Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Miscellaneous/2013 February 23

= February 23 =

im a us citizen my son was born in mexico i didn't go to da American consulate
What am I supposed to do? I got him a passport frm the US when he was little — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.171.178.76 (talk) 08:46, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * When you ask "What am I supposed to do?", just what is it that you're trying to achieve? --   Jack of Oz   [Talk]  08:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Same general question as JackofOz above (further information would be helpful). Your son holds Mexican citizenship by birth, and may hold American citizenship by descent depending on your circumstances at the time of his birth (see United States nationality law for more information). That fact that he was able to gain a US passport would seem to guarantee his citizenship. I would also suggest contacting Citizenship and Immigration Services for more information on your specific situation. 124.148.93.246 (talk) 16:49, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What are you supposed to do? There are a wide variety of Parenting styles, and I hesitate to tell you which one is right for you, but in general... talk to him.  Read to him every day.  Be kind.  Don't hit him or call him names.  Teach him things about the world, and create opportunities for him to meet people who can teach him things you don't know.  Set reasonable boundaries and enforce them consistently and fairly.  Make him a cake on his birthday. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The OP can read these responses, but beyond Bugs's I don't think we need to expand them further. μηδείς (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Consult a lawyer. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Was this toy made?
Did any major manufacturer make a toy of the big spaceship in which Admiral Ackbar stood in Return of the Jedi? 67.163.109.173 (talk) 19:44, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Wookiepedia identifies that ship as Home One, an MC80 Star Cruiser. Searching with Google for "Home one" toy finds several different kinds, including a Lego one and a die-cast metal one. -- Finlay McWalterჷTalk 20:17, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fastest traditional manual cars?
With most modern super cars using electronically assisted sequential manual paddle transmissions, what are some of the fastest moderns cars remaining that still use traditional manual transmission (with a clutch pedal and an actual shifter)? Acceptable (talk) 20:23, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * looks like Hennessey_Venom_GT would be one such --nonsense ferret  23:09, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What do you mean exactly by modern? My manual shift (column change) fifty-five Chevy  was super. It just left my schoolmates  blinking in its  dust.  Mind you, my daddy didn’t have a job at the time and so that was all he could afford. Hey, did you see Two-Lane Blacktop? Lesson: always wear  shot-sleeved  shirt when racing chicken – no leather jackets – or remove all the door handles. Oh, they were the days – do you remember how much it cost to fill the gas tank up  to over flowing? --Aspro (talk) 01:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * By modern I mean a car that is part of the manufacturer's current line up of cars and can be bought at a new car dealership. Acceptable (talk) 02:43, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * And in any case, the '55 Chevy, even with the V8, was nowhere near the fastest production car out there at that time. Orange Suede Sofa  (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure if it is a manual, but Top Gear says the Pagani Huayra is the quickest around their track, at least in the curiously shaped hands of The Stig.DOR (HK) (talk) 08:07, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * but per our article Pagani Huayra is a 7-speed sequential, so not one of interest to this query --nonsense ferret  11:54, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

How much faster can F1 cars be without restrictions?
How much faster can Formula One cars be if all performance restrictions were lifted by its governing body, the FIA? Acceptable (talk) 21:08, 23 February 2013 (UTC)


 * Which restrictions are you including and not including in "all"? If you remove restrictions such as "must be accelerated by the wheels", the unlimited-class land speed record is 1223.657 km/h, so the racing speeds would be limited mainly by how creative the engineers are when it comes to high-speed cornering ability. --Carnildo (talk) 05:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * With no restrictions they would no longer be Formula One cars. HiLo48 (talk) 07:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well HiLo's so clever rhetorical answer aside, there are all kinds of restrictions on F1 cars. The F1 article details those quite well. If you created a class of cars where there were no safety restrictions, I suppose someone'd do better. It's kind of an interesting question, but I guarantee you nobody here will answer it with any satisfaction. Now, if you turn an F1 track into a 10 mile stretch of desert, perhaps you can reach the speed of sound. Shadowjams (talk) 12:38, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * What was so clever and rhetorical about it? Do you think the OP already knew that? It wasn't obvious from the question. HiLo48 (talk) 21:14, 24 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I believe Mach 1 is beyond the capability of the internal combustion engine - you'd want a jet engine or a rocket for that I suspect --nonsense ferret  13:26, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you for proving my premise. Shadowjams (talk) 13:34, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * The Red Bull X2010. Is a fictional vehicle designed without any kind of restrictions.  It isn't an F1 car and as others have said, the restrictions are what makes something an F1 car.  But if the question is, how much faster could a conceivable vehicle be? The answer is a lot.  Despite being the quickest way around most tracks, F1 cars are actually heavily limited in many ways.  From most to least important (in my opinion): aerodynamics (active aerodynamic components are illegal and the shape of the car is limited under current rules), engine power (lots of room for expansion here, F1 has been trying to limit costs by restricting engine complexity, engines were more powerful 20 years ago during the turbo era.  With modern technology and no rules you could probably reach 2500hp in a compact and light package),Sucker fans(currently illegal, but a massive and dangerous advantage to use a vacuum to hold the car to the road), number of wheels (six is probably better, especially if you don't have to worry about pit stops, there have been some six wheeled F1 cars, but it is no longer legal, see: [[Tyrrell P34]), advanced driver aids (computer driver aids are limited under current F1 rules, but traction control and automatic shifting would lower lap times), more than two wheel drive (currently illegal, but potentially helpful), enclosed wheel nacelles and closed cockpits (more aerodynamic).  Exactly how much faster a car like this would be is pure speculation, but it would certainly run rings around any current competition cars.  It would also be extremely dangerous for everyone involved and would never be built.
 * Of course we could think further outside of the box, eliminate the driver entirely and have the car driven by a computer. This might allow for cars to be much smaller and potentially faster, but perhaps they could no longer be considered race cars. -- Daniel  (talk)  16:00, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Speculative, of course, but would a fully-faired design (such as the Porsche 917) be faster than the front-wing-and-nacelle design of the X2010? Or does the extra weight of the body overcome the aerodynamic advantage? Tevildo (talk) 22:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * If any of us could quickly and obviously answer that question we'd be working for Ferrari or perhaps Tesla, or... pick your favorite car company. Shadowjams (talk) 06:15, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer my own question, the Mercedes-Benz W196 was originally fully-faired, but changed to open-wheel as it was "not suitable for twistier tracks". Of course, that was with the aerodynamics of 60 years ago, but I think it shows that neither configuration is obviously superior to the other. Tevildo (talk) 00:05, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for fast in the sense of top speed, somewhat obviously aerodynamics would be more important than weight, so the nod would have to go to the covered wheel over the open wheel. Note that drag goes up with the square of speed, and the top of the tires are moving forward at double the speed of the vehicle, so we're talking substantial drag. Note also that both Bonneville style straight line speed records and closed course (banked oval, etc) speed records are dominated by full fendered cars. Top speed is actually not such a design element for F1; downforce to provide grip for handling and braking is much more important, and their aerodynamics are tuned for that, with resultant tons (probably literally) of drag. I had the good fortune to be on the bridge over the track once during an F1 qualifying session, and that little bathtub on wheels generates a shock wave that would make a tractor-trailer proud. Gzuckier (talk) 06:52, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Omg those tires are so cool. Shadowjams (talk) 07:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Gzuckier's answer to Tevildo's question is well thought out. I'd add that the shape of the X2010 looks more like the result of someone sketching something out based on their knowledge of aerodynamics rather than something that his been through extensive wind tunnel testing, not surprising given that the car is just a flight of fancy for a video game.  Before 2009 F1 cars sprouted winglet all across their body as see in the picture. Fernando Alonso 2008 Valencia test.jpg The X2010 doesn't have any, but I'm sure if the body had been through a wind tunnel and had undergone some serious analysis it would. -- Daniel  (talk)  14:09, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you guys for the response. I understand that the entire reason why the cars are called Formula One cars is because they follow the "formula" set out by FIA. I guess perhaps a better way to rephrase the question would be, since this "formula" and its associated restrictions are constantly changing from year to year, if we were go go back to the season with the most lenient "formula" of all time and use modern-day technology to construct a car, how much faster would this car be compared to the cars of the current season?

Or if it is still too broad, perhaps, how much faster can the current F1 cars be if you were to allow turbo/superchargers, unlimited revs, full-slick tires? Acceptable (talk) 02:41, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I don't know exactly when the most lenient rules where in effect. It might have been 82' when turbo charging was legal and just before ground effect was outlawed.  That or the very beginning when there were few regulations aside from displacement.  It's very hard to make an apples to apples comparison because rules are designed with the technology of the time in mind.  It's even harder, if not impossible, to give a quantitative answer regarding how much lap times would be reduced.  In any even, Turbocharging is going to be required for the 2014 season, although displacement will be down to 1.6 liters compared to 2.4.  For your second scenario I'd say that the combination of a turbo and no rev limit would make cars potentially very powerful.  In the mid 80s, turbo F1 cars were capable of putting as much as 1300-1400hp from a 1.5 liter four cylinder.  With today's technology and larger displacement you can imagine how incredibly powerful an engine could be.  Again I couldn't give you a hard figure on exactly how much faster a car like this would be. -- Daniel  (talk)  18:34, 26 February 2013 (UTC)