high-end industries, followed by lay-offs and closings when all the money had been spent. μηδείς (talk) 17:53, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If that were true, then the wealthy (and everyone else) would gravitate toward the smallest possible houses in undesirable areas in order to minimize property taxes. In fact, there's no reason to expect substantially different behavior toward a property tax on financial wealth than one would expect toward the real estate property tax. The wealthy aren't going to spend everything they have to avoid a wealth tax, because they want to retain as much wealth as possible. Incidentally, the same tax could be levied on cars, jewelry, furs, etc, to avoid perverse incentives to convert wealth into tangible forms. Meals costing more than $80 per person or the equivalent in other currencies could be subject to a heavy tax. It's interesting that the people on the right tend to claim that the wealthy can avoid any tax, so there's no point levying the tax, yet other countries do manage to tax the affluent more heavily than the United States, so it clearly is possible. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Obviously in matters like this some people will still make the most rational of decisions. But I really don't find it likely that a spend-it-or-lose-it tax would not encourage many people to splurge on unwise luxury items (the industry for which would boom and then bust, neither good for the economy) when they could otherwise be investing that money for their children's edumacation or the needs of old-age. μηδείς (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

@Marco polo: You suggest that we penalize savers or wealth holders, perhaps targeted above a certain age-adjusted threshold, to encourage spending. But that just encourages people to refrain from lending through intermediaries to those who engage in productive investment, and instead to engage in non-productive spending. And you admit that a lot of investment spending is not fully productive for one reason or another; so where are you going to encourage people to invest more productively? And how are you going to operationalize a savings tax, targeted particularly at savings not productively invested?--how can the government possibly determine what's productively invested and what's not, especially since much productive investment is channeled through financial intermediaries to the companies that actually do the investment spending?

A more effective approach to encouraging productive investment (which I oppose because it would be way too regressive) would be to tax consumption spending instead of saving -- exactly the opposite of what you propose. That would induce some people to channel more of their income to saving rather than consumption, and that saving will end up being spent in a way that, whether highly productively or not, at least will have more of an effect on future jobs than consumption spending would.

And if, as you say, much government spending is not very productive, how would taxing the money away from savers to the government help the situation? By the way, I do think that our (the US's) crumbling infrastructure is a very productive area for government spending. Duoduoduo (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My argument is not really that there isn't enough productive investment, it's that there aren't enough jobs. As a result, there isn't enough consumer demand. Adding investment in capital goods won't work if those goods can't be profitably employed. The investment will be wasted and jobs won't be added. What is needed is more employment and better-paid employment that will generate more consumer demand. Government spending is not a terrible way to achieve that, but it would be even better if the government spending went to produce infrastructure or promote education in skills in demand that might increase the economy's ability to employ in the future. Marco polo (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Saved money (assuming it's not dollar bills stuffed under the mattress) is "saved" into a bank account - which the bank uses to invest in money-making schemes of one sort or another. So if everyone had to pull their money out of bank accounts and spend it, they'd have to invest in much the same things that the bank would have done. Banks would obviously go out of business overnight because they'd have no money to lend. Then the only way for a business to get money for growth would be to sell shares...but small businesses that don't want to have hoards of investors wouldn't be able to function. Starting a new business would be very difficult indeed. (Not impossible - you'd need to use "crowd funding" like Kickstarter to get money from customers up-front). Buying a house would be utterly impossible because there would be no place to get a mortgage.

It's actually a bit fuzzy what is meant by "Savings" anyway. Under this proposed rule, would buying a gold bar count as "saving"? Converting money into some form of goods that can be sold later is really no different from putting the money into a bank and taking it back out again later.

A titanic question

Could the titanic have stayed a float longer if they had gone in reverse and adjusted passengers /cargo displacement possibly long enough to allow Carpathia to rescue them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.71.149.220 (talk) 04:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The weight of those things would be insignificant compared to the water, but flooding the opposite end might have helped. StuRat (talk) 04:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the weight of water would totally dominate any possible relocation of people and cargo. The vessel weighed 46,000 tons and displaced 52,000 tons.

We know that five of the sixteen "watertight" compartments were flooded to the waterline - so we could guess that maybe a quarter of the ship's displacement was replaced with water...so a back-of-envelope calculation suggests that ten thousand tons of water were inside the ship.

So how could they balance this out? The 3,200 people aboard might maybe (optimistically) average 200lb each - that's 320 tons of people...a drop in the bucket compared to a 46,000 ton ship. Even each person brought twice their own weight in baggage and could haul it the length of the ship, we're still under 1,000 tons that could be quickly relocated. Moving the ships cargo would probably have been impossible with the small cranes aboard - but even if it could be moved, the only place to put it would be on deck - and that would make the ship horribly top-heavy and pose a risk of capsizing. The ship was fuelled with coal - so no chance of pumping fuel around to alter the balance either.

Flooding the compartments at the opposite end of the ship would have increased the stress on the vessel's central structure - making it even more likely to snap in two...you'd have to flood the entire ship to roughly equal depth to keep things on an even keel - and that would just have sunk the whole ship in even less time...albeit it would have gone down in a more horizontal and intact fashion. Even if that were desirable, water was flooding in at the bow through a 15'x5' rent...no pumps could possibly compete with that to keep the ship level...and if they could, they'd have been better deployed in pumping water out of the bow section than pumping it into the stern.

But even if any kind of action like this were possible, it assumes that the crew understood sufficiently what was happening to the vessel. They thought it was unsinkable - so in all likelyhood things would be far too far advanced by the time they would have thought to do something that drastic. SteveBaker (talk) 20:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Did they really think it was unsinkable? I've always assumed that was just marketing hype. It seems to have been known that the ship could stay afloat with 4 compartments flooded, but not 5, and they must have known that 5 compartments being flooded wasn't impossible. --Tango (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article says: "...even though countless news stories after the sinking called Titanic unsinkable, prior to the sinking the White Star Line had used the term "designed to be unsinkable", and other pre-sinking publications described the ship as "virtually unsinkable"."...so whether it was hype or not...a lot of people evidently believed it...including the people who decided how many lifeboats to provide! In truth, it wouldn't have sunk if the water wasn't able to over-top the watertight barriers between compartments and if a decent grade of steel had been used to hold the thing together. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

[Edit Conflict] No, the White Star Company never claimed or assumed that Titanic was "unsinkable"; merely, and correctly, that she was less likely to sink than earlier designs - and indeed she stayed afloat significantly longer than any other ship of the time with that damage would have (bar her sisters, obviously). The "unsinkable" label was a journalistic invention, and was largely promulgated after the sinking because the supposed hubris made a better story. [Context: I'm sitting in an office on Southampton Town Quay, not very far from where Titanic docked - this general topic is quite popular in Southampton to this day.] {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 84.21.143.150 (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

So you're saying that our article is wrong? It has a reference for those statements. SteveBaker (talk) 18:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Even if the weight issues, described above, could be resolved, how long would it have taken such a heavy ship steaming ahead at the time of impact to come to a halt and get up any kind of reasonable reverse speed? --Dweller (talk) 11:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The ship was already at a stop - and the engines had been put into full reverse before the iceburg was struck, so I don't think that would have been a problem. Of course as the ship filled with water, it would become harder and harder to keep it moving at any reasonable speed. SteveBaker (talk) 14:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

From our Titanic article (discussing the sea trials): Over the course of about twelve hours, Titanic was driven at different speeds, her turning ability was tested and a "crash stop" was performed in which the engines were reversed full ahead to full astern, bringing her to a stop in 850 yd (777 m) or 3 minutes and 15 seconds. 209.131.76.183 (talk) 20:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Another Titanic Q: No batteries ?

I just saw a TV prog which said they had to keep boilers going for electricity. Didn't they have batteries good for a few hours ? StuRat (talk) 04:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article doesn't make mention of any batteries, but rather states that the Titanic had six steam-driven electric generators (see Titanic#Engines.2C_boilers_and_generators). Someguy1221 (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't think batteries at the time would have been much help. They might have been able to power the radio for a bit longer, but they would never have been able to store enough electricity for the lights and other electrical systems. See history of the battery. --Tango (talk) 15:25, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It would certainly be possible to have sufficient batteries to run emergency lights for a few hours, but running pumps might be more demanding. StuRat (talk) 18:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It would be now, certainly. The Titanic sank 100 years ago, though... --Tango (talk) 20:07, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Lead-acid batteries were around then, right ? StuRat (talk) 20:13, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but in 1915, Thomas Edison pointed out the danger of chlorine gas being generated in submarines as a result of the lead storage batteries being flooded with sea water. See USS F-4 (SS-23) which was wrecked for this very reason in the same year. That's a three years too late for the Titanic (sank in 1912) - but it's possible that enough was known of the chemistry to make them wish to avoid large quantities of seemingly unnecessary lead-acid batteries on board a passenger ship. Had they had them, I'm sure that clouds of chlorine gas wafting through the ship would have made matters much worse! SteveBaker (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure it's enough chlorine gas to be a risk on a ship that can just open the windows to ventilate ? StuRat (talk) 01:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Erm, I have no deep understanding of these issues, but wouldn't the area most affected by such a potential gassing be the engine room, and if so, would I be right in assuming that on most ships, including Titanic, it would be poorly ventilated at best, and not an area you'd want to evacuate? --Dweller (talk) 11:06, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

If the batteries would have been stored above the waterline, you're probably right...but on a passenger ship, space above the waterline is a valuable resource and those kinds of engineering things would likely have been kept down below the level where you could open a window. It's not clear to me whether the hypothetical number of batteries they'd have needed would have generated enough chlorine gas to be a problem...but it's an interesting thought. SteveBaker (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Even motor cars didn't have batteries in 1912. Alansplodge (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

No, but submarines evidently did (United States F class submarine says diesel/electric submarines had them at least as early as 1909)...so it's not entirely unreasonable that a modern ocean liner might also have considered having them. However, as I said, they may have known enough about the salt-water ingress problem to decide not to do it. Of course they didn't expect the ship to sink - so the issues of all of the steam generators failing at once may not have been something they thought was likely, so batteries - whether available or not - would not have been seen as necessary. But if they did think about it - then they might well have been put off doing it by the thought that "we'll only need them if the ship is in trouble - and that's exactly the time when they might get seawater in them and flood the ship with chlorine gas". SteveBaker (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

You'd definitely need to find room for them above the waterline. StuRat (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Electric cars sure did. StuRat (talk) 20:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but I did say motor cars. Alansplodge (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. What do you think propels an electric car?  ;-) --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:46, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

restored cars - how well do they drive?

I've seen cars from 40 or more years ago restored and they look very nice. How well do they drive? Close to the way they drove when new? Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 04:40, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but cars of that era often drove like boats, even when new. StuRat (talk) 04:52, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

The best-driving car I've ever had was a '73. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:33, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

My 1973 Mercury Marquis (bigger than the Grand Marquis is now) certainly handled like a boat. StuRat (talk) 05:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

To list some specifics, a car from the early 1970's may have been rear-wheel drive, with some 70% of the weight in front, bias-ply tires, a rather pathetic, overly-soft suspension, and a length that really requires an additional pair of wheels to support it in the middle. :-) StuRat (talk) 06:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It was rear-wheel drive. It came with bias ply tires but the first time I changed them I went to radials. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 06:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

What model ? StuRat (talk) 06:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

A Pontiac LeMans. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 18:54, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

If a vehicle is restored to very high level using a so-called rotisserie restoration, all perishable parts are likely to be replaced and the vehicle is going to drive almost identically to how it did when new. The only part which cannot easily be restored to like-new conditions is the chassis (especially in unibody cars). Overtime chassis flex weakens the metal itself and while there are ways to resolve this, I don't believe it is frequently done. This is likely to be the only noticeable difference between a new car and a expertly restored example and even this isn't likely to be noticed except under very aggressive driving or over a very bumpy road. Of course many restorations aren't up to this standard and include only things like new paint, an engine rebuild and new shock absorbers or struts. While this is will freshen up how a vehicle drives, subtle things like the old springs and rubber suspension bushings will provide a different feel than they did when new. --Daniel(talk) 19:26, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It depends on what you mean by "restored". A good restoration can bring a car back to factory condition. In fact, at some car shows, they'll deduct points when a car is restored to better than factory condition because that's an all-too-common thing. So, a good restoration is (effectively) a brand new car. HOWEVER, it's a brand new 1970's era car. There is no doubt that cars have improved immensely over the years. I have a '63 Mini - and let me list some of it's trickier points:

1. The drivers seat has only two positions - no back adjustment whatever.
2. Despite being the "Hot Hatchback" of it's era, it has a 12 second 0-60 time and top speed is 72mph. That's not atypical of cars of that era.
3. The gearbox doesn't have synchromesh on 1st gear so you have to remember not to downshift into 1st as you come to a stoplight until you're completely stationary.
4. There is no rev limiter of any kind - if you over cook it, the engine blows up.
5. It leaks oil. They did that when brand new too.
6. It overheats in Texas summers.
7. Seatbelts were optional extras - and the guy who bought mine from new didn't buy them. No airbags either.
8. No ABS...which is kinda OK because the drum brakes are so pathetic that you're not going to manage to lock them. You really do have to plan in advance to stop and keep a very respectable distance back from the car in front because you know that he DOES have disk brakes and ABS!
9. The windshield washer doesn't have a motor - you pump it via the knob on the dashboard.
10. The electrical system sucks. Any moisture and something shorts out. There are only two fuses for the entire car - so when you accidentally short something minor out - EVERYTHING goes out.
11. No power steering, no power brake assist. Even though it's a light car, it takes arm muscles to turn it at low speeds.
12. No radio (another optional extra).
13. Very dim headlamps.
14. Needs maintenance every 1,000 miles and oil changes every 3,000 (if it hasn't all leaked out before then!).
15. That said, it's more fun to drive than a modern MINI Cooper - it handles like the six time Monty-Carlo rally winner that it always was.

These are the standards by which 1960's and early 1970's cars were built.

That said, many people don't "restore" old cars - they rebuild them. In some cases, almost nothing is left of the original. Someone can take a Model T Ford and turn it into a hotrod...I'm not sure I'd call that "restoration" - but when that's done, you've probably got a fully modern car with an old-style body shell. If it's done well, you'll have a decent engine, ABS and all of those things. The only concern I'd have is that you now have a one-of-a-kind car that's never been crash-tested or undergone hundreds of thousands of miles of road tests...so I'd be quite concerned about safety and (to a lesser extent) reliability.

SteveBaker (talk) 19:37, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Steve: and why would someone want to drive such a thing? And I am afraid it's even more expensive than a present day Mini (which is an amazing car, specially regarding the driving experience). OsmanRF34 (talk) 20:03, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, I don't drive it much. But it's a hell of a lot of fun (more so than a modern MINI) - and here in Texas, you get attention from everyone around you all the time! That said, driving under the speed limit on freeways in the smallest car you've ever seen in your life is just a tad scarey. Hence I stick to 50mph back-roads and mostly only drive it to car shows and club meetings and such. Cost is much less than a modern MINI. A bottom-of-the-range modern MINI Cooper comes in at about $20,000 here in the USA. I paid $2,000 for my (then unrestored) '63 Mini - and I probably spent $3,000 on restoring it - but lots of 'sweat equity'. You can buy a nicely restored example for maybe $15,000 and a reliable/drivable one that won't win competitions for around $8,000 - so they are significantly less than a brand new modern MINI. Most restored cars are worth less than new modern equivalents...unless they are really top-of-the-line show cars...but those are rarely (if ever) actually driven (the derogatory term "garage queen" would be used here!). SteveBaker (talk) 20:28, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

For point 3 above, you could always double declutch. More impressive still is the Heel-and-toe gearchange (ie double declutching while applying the footbrake), Alansplodge (talk) 01:45, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The OP must be delighted to receive information about the screen washer on one particular car that someone idolizes. A 1963 Mini is however not «the smallest car you have ever seen in your life» to any of the thousands who have seen such cars as the Peel P50 or Messeschmitt KR200. DreadRed (talk) 09:37, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

A 63 Mini is NOT a typical car of the time back then either - it is and was rubbish. A cheap and nasty car produced by a second rate manuafctuer for low socio-economic folk in a depressed economy, ie Britain. I had a 64 Holden (Australian version of GM car roughly equivalent to a Chevrolet - the dirt cheap line in the GM range - but smaller. Let's compare it:-

1. The drivers seat was continously adjustable.
2. It made no claims to be a hot performer, but the top speed was about 90 MPH.
3. The gearbox didn't have synchromesh on 1st gear but the engine doesn't really need it. 2nd will pull strongly from walking pace. But all synchro was an optional extra, about $15 as I recall.
4. There is no explicit rev limiter, however valve bounce over 6000 RPM and mainfold design meant that you really had to try very hard to damage the engine.
5. None of them ever leaked oil - that's just one of the Mini's well known quirks.
6. It never overheated in any Australian summer, just as hot if not hotter than Texas.
7. No Seatbelts and no airbags - no mass produced cars had them then.
8. No power brakes in standard model - but with good drums you don't need power assistance. It was not difficult to lock all 4 wheels, as yes, no ABS back then. Disk brakes with power assist were an optional extra as I recall.
9. The windshield washer was electric but it was an optional extra.
10. The electrical system was solid - never any trouble until the cars were really old.
11. No power steering, but it didn't need it - turning was quite light. Power steering was an optional extra though.
12. Radio standard. Extremely good sound quality and long range on AM - much better than modern radios.
13. Good bright headlamps.
14. Needed servicing and oil changes every 3,000 miles. All cars had 3000 mile service intervals back then as the old type oil degraded. If you run an old 1960's but reasonable condition car on modern oil, you need only change it each 12,000 miles or so.
15. That said, it did have the typical wallowy GM handling. They weren't supposed to, but some dealers would at extra cost fit "Police configuration" with a lot less body roll. Back then a large aftermarket existed supplying kits for improving the handling of American designed cars.

I read somewhere that GM engineers knew as much about suspension and handling as anybody, but their CEO had decreed that body roll was good as it supposedly frightened young inexperienced drivers from pushing it to its limits (did't work with me). You got a nice soft ride though. With those horrible Minis you felt every darn bump in the road. Wickwack 121.215.132.106 (talk) 16:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I have a car I'd like to restore, but it won't be anytime soon. It will not be to sell and not be for showing off or for competitions, so it doesn't have to be like new. I would like to be able to drive it once in a while, though. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 16:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

In defence of the 60's era Mini that is maligned above as "rubbish", it is the most influential car design of the 2nd half of the 20th century and a good choice for restoration. Parts are readily available and there are a wide range of possible restoration levels from basic to highly tuned. You will probably have to deal with its notoriously rusty subframe but there is no shortage of enthusiasts to attest that restored minis are as lively to drive as they always have been. The primitive squeeze-bulb windshield washer was mentioned. When the inaccessible electric fuel pump fails, as a get-you-home emergency trick it can be arranged to pump fuel to the carburetter. I have done that and report that it got me home though the plastic parts of the pump were ruined by contact with the fuel. DreadRed (talk) 08:34, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

The point isn't whether the car was good or bad - both it and the 64 Holden (and most other affordable cars from that era) have numerous things that, while acceptable when they were sold, are not acceptable today. My point is that restoring an old car, even to 100% perfect factory condition does not make it a good car to drive today. A case in point is the brakes. In the 1960's, nobody had ABS. So on a freeway, the guy in front of you had brakes that were at least as bad as yours - so even if he tried to stop quickly, you could always avoid rear-ending him by stopping equally quickly. I drove a classic Mini in the 1960's and I don't recall ever being concerned about the brakes. However, try driving one on a modern freeway and it's hell! Because all of the other cars have MUCH better brakes than you do, they stop incredibly quickly and my poor 50 year old car can't do nearly as well. So you have to leave longer stopping distances from the car in front - which means that people keep changing lanes and moving into that gap you so carefully left. When they do that and then slam on the brakes, you're in a lot of trouble!

Driving these old cars is never comfortable or safe. It can, however, be a lot of fun! I drive my classic car maybe a dozen times a year - short distances, not on busy roads - it's a blast! But there is simply no way I'd even consider using it as my daily driver or taking it on a road trip! SteveBaker (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Donations

There appears to be a problem with the bar that pops up to inform users of wikipedia donations. What it is, is that it won't stop. It doesn't normally appear for this long. It was here since November. Any help? 92.0.110.196 (talk) 18:42, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

It goes away when you make a donation! SteveBaker (talk) 19:45, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Or if you click the little [X] button. It's not a problem, it's just our annual fundraiser - it isn't cheap to keep a top website running. --Tango (talk) 20:12, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW 92, you're mistaken about how long the donation banner normally appears. Since ~2007 it always starts in about early to mid November and goes to the end of the year or the beginning of next year (usually after the original fundraising period ends, there remains a thank you banner which still links to the donation page), lasting a total of 45-60 days. See [2], Meta:Fundraising 2009/Timeline, Meta:Fundraising 2008, Meta:Fundraising 2007/Report (actually begun in October!). 2005 had 3 fund raisers I think and 2006 only last about a month so they were the last time it was different. This particular year was actually the second latest starting time since 2007 (2011 began one day later) and of course we're still a while away from ending, in fact we're not even that many days more than the short 2006 period. Nil Einne (talk) 06:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Santa's elves

Odin riding Sleipnir

What was the first story involving elves and Santa's workshop? 216.93.234.239 (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

See Christmas elf. Marco polo (talk) 19:39, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Great, thanks. 216.93.234.239 (talk) 19:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that article doesn't make a lot of sense. It claims that the origin was an unpublished manuscript from the 1850s without explaining how that manuscript had any influence. According to this site, the first mention of Santa's elves was an anonymous poem published in Harper's Weekly in 1857. Marco polo (talk) 20:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

• All of these notions of Father Christmas originate with the bearded and hooded Odin in Norse mythology riding his flying eight-legged steed Slepnir--think eight-reindeer sleigh. The Christmas tree with its star on top represents the world tree with its (pole) star on top about which the sky rotates. It's all based on prehistoric and actually quite sophisticated pagan legends. See also, the Finnic Kalevala, with Väinämöinen and his magic flying sleigh, and other story collections from the north. As for the elves, they would have originated with Odin' Dwarves, who were craftsmen. μηδείς (talk) 21:47, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Reference please, Medeis. Alansplodge (talk) 23:58, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Odin#Santa_Claus, allegedly. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is highly unlikely, since we have a gap of several centuries between the Odin myth being current to the modern Santa Claus myth. --Saddhiyama (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Medeis's Santa (right) is holding the most dangerous looking toy that I've ever seen. Is that for the naughty children? Alansplodge (talk) 01:35, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Your incredulity doesn't, frankly, mean diddly to me. The Siberian legend of the sky father who bestows his blessing through the dwelling's smoke-hole on the night of the winter solistice is well documented. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I was taking more notice of the fact he's riding Slepnir backwards, apparently he isn't in any rush to spread Christmas cheer. (Unless of course he is riding it the right way - not impossible seeing it already has 8 legs...) HandsomeNick (TALK) (EDITS) 04:54, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

His feet seem to be pointing the right way in the stirrups - I think he's just twisted around to look behind him. AlexTiefling (talk) 10:21, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Our article Santa Claus suggests it came from Sinterklaas. The article on Sinterklaas suggests the concept is associated with Saint Nicholas with a possible connection to Odin. Either way, it seems clear it was not a direct change from Odin to Santa Claus which may partially be a source of any confusion. Nil Einne (talk) 05:46, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

BTW as for Father Christmas, our article suggests a connection to Wōden (Anglo-Saxon and Continental Germanic counterpart of Odin). It notes the traditional association was with 'adult feasting and drinking'. The gift giving, chimney etc stuff came when Father Christmas merged with Sinterklaas/Saint Nicholas so the connection between the tradition of Father Christmas and Odin seems more teneous. There is perhaps the connection between Wōden and Odin but that's not so simple, if I understand the earlier articles and Wōdanaz correctly, Wōden and Odin developed from Wōdanaz somewhat seperately and in fact Wōden predated Odin anyway. In other words, while it may be accurate to say the concept of Santa Claus partially originated from Odin, it's possibly not correct to say 'All of these notions of Father Christmas originate .... Odin' as it seems possible or even likely some of the more traditional notions of Father Christmas had other sources like Wōden which did not originate from Odin but as concurrent or earlier developments. I'm not even sure if it's entirely correct to say all of the gift giving part originated with Odin since it's unclear to me that there is consensus that the gift giving associated with Saint Nicholas definitely originated from Odin or it was potentially another independent development which merged with the myths of Odin rewarding children. Nil Einne (talk) 06:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

P.S. Our articles in particular Sinterklaas suggest at least part of the tradition of the elves may originate from Zwarte Piet which itself may originate from Huginn and Muninn of Odin. See also Christmas gift-bringer. Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Then, of course, there was Saint Nicholas, who gave gifts to children to celebrate Christmas, and was later combined with other legends to create Santa Claus. Note that "Saint" is "Santa" in Spanish and "Nicholas" is "Niclaus", or just "Claus", in German. StuRat (talk) 00:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Then, of course, there was Obama's elf. HiLo48 (talk) 16:14, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

@ Nil, you seem, if I understand you, to be slightly misinterpreting what you read at Wōdanaz. English Woden and Norse Odin (I am not going to bother with strict orthography) are merely the same word for the same deity passed down within each group since the time they were all one Proto-Germanic people before they spread out over NW Europe. There was no borrowing involved. And the linguistic reconstruction *Wōdanaz is merely the way those people pronounced that name back when they were one unitary people in the Proto-Germanic Urheimat. It wasn't that, say, the English borrowed *Wōdanaz as Woden at one point and the Norse as Odin at another. There's an unbroken cultural transmission, just as the PG word *stanaz evolved into stone in English, and Stein in German. English didn't borrow the word from German, nor the reverse, nor either from Proto Germanic. The differences in times noted in the article are differences in times of written attestation. The word was being spoken (and slowly changed according to each language's sound laws) continuously

That being said, the timeline goes back to an old traditional Siberian sky god worshipped during the prehistorical period by hunter gatherers we'd associate with the ancestors of the Uralic peoples, The Altaic peoples, the Yukaghir people and so forth, who fished and hunted reindeer. The god was associated with the world tree, which was how they explained what held up the celestial axis about which the sky revolved, with the North Star which sat at its crown, and with a yearly blessing of fortune and fertility shone down the smokehole on the family as he flew through the sky on a magic sled or steed. (Such legends were recorded from indigenous pagan people of Siberia in the 19th century.) At some point circa 1-2,000 BC this god got merged with the Norse mythology, With Wotanaz replacing Tiwaz, the original Norse version of the PIE Zeus/Dyaus Pita. (This may have to do with the merger of a Finnic and a PIE substrate resulting in the Æsir–Vanir War.) When the Germans were Christianized, the yule time Woden worship became co-opted as "Father Christmas", a Christian figure of dubious relation to the Christ child, and still carrying all the trappings of Woden. Eventually this was concept was further Christianized by having the memory of a 'historical' Saint Nicholas (who had nothing to do with reindeer, or chimneys, or pine trees, or the North Pole, or flying through the night sky on the solstice) take on the garb of Father Christmas. Voilà: Santa Claus. μηδείς (talk) 19:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

How is Father Christmas pre the merger with Santa Claus Christian? I thought he was just the personification of the feast. The green man could well be related but I don't see a relationship with Grim. Unless you have a good source. Itsmejudith (talk) 09:46, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I am a little confused by your question. Are you asking how father christmas was christian before he was syncreticized with St Nicholas? He was obviously a continuation of Folk belief that had evolved from memories of Odin to being associated with christmas in the way the easter bunny and easter eggs became symbolic of easter, We should have an article on the creation of christian pseudosaints (father christmas, santa muerte) and other saints like the various nymphs that have become this or that virgin of the waters. My own study has been in the study of the relations of the Siberian peoples along the lines of Joseph Greenberg's Eurasiatic and Michael Fortescue's Uralo-Siberian. Those groups have the hooded and bearded shaman who flies to the star at the top of the world tree on the solstice and who shines down fortune through the smoke holes in their tents and lodges. As for father christmas (the name associates him with christianity) in the middle ages, I have no especial knowledge beyond that he's an Odin been coopted by the church. What interests me is that pagan neolithic tribes across siberia share a wise magical skygod with a flying eight-somethinged conveyance who travels up the tree at the center of the earth and to the pole star at its top, to shine down the year's blessings through people's chimneys. μηδείς (talk) 12:59, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I was questioning your description above of Father Christmas as "a Christian figure of dubious relation to the Christ child". I don't think he was particularly Christian. Even though he has "Christmas" in his name, Christmas is only partly a Christian feast. Moreover, I don't see much connection between him and Woden either. He leads the feast, as the May Queen leads May Day. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, you are absolutely right the only thing actually Christian about him is the name, just like the Easter Bunny--well, even then, Easter is a pagan name. (We don't really have the May Queen in the U.S. either, except in Zeppelin songs and maybe as Mother Nature.) I can't speak directly to English tradition, since my traditions are American and Ruthenian. Rusyn Christmas involves coins hidden under hay on the floor, ham and pierogies, and carolers who go drunk from house to house telling the story of a shepherd who fell out of the tree and had to have his leg cut off with an axe. Which they reenact, and scare the kids witless. (Here's the more 'Christian' part of the tradition, without the violence, kids, or goodies.) Anyone who's read The White Goddess will be familiar with that motif.

Again I was using the term Father Christmas broadly for the seasonal personification, not to mean exactly the English incarnation there of. See also Father Time. μηδείς (talk) 02:02, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't say there was any borrowing, in fact I don't get the relation of your long borrowing/word discussions to my post at all. What I did say was that the original Father Christmas in England may have originated from Wōden not Odin. These may have originated from the same god, but they were held by seperate groups of people (who had the same ancestors) and evidentally diverged enough that we have separate articles. There was likely some cross cultural connection even after the divergence but since Wōden apparently arose first and remained Wōden among certain groups, it wouldn't be accurate to say Father Christmas involved from Odin when it arose from Wōden. Note that you said all Father Christmas arose from Odin not all Father Christmas arose from Wōdanaz. Your comment on stanaz seems to reenforce my point. If you were to say the name Stonehenge originates partially the word Stein, it would not be accurate. Per our article it partially originates from stān which I presume from your comment originated from stanaz. Stein developed concurrently with stone from the same original word (with I presume largely the same meaning), but it doesn't mean any word containing stone originated from Stein. Nil Einne (talk) 14:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, that clarifies it hugely! I get your point entirely. I wasn't paying attention to the fact that I have been saying Odin along with popular usage when, to be strict, it would, in English, be that Father Christmas had evolved from Wōden. I found it odd that you were confused and a relief to see the confusion was mine. μηδείς (talk) 21:26, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Long time later but AFAIK Odin always only refers to the Norse god. I've never heard it being used to refer to the English god before. Frankly the English god doesn't get much discussion, perhaps because English gods in general don't get much discussion. If you want to use words in idiosyncratic fashion, it's not surprising if there is confusion. Or do you still not understand that these aren't the same thing as they diverged a resonable amount, even if they had the same origins? Nil Einne (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2014 (UTC)