2023.06.03 05:18 ndlacajunwiseguy 2020 (goldilocks) ridgeline with modifications
![]() | Wanted to post the 2020 ridgeline (goldilocks...I like the old style, but has the new transmission) version that I bought new before all the pandemic weirdness submitted by ndlacajunwiseguy to hondaridgeline [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/qixi4kqf1q3b1.jpg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f7cba60d921b75a67aebefa6198f2d7135dd6d5f https://preview.redd.it/rrlqrnqf1q3b1.jpg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3cbff889786fd604a0f2bd2e5556053ec1bcb58d https://preview.redd.it/gd8y6dqf1q3b1.jpg?width=2560&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d8486f9efce244f1051933781e8351ad239a2e3b Modifications 1: 2 inch traxda lift. This is really the sweet spot, going over really runs up the price and 2 inches puts it on par with the taco/rangecolorado that run next to you 2: firestone destination at2 265/60-18 . No rub on full lock forward/reverse. Reason for getting was white lettering and the reviews were very positive on highway manners and wet performance. Wet performance is big for me since I am driving in the wet a good majority of the time. 2A: Tires plus lift is roughly 2 1/2 inches up. Wife: why did you make it so high? its hard to get into! me: muahahah 3: under body protection of mostly no low design front skid, front diff and catalytic protection (mostly to slow down/prevent someone going after my cat...its a thing in my area) 3a: front skid plate NEEDS replacement m6 bolts on the front that are automotive grade class 10.9. The stock bolts are meant to hold a tin shield and they will loosen and cause a bunch of creaking/groaning. If you attempt to tighten..they just break. 4: fog lights are diode dynamics SLF white, the 780 lumens is a great match and does not over power the main headlights. They are actually very useful in our dark and rainy nights here in Louisiana! 5: Brush guard, I think this was CarID...but not even sure you can buy anymore. It was roughly $350 at the time. Downside is the top tabs running under the hood...I had to take a stainless pad to them and really scour them and put on real black paint that could stand up to the rain. The stock coating rusted very quickly. 6: AEM drop in air filter. Clean/wash it every 3 months...works great. 7: CarID for the dash cover, I keep my vehicles for a long time and most end up with cracked dashes so wanted to prevent that on this ridgeline. Plus I could geek out and put my gamer handle embroided on it...kids/wife roll eyes... me dont care. 8: Steering wheel cover off amazon for $20, keeps the steering wheel in great shape and the aftermarket is really decent. 9: Full size spare on the back. This takes some amazon...you need a m8 140 to 160mm in length. I got the 160mm in length from England and its just a tad too long. I used rubber spacers on the stock insert. The stock tire holder requires a new hole, I screwed in my bolt...put some paint on the top and put the tire on with the stock holder. It showed me where the bolt hit the stock holder and voila...drilled my hole there. Its pretty much right on the edge..like 2mm off the edge if you need to guess. I put the bolt in and put a rubber spacer (again 160mm is a tad long, 150mm would be perfect) and just used a ratchet to screw it in. Is the view out of the back window great? No, but it beats the tire just lying in the back. I would love the tire to be side mounted on the bed behind the driver...but I don't know how to fabri-coble such a beast. 10: threw the engine cover away...I like to hear the engine. 11: Yes....I put a honda Trailsport badge on it. Its the version of the 2020 ridgeline that is really trail rated, but never made. haha...true unicorn 12: Put ceramic tint on the front windows. Its a bit less then the stock rear so nobody questions it and its a good look imho. I had it done professionally and it looks stock and has held up for 3 years with zero problems...and it really does block out the UV. They were also the same shop that installed the traxda lift, it was unique for them since they do a LOT of custom lifts...but never a ridgeline. What I like: 1:Payload is great, I've really pushed it a few times with 1700lbs...but it handled it like a champ every time. 2:Towing is fine, small trailer for my daughters band, a few boats, etc. I do need to install a brake controller on the off chance it hits 4k lbs or more. 3:Ride is great...way better than most every truck I've driven 4:Handling is vastly better in the corners, I can really whip this thing into a tight turn and not end up plowing or bouncing like mad....this is NOT something you want to do on a taco/rangecolorado. 5:More height on the sidewalls makes a real difference in handling pot holes...ride is not as jarring. We don't have great roads here in Louisiana. 6:I use the in bed speakers waaay more than I ever thought I would. 7:Love the transmission 8:making people regret not getting a ridgeline after they borrow my truck for the weekend 9: its pretty damn unique in town, I mean ridgeline is already pretty much "wheres waldo?" in a sea of ford/chevy/dodge/toyota...but this puts it into the unicorn status 10: oh yeah..cabin space is awesome! 11: trunk really keeps the cabin clean...just toss it in the trunk! What you need to accept: 1: acceleration takes a hit with more weight and bigger tires 2: gas mileage goes down. stock height/tires it was easy to get 25-29mpg, now its around 21. I drive like a monkey in town...17 3: Head unit is slooow. It doesn't crash/freeze...but it is slow. Basically android auto is your friend. 4: getting it aligned takes more than your usual shop. They have to work with lifted trucks...your normal shop has no clue on how to get this aligned. I took it to 2 shops, multiple times..fails. I then looked around for an alignment shop that knew wtf to do with modified trucks and it finally was done right. 5: eco mode in town is death...it takes so much off the acceleration that to turn into traffic is: ok..barely going..push more pedal...hmm still not moving...more pedal...damn they are right there! mash it to the floor! Sum up: I am totally that crescent wrench guy....I don't do anything that well, but can toss myself into most situations and make it work. This is my perfect truck in that it can do pretty much anything I ask it and my daughters are learning to drive on this as it has most of the modern safety features. |
2023.06.03 05:10 Bmmick 2017 Kia Optima Help
![]() | My kia the other day wouldn’t go in to drive but it did have reverse. I figured its more electrical now so i disconnected battery to reset the system. I ended up making it lose reverse. So i figured thats a good sign its not the actual transmission going out but rather something electrical. I got it going now after a over night reset and it finally threw this code. Just curious if anyone had experienced this and what the fix was? submitted by Bmmick to kia [link] [comments] |
2023.06.03 03:24 Imposter_89 Decent car repair shops?
2023.06.03 03:22 Avcomp5 TSX maintenance
2023.06.03 03:10 Avcomp5 TSX maintenance
2023.06.02 00:45 PoorYorickaSkull Just bought a car then the check engine light came on. Here is there read from checker.
![]() | Any help or opinions on what I should start. submitted by PoorYorickaSkull to MechanicAdvice [link] [comments] |
2023.06.01 23:44 Antique-Pass-7849 2010 Chevy Malibu Troubleshoot
2023.06.01 05:48 austindlawrence 2010 Toyota Prius Oil Change
2023.06.01 00:29 Head_Roll1812 2006 Chevy Malibu 3.5L V6!
2023.05.31 19:48 blueespadrille Reliable and Somewhat fun Sedan/SUV under $20k
2023.05.31 09:33 xKatariness F10 air inlet
2023.05.31 06:32 faq4help My Mario and Sonic fan fiction about them building a log cabin, hope you enjoy <3
2023.05.30 22:57 Some-News-8020 2010 Chevy Malibu air conditioner question
2023.05.30 16:50 Nana_923 Best Tips For Construction Site Inspection Equipment Planet Equipment
![]() | What are the best tips for construction site inspection? Here are five inspection suggestions to bear in mind when purchasing old machinery. Equipment purchasers typically experience difficulty finding appropriately used machinery that is in good working condition. The procedure becomes more difficult if the buyer is unskilled or doesn’t know what to look for while inspecting old heavy machinery. submitted by Nana_923 to equipmentbuyandsell [link] [comments] https://preview.redd.it/eksxdmg4fz2b1.jpg?width=311&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=378906e9af252a1d48c7be6ff46b1831da5c4a91 The prior maintenance and usage history of used construction equipment determines its condition. Therefore, no client would take the chance of importing second-hand foreign machinery into Nigeria only to incur high maintenance or replacement expenses as a result of the machine’s unidentified defects. If you want to purchase any secondhand heavy machinery, take into account the five inspection recommendations in this article. Then, when evaluating a used equipment, make use of these insights to identify any warning signs and buy with confidence.
The foot pedals, joystick, and steering wheel are all in excellent working condition. The windows, lights, mirrors, seat belt, and other components all operate well. Cab accessibility or EROPS (extended rollover protective structure). Check out the heating and cooling system.
Finally, check to see whether the vendor has tampered with, fixed, or inaccurately read the hour meter. Particularly if the consumer lacks technical understanding, it could be challenging to identify any strange changes in the hour meter. You’ll want a machine expert’s assistance. When asked, workshop engineers from BAS Machinery send hourly meter reports on secondhand equipment to equipment buyers.
An issue with the mechanism may be indicated by the engine’s coughing noises. Squeaking noises during basic operations might be an indication of loose connections, worn-out components, or missing fasteners. Unusual noises might be a sign that the connections on the heavy machinery require lubrication. A Caterpillar D6T XL Bulldozer is examined in a video by BAS Machinery. When driving, listen for the normal engine noise devoid of any strange noises.
|
2023.05.30 14:25 AlienNationSSB Alien-Nation Chapter 169: Jailbreak
2023.05.30 14:17 rtsgrl • • Ravensburger's Christmas Edition Puzzles Thread • •
Title | Artist | Pieces | Year on the box | Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|
Here Comes Christmas! | Ingrid Slyder | 500 | 2023 | |
Rockefeller Center Joy | Pierpaolo Rovero | 1000 | 2022 | |
Enchanted Christmas | Demelsa Haughton | 500 | 2021 | |
Christmas Songbirds | Ingrid Slyder | 500 XL | 2021 | Sold in the Christmas Edition and 'standard' Ravensburger box |
Christmas Eve | Zorina Baldescu | 1500 | 2020 | |
The Christmas Shop | Janet Kruskamp | 500 | 2020 | |
Christmas in The Square | Victor McLindon | 1000 | 2019 | |
Cuddly Christmas | Dominic Davison | 500 | 2019 | |
Packing the Sleigh | Liz Dillon | 1000 | 2019 | |
Playful Christmas Day | 1000 | 2019 | ||
White Christmas | Dominic Davison | 1000 | 2019 | |
Christmas on Pet Street | Ingrid Slyder | 1000 | 2018 | |
Christmas Village | Marcello Corti | 1000 | 2018 | |
Christmas Wishes | Barbara Behr | 1000 | 2018 | |
Countdown to Christmas | David Krustkamp | 1000 | 2018 | |
Snowy Village | Barbara Behr | 1000 | 2018 | |
The Christmas House | Steve Crisp | 500 | 2017 | |
Festival of Festivals | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2017 | Released as Santa's Christmas Party in the UK |
The Joy of Christmas | Connecticut Community Foundation | 1000 | 2017 | |
Winter Wonderland | Ingrid Slyder | 1000 | 2017 | |
Christmas Joy | Interlitho (Stock art) | 500 | 2016 | |
Santa's Ready | Nutshell- Designs | 1000 | 2016 | |
Christmas Cupboard | Colin Thompson | 1000 | 2015 | |
NYC Christmas | Steve Klein | 1000 | 2015 | |
Santa's Final Preparations | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2015 | Released under the same title in the Limited Edition in the UK |
Americana Christmas | Medana Gabbard | 1000 | 2014 | |
Santa in the Village | Bonnie White | 1000 | 2014 | |
Santa's Express | Interlitho (Stock art | 1000 | 2014 | |
Christmas Train | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2014 | Released as The Santa Express in the UK |
Mapping the Course | Elaine Maier | 1000 | 2013 | |
Idyllic Christmas | Debbie Cook | 1000 | 2013 | |
The Christmas Shop | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2012 | Released under the same title in the Limited Edition in the UK |
Santa Needs Directions | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2013 | Released as Which Way is Santa? in the UK |
Joy of Christmas | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2012 | Red box edition |
Santa's Sleigh Ride | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2012 | Released as Santa's Flying Visit in the UK |
Santa's Caught | Simon Mendez | 1000 | 2011 | |
Snowy Day | ddfa (Stock art) | 1000 | 2011 | |
The Christmas Shop | Tricia Reilly Matthews | 1000 | 2010 | Ravensburger USA. Modular box |
Holiday Baubles | Caroline Valeureuse | 1000 | 2010 | |
Not a Creature was Stirring | Nicky Boehme | 1000 | 2010 | |
Santa's Arrival | George Schriemer | 1000 | 2010 | |
Santa's Story Time | Gilberto Marchi | 1000 | 2010 | |
Santa's Flying Visit | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2010 | Ravensburger USA. Modular box; released under the same title in the UK - standard box |
Two Angels | Alessandro Scanziani | 1000 | 2010 | Ravensburger USA. Modular box |
The Christmas Market | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2008 | Released under the same title in the Limited Edition in the UK |
Joy of Christmas | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2008 | Blue box edition |
Santa's Christmas List | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2008 | Released under the same title in the Limited Edition in the UK |
White Christmas | Rolf Bunse | 1000 | 2008 | |
It's Christmas | Roy Trower | 2000 | 2005 | |
It's Christmas | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2005 | Released as A Country Christmas in The UK |
Santa Claus | Ute Thonissen | 1000 | 2005 | |
The Christmas Village | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2004 | Released under the same title in the Limited Edition in the UK |
Christmas | Ute Thonissen | 1000 | 2003 | Comes in a metal tin box |
Title | Artist | Pieces | Year on the box |
---|---|---|---|
26: Santa's Workshop | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2022 |
25: The Christmas House | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2021 |
24: Christmas is Coming | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2020 |
23: Home for Christmas | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2019 |
22: Let's Visit Santa | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2018 |
21: Which One's Santa? | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2017 |
20: Santa's Christmas Party | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2016 |
19: Santa's Final Preparations | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2015 |
18: The Christmas Farm | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2014 |
17: The Santa Express | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2013 |
16: Christmas Shop | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2012 |
15: Which Way is Santa? | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2011 |
14: Santa's Flying Visit | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2010 |
13: Santa’s Christmas Supper | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2009 |
12: Santa's Christmas List | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2008 |
11: The Christmas Market (Santa's Secret Visit) | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2007 |
10: The Christmas Fair | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2006 |
9: A Country Christmas | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2005 |
8: The Christmas Village | Roy Trower | 1000 | 2004 |
7 | 1000 | 2003 | |
6 | 1000 | 2002 | |
5: Christmas Carols | Peter Bradshaw | 1000 | 2001 |
4: Christmas Traditions | Kevin Walsh | 1000 | 2000 |
3: The Ivy and the Holy | Carol Lawson | 1000 | 1999 |
2: The Twelve Days of Christmas | Carol Lawson | 1000 | 1998 |
1: Victorian Christmas | Gale Pitt | 1000 | 1997 |
Title | Pieces | Year on the box | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Disney Snow Globes | 1000 | 2021 | |
Disney Princess Christmas Celebrations | 500 | 2017 | |
Disney Pixar Christmas | 1000 | 2016 | |
Disney Christmas Train | 500 | 2016(?) | |
Disney Christmas | 1000 | 2015 | |
A Disney Christmas | 1000 | 2011 | |
Winnie the Pooh. Christmas Fun | 1000 | Developed in the UK | |
2023.05.30 01:49 Htown_Flyer Tutorial: ITA Matrix search for “Where can I fly to on Frontier, tomorrow?”
![]() | Summary submitted by Htown_Flyer to gowildfrontier [link] [comments] With the upcoming day-before booking requirements for Go Wild flights, it will become increasingly important to have an efficient way to search for all available non-stop and connecting flights on Frontier leaving from a home airport (or wherever you happen to be). Something like this sure would be handy… Flights leaving Houston on Frontier 5/30/23, minus overnight flights This post explains how to navigate the powerful ITA Matrix flight search tool for the result above. This table will be very useful to me because I now have a tailored list of city pairs I can then use on the Frontier site to look for bookable Go Wild fares, at a much-reduced search time of about one minute times X city pairs. Give a try and let me know what you think. I would especially love to hear any ideas for further refining an ITA Matrix search for various purposes related to using the Go Wild Pass. …And if anyone can figure out a ticket / fare code filter that displays only flights bookable with the Go Wild Pass, I just might fly to your city and buy you dinner. 😊 My Path to ITA Matrix For many of us, Google Flights is our preferred flight screening tool versus tedious airport-by-airport searches on the Frontier booking tool. For example, using Google Flights: Flight type: one-way Origin: XXX Destination: “North America” for flights to the US (and PR, USVI? ) or “Caribbean” or “Mexico” Date: [tomorrow’s date] The query result is a map that is very useful if one is looking for a cheap cash flight to anywhere, but it takes several more steps to get to a display showing only Frontier flights. Once you go through those steps, clicking on individual cities will show available Frontier flights with their duration and number of stops, but seeing the flight arrival / departure times requires clicking through on each flight. Although this method is somewhat better than searching airport by airport with the Frontier booking tool, it takes a LOT more clicks to work through all the Frontier destination options to see departure, arrival and layover times displayed. It would be so much better if there was a single query to see all bookable Frontier flights for a particular day, to all destinations… I gave it a try using Google Flights. I know Flights can perform a multi-city search, so my first step was to create a list of the airport codes for all of the Frontier destination airports. It took some time and some Excel tricks, but here are the results: List of all current Frontier destination airport codes ATL, AUS, BDL, BMI, BNA, BOS, BQN, BUF, BWI, CHS, CID, CLE, CLT, CMH, CVG, DCA, DEN, DFW, DSM, DTW, ELP, FAR, FLL, FSD, GRB, GRR, HOU, IAH, IND, ISP, JAX, LAS, LGA, LIT, MCI, MCO, MDT, MDW, MEM, MIA, MKE, MSN, MSO, MSP, MSY, MYR, OAK, OKC, OMA, ONT, ORD, ORF, PBI, PDX, PHL, PHX, PIT, PNS, PSE, PWM, RDU, RSW, SAN, SAT, SAV, SEA, SFO, SJU, SLC, SMF, SNA, SRQ, STL, STT, SWF, SYR, TPA, TTN, TYS, XNA (as of 5/29/23, source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List\of_Frontier_Airlines_destinations) ) I tried to use that list pasted as my destination in a Flights query. It didn’t work: “No matching locations found”. Unfortunately, the Flights’ destination field interface for multiple cities forces the user to enter in cities individually. However… In responding to a post here yesterday, I was reminded of the somewhat obscure search tool that is the father of Google Flights: ITA Matrix. (In July 2010, Google announced the acquisition of ITA for $700 million in cash, subject to DOJ review and approval. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITA\Software) ) So my project for today was to see if I could create a useful Frontier query on ITA Matrix. I really like the results. How I Did It There are two ITA Matrix user interfaces available: The latest one – V5: https://matrix.itasoftware.com/ The original – V3.0: https://oldmatrix.itasoftware.com/ Newbies might do better with the current version. The original is less refined and it relies on codes to a greater degree. It is therefore tougher to learn, but it is more powerful. (It has some really cool tricks like entering a code to filter a query for a particular connecting airport, useful for hidden city ticket searches.) Although I am rusty, I have some experience using the codes required to navigate the older version. So I went old school with the following test query: Tab: one-way Departing from: DEN Destination: cut-and-paste the Frontier destination code list above, in its entirety Departure date: tomorrow’s date [or any other date you are interested in] The test worked! The search results showed hundreds of presumably bookable flight combinations leaving Denver tomorrow. They are displayed in a bar chart format that allows at-a-glance comparison of the flights, including arrival / dep times, layover city, and other valuable information. However, the results included flights on all airlines (except Southwest?). Next, I did a more personalized search for flights departing from the two Frontier airports that are less than an hour’s drive from my house. To limit the results to only Frontier, I added one of the available filter codes: Tab: one-way Departing from: IAH, HOU Destination: the list above in its entirety Departure date: tomorrow Advanced controls / Extension Codes: AIRLINES F9 Result: about 100 Frontier flights were displayed. Very promising... The results are sorted by price, which isn’t relevant to a GWP search. I re-sorted the list using the To-From / Sort by Destination button. Result: I could more easily see my destination options: a total of perhaps 150 flights and 30 cities bookable from at least one of the two origin airports. Fantastic! …but… My city is mostly an “evening departures” city for Frontier. As I expected, a large majority of the 100+ flights involved the dreaded overnight layover. I then used the Advisory / Overnight Flights filter button to weed out those flights. The results screen is posted above, after I used the Departure button to sort by departure time instead of price. I think this is a very fast, easy and useful method. After entering in five pieces of data and using one filter and one sort on the results, in a couple of minutes I now have a visual schedule of multiple Frontier flights I can review, with reasonable confidence that they are bookable for a cash fare. And there is more data not seen in seen in my screenshot: segment-specific departure time, arrival time and duration data for each flight segment can be displayed in a pop-up, using your cursor. Not only that, but without changing screens I can analyze the display and see the following at a glance: · There are four non-stop flights departing Houston tomorrow, to three cities: ATL from IAH at 5:40p, HOU-DEN at 7:10, IAH-LAS at 7:48 and IAH-DEN at 9:34. · Only one flight – the non-stop to Atlanta - would allow me to be in bed at the destination before 11pm. No surprise…Houston is an afternoon / evening city for Frontier. · The last flight on the list, a late evening IAH-DEN non-stop flight arriving at 11:18 pm, has no available connections because I filtered out overnight connections. · The slightly earlier IAH-LAS flight at 7:18 pm shows a horrendous but bookable connection to DEN. Obviously, I would much prefer the above non-stop leaving two hours later and arriving in DEN 5 hours earlier. · The earliest non-stop flight, to ATL at 5:40 pm, has several available connecting flights, all arriving before midnight local time: MCO, TTN, FLL, BWI and MDW. Of those, I would eliminate TTN from consideration. Even if it is bookable, I am not willing to risk a 45 minute connection time with Frontier. The others look good. · The next-earliest non-stop flight, HOU-DEN at 7:10 pm, offers connections to the following west coast destinations, arriving between 11:13p and 12:14a local time: SLC, LAS, ONT, PDX, SAN and SFO. Cool choices. I might consider any of those, particularly if I can locate a cheap hotel with an airport shuttle or a viable, safe walking path late-night transit connection from the airport to a hotel. · The HOU-DEN-MCO flight in that same group is not very attractive because there is a much shorter duration IAH-ATL-MCO flight leaving an hour and a half earlier. But I might consider it because a redeye flight would avoid a paid hotel night at my final destination. I am very pleased with my rediscovery of ITA Matrix. Building a Frontier-specific, “take me anywhere” query is piece of cake, and the results allow for very quick analysis to narrow down destination options before going to the Frontier web site to find Go Wild ticket availability. With my first one-minute query, I have identified that I can find a dozen or more reasonably attractive Frontier flights leaving my home city tomorrow and arriving at a final destination the same evening. The next step would be entering the most interesting airport-to-airport pairs as queries in the Frontier booking engine to see which flights have Go Wild ticket availability. |
2023.05.29 02:22 dragonagitator Bellingham-Area Mechanics Master Post
2023.05.26 16:05 rusticgorilla Supreme Court rewrites another environmental law it doesn’t like: Millions of acres of wetlands are now unprotected
The court of appeals emphasized that the wetlands on petitioners’ property are only 30 feet from the unnamed tributary to Kalispell Creek, which feeds into Priest Lake, and that they are separated from the tributary only by an “artificial barrier[]” (a road), which does “not defeat adjacency.” Pet. App. A33 (citing 33 C.F.R. 328.3(c) (2008) (“Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers * * * and the like are ‘adjacent wetlands.’”))Wetlands are extremely important to the ecosystem and to human life. Wetlands store water to prevent and mitigate floods, store carbon within plant biomass, filter pollutants before they reach other bodies of water (including the water we drink), provide critical habitat for wildlife, and generate tourism and recreation dollars for the economy. It is also an increasingly rare ecosystem, in both the U.S. and the world. According to a 2009 estimate by the EPA, the U.S. has lost over half of its original wetlands since the 1600s, including over 62,000 acres destroyed from 2004-2009 alone.
The court noted that the evidence before the EPA showed that the wetlands “provide important ecological and water quality benefits” to Priest Lake and are “especially important in maintaining the high quality of Priest Lake’s water, fish, and wildlife.”
In sum, we hold that the CWA extends to only those wetlands that are “as a practical matter indistinguishable from waters of the United States.” This requires the party asserting jurisdiction over adjacent wetlands to establish…that the wetland has a continuous surface connection with that water, making it difficult to determine where the ‘water’ ends and the ‘wetland’ begins.”In other words, Alito and the four other justices ignore the plain meaning of the word “adjacent” because they would rather invent their own statutory language that allows property owners and corporations to destroy wetlands. As summarized by Mark Joseph Stern of Slate:
Alito wrote: We don’t like the definition that Congress used. It could lead to “crushing” fines for landowners and interfere with “mundane” activities like “moving dirt.” It interferes with “traditional state authority.” And it could give the EPA “truly staggering” regulatory authority. Five justices on the Supreme Court think all of that is very bad. So they declared that, instead of applying the statute’s words, the court would impose a different standard: Only wetlands with “a continuous surface connection” to larger bodies of water merit protection under the Clean Water Act.Alito’s opinion was so extreme, even Justice Kavanaugh penned an argument against it, joined by Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson.
I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the Court’s new test for assessing when wetlands are covered by the Clean Water Act. The Court concludes that wetlands are covered by the Act only when the wetlands have a “continuous surface connection” to waters of the United States—that is, when the wetlands are “adjoining” covered waters. Ante, at 20, 22 (internal quotation marks omitted). In my view, the Court’s “continuous surface connection” test departs from the statutory text, from 45 years of consistent agency practice, and from this Court’s precedents. The Court’s test narrows the Clean Water Act’s coverage of “adjacent” wetlands to mean only “adjoining” wetlands. But “adjacent” and “adjoining” have distinct meanings: Adjoining wetlands are contiguous to or bordering a covered water, whereas adjacent wetlands include both (i) those wetlands contiguous to or bordering a covered water, and (ii) wetlands separated from a covered water only by a man-made dike or barrier, natural river berm, beach dune, or the like. By narrowing the Act’s coverage of wetlands to only adjoining wetlands, the Court’s new test will leave some long-regulated adjacent wetlands no longer covered by the Clean Water Act, with significant repercussions for water quality and flood control throughout the United States. Therefore, I respectfully concur only in the Court’s judgment…Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, wrote her own opinion castigating the majority for usurping Congress:
The difference between “adjacent” and “adjoining” in this context is not merely semantic or academic. The Court’s rewriting of “adjacent” to mean “adjoining” will matter a great deal in the real world. In particular, the Court’s new and overly narrow test may leave long-regulated and long accepted-to-be-regulable wetlands suddenly beyond the scope of the agencies’ regulatory authority, with negative consequences for waters of the United States. For example, the Mississippi River features an extensive levee system to prevent flooding. Under the Court’s “continuous surface connection” test, the presence of those levees (the equivalent of a dike) would seemingly preclude Clean Water Act coverage of adjacent wetlands on the other side of the levees, even though the adjacent wetlands are often an important part of the flood-control project. See Brief for Respondents 30. Likewise, federal protection of the Chesapeake Bay might be less effective if fill can be dumped into wetlands that are adjacent to (but not adjoining) the bay and its covered tributaries. See id., at 35. Those are just two of many examples of how the Court’s overly narrow view of the Clean Water Act will have concrete impact…
The scientific evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that wetlands separated from covered waters by those kinds of berms or barriers, for example, still play an important role in protecting neighboring and downstream waters, including by filtering pollutants, storing water, and providing flood control. In short, those adjacent wetlands may affect downstream water quality and flood control in many of the same ways that adjoining wetlands can.
And still more fundamentally, why ever have a thumb on the scale against the Clean Water Act’s protections? The majority first invokes federalism. See ante, at 23–24. But as JUSTICE KAVANAUGH observes, “the Federal Government has long regulated the waters of the United States, including adjacent wetlands.” Post, at 11. The majority next raises the specter of criminal penalties for “indeterminate” conduct. See ante, at 24–25. But there is no peculiar indeterminacy in saying—as regulators have said for nearly a half century—that a wetland is covered both when it touches a covered water and when it is separated by only a dike, berm, dune, or similar barrier. (That standard is in fact more definite than a host of criminal laws I could name.) Today’s pop-up clear-statement rule is explicable only as a reflexive response to Congress’s enactment of an ambitious scheme of environmental regulation. It is an effort to cabin the anti-pollution actions Congress thought appropriate. See ante, at 23 (complaining about Congress’s protection of “vast” and “staggering” “additional area”). And that, too, recalls last Term, when I remarked on special canons “magically appearing as get-out-of-text-free cards” to stop the EPA from taking the measures Congress told it to. See West Virginia, 597 U. S., at – (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 28–29). There, the majority’s non-textualism barred the EPA from addressing climate change by curbing power plant emissions in the most effective way. Here, that method prevents the EPA from keeping our country’s waters clean by regulating adjacent wetlands. The vice in both instances is the same: the Court’s appointment of itself as the national decision-maker on environmental policy.
So I’ll conclude, sadly, by repeating what I wrote last year, with the replacement of only a single word. “[T]he Court substitutes its own ideas about policymaking for Congress’s. The Court will not allow the Clean [Water] Act to work as Congress instructed. The Court, rather than Congress, will decide how much regulation is too much.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 32). Because that is not how I think our Government should work—more, because it is not how the Constitution thinks our Government should work—I respectfully concur in the judgment only.
2023.05.25 20:10 iFunny-Refugee 1956 Chevy 210 (265 SBC) Build
Hello, so honestly, I'm not sure where to even start with this but I'll explain it like this. I am very much a novice at understanding the mechanics of an engine, so a lot of what I'll be saying might be coming from a lot of ignorance and lack of experience. (I'm 20 years old) I have a 1956 Chevy 210 with a 265 SBC that has been bored over .030, has a mild cam, and has hydraulic lifters. That is the extent of what I know, it was rebuilt like that from my grandfather near about a decade or two ago. He's since passed, so I am not able to ask him anything about it, my dad remembers a few things here and there. I've been driving it occasionally this past year and just a couple weeks ago my friends and I have taken on the challenge of taking out the engine for work to be done on it. I plan on undertaking a minor restoration of the engine bay. Originally, I wanted to convert it to its stock form but after several months of consideration I realized I wanted it to be something I enjoy driving. To be more adequate to modern standards with the flavor of 50s aesthetic. Now I want to improve upon it and make an interesting powerplant out of it. If I can get from 0-60 in at least 8-9 seconds, I would be super happy with that result. So my target would maybe be 300 HP and 300 ft/lbs (If that is even possible) to get that desired acceleration. I know I can somewhat get to that target because a 283 from a corvette in 1961 could get about 315 HP. Which is pretty impressive for the time. Money-wise I understand a 350 or 327 would be a much easier route for torque and power but I really like this engine because it's the first generation of chevy small block, no one runs them usually (Unless it's a restoration) because they were honestly a piece of crap compared to its children. Having one for the sake nostalgia and being period correct is fascinating to me but also having it be on par with a low-end 350 is kinda cool and unique. I would like to hear y'alls thoughts and opinions on what is possible and what could be done. What I have in mind so far with my limited knowledge is this, I'll label it in alphabetical order to make it easy on the eyes.A: Holley EFI to make it more reliable and efficient. Has that vintage gold/bronze color, which is similar to the stock carb.
If it needs boost to get that much horsepower and torque in a reliable fashion, I wouldn't mind installing a centrifugal supercharger on the passenger side. Along with a proper "hat" on the EFI to make it look kind of like an old-fashioned oil bath air filter. I don't think it needs to be super big considering it's only like a 4.3L engine. But that'd probably be the most nonstock looking thing in the engine bay.Non engine related question: Can a transmission have a synchromesh gear added to its 1st gear to make it fully synchronized? I'm pretty sure it's not possible but I just thought to ask. Also, can a transmission's gears be strengthened through some sort of metallurgy process? I am a tad worried about the transmission breaking on me because of age, I wouldn't run it hard because that's not how I drive but if I had to accelerate from a dead stop I wouldn't want the thing exploding on me because of high torque. I think the transmissions at this time were pretty durable and could handle a decent amount of torque, I'm just not familiar with them and their capabilities.
A lot of this is new to me so an explanation of why something can or cannot work would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much in advance everyone (:
2023.05.25 19:02 stjobe Patch notes
2023.05.25 12:51 suzzface Where Did They Crash: A Definitive Deep Dive
![]() | In celebration of the finale of S2, I thought I'd post the theory I've been working on about where they might have crashed (or my best guess). This will be picture heavy, measured in miles, and tries to account for the movie magic. Anyone with better knowledge of the area/Canada/planes, please feel free to weigh in! submitted by suzzface to Yellowjackets [link] [comments] So let's start with a list of things we know: Promo Material: All the promo stuff states they're in the Northern Ontario Wilderness. The Flight (1x01): They're making a detour, and will have a great view of the Northen Rockies. The Rescue (2x01): A news anchor says during the rescue scene from 1998, that the girls were found 600 miles north of the designated flight path. The Area: We see a large snowy mountain range from the 2nd Winter flash forward at the end of the pilot (no timestamp bc mine have been incorrect before due to being outside the US and using a different platform). Lots of pine trees, a lake, and a fuck ton of snow. (The lake/cabin scenes are all filmed just outside of Vancouver, for reference). Here is a typical flightpath from Teterboro airport in NJ, to Seatac in Seattle WA: NJ to Seattle However, we know there's a detour north that ensures the girls a good view of the N. Rockies, and the above flight path takes them ~100 miles south of the southern most area of the N. Rockies (rough guesstimation based on google maps terrain). The YJs could probably still see them, but I'm not sure if that counts as a 'great view'. For the purpose of my theory, I've shifted the flight path ~100 miles* north, which takes the flight path into Canadian airspace. (*this is a rough number, it could be a more or less than this! The captain said the diversion was due to a storm system, which are only usually about 15-20 miles wide, but by adding 100 miles, the new flight path would have flown directly over the very bottom of the N. Rockies, ensuring the promised great view.) Part One: Picking A SideThe original statement, which was released when the pilot was first ordered, before it was filmed and the rest of season 1 was written, places the show in Northern Ontario, the Eastern side of Canada. However, the Rockies are a thousand miles away on the West side. My theory is the writers chose N. Ontario to begin with, but by the time it came to film, they'd changed the location of the crash to B.C. Here's why we can rule out Ontario, and place them in the Rockies definitively.
600 Miles North Measure for Ontario That area on maps looks like this: Mostly flat with lots of little lakes - no match (imo). Circumstantial evidence in my ❌No Ontario❌ defense. Posted to the official Showtime youtube account shortly before the s2 premiere, It features 90s Kurt Loder discussing the Missing Yellowjackets, 3 months after their disappearance. It also features this map: For those who cbf going to youtube This might indicate that they have no idea what the flight path was and that the plane stopped communication early on in the flight, but I took it to mean that this was where the plane was last confirmed to be, until the ? appears while the plane is nearing the Saskatchewan/Alberta border and the plane starts fading out. This puts the flight way past Ontario, ruling it out entirely (to ME!). Rule out Ontario, add in the N. Rocky Mountains, you've got yourself a British Columbia based Crash site. Winner: It's a West Side Story. Part Two: Picking a LatitudeIf we take the flight path (original or modified), and we take the 2x01 reveal that they're around 600 miles north of that, and we add in how close they are to the N. Rockies as shown in the pilot, we end up with a rough area of a few hundred miles of where the plane might have crashed.Here's the end of the AQ ritual scene at the end of the pilot: That's a lot of mountains, plus the sun rising in the east. In order to be that close to/in the mountains like that, they need to be squarely in British Columbia (BC/Albertans can confirm or deny this for me, I have only been to Vancouver and S. Ontario). This is the north east corner of BC, showing a sliver of NWT at the top, and Alberta to the right. I have the terrain overlay on, to show the difference between the flat land on the right and the northern rocky mountains N.E. B.C. There are provincial parks in the area, and highway 97 wends it's way through. To have the sun rise on the east behind the Rockies, the crash either took place on the very edge, or they're somewhere in the middle (I don't really have a preference). Notice the 97 shield on the vertical road - it's right above a place called Trutch. This is relevant because: 600 miles north of altered flight path. If we take the flight path, and the 100 miles north I tacked on to represent the altered flight-path, and we measure 600 miles north of that that point with the other end being near the rockies, it comes out right here: Good ol trutch. It has a latitude of 57.8°, which I'm going to round up to 58° for fun (bear in mind that 100mi and 600mi are rough/rounded numbers, so it could be anywhere from 57° to 59° latitude, or higher. I'm doing so much guesstimating you wouldn't even believe). If you compare this to the screenshot of Trout Lake in N. Ontario from Part 1: Both have the terrain filter turned on! Ontario is not mountainous in the same way the B.C. is mountainous. North East of the 600mi point is Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park, which has pictures if you click on it. Here are a couple: In Winter (those mountains are similarly dark and snowy!) In Summer (snowless, but shows off them ranges). In my extremely humble and potentially wrong opinion, this general area fits with what we know of the crash site pretty perfectly. Winner: It's Part Three: Finding A LakeThe biggest landmark we have besides mountains is the lake. The real lake they filmed at is Stave Lake, just northwest of Vancouver.Here it is in the show: Omg Stave Lake you look amazing And here it is on Google maps: She's long, skinny, and surrounded by steep terrain. This gives us a rough idea of what kind of lake we're looking for. Lakes around the 58th parallel are all long and skinny, like our mate Stave, so there are lots we can choose from. Here is my best Pick: 58.2, I'll allow it These are the Tuchodi lakes. They're around 40 miles North West of the Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial Park, and only 0.2° to 0.4° north of the latitude decided on in Part 2. She's ~11 miles long, and skinny, just like Stave. Here are some pictures I yoinked from google maps: someone went boating there in 2017 thank you to that man The shore is not the same rocky pebbles as stave, unfortunately. Wow ! It's not a perfect match because it's not the exact same lake, but it's a workable option! Sure, the mountains are steeper and the water is bluecleaner, but these are the movie magic suspensions of disbelief we must make. Fun note: in 1x03 when Tai says she's seen a lake, she said "it looked just left of due north", and "about 5 miles from here". What does left of due north mean? North West, baby! Now, 40 miles is a lot more than 5, but it's the same direction, so I'm counting it as a win. Another option: haha Sure, it's 210 miles further west than Trutch, but it's called Cry lake, next to Dark Mountain. If that's not fitting as hell for the YJs, I don't know what is! Cry Lake has a lattitude of 58.6, which also makes it closer to 700 miles north than 600, but again: Cry Lake by Dark Mountain. She's 15 miles long. Assorted smaller lakes: No terrain filter, so we can see the blue bits These are all just east of Trutch. The Tuchodi lakes are the two lines in the middle on the right side, and they're about 20 miles (As the crow flies) from the "Northern Rocky Mountains Provincial..." writing, to give you a frame of measurement. There are lots of smaller lakes along the bottom of the image that wouldn't be as big/long as Stave, but they're firmly ensconced in the N. Rockies, as well as being around the right latitude (57-59). You could pick any! Magnum mine near the top is an actual Mine/"populated locality", so there are people in the area (ish) and it holds up all the mine theories—although I think it's a copper mine, if my googling is accurate. Winner: I like the Tuchodi lakes option, but it could realistically be any long skinny lake in the N. Rockies within 50 miles of the 58th parallel—so like, ~40 different lakes. I think that's the best we can narrow it down to, considering all the visual clues we get from the show are an amalgamation of filming locations around Vancouver. Part Four: Conclusion/TL;DRIn conclusion, They're in Northern B.C. and definitely not Ontario, around 58° Latitude, with at least some of the N. Rockies to their East, by a long skinny lake.You Are Here: :( Thanks for reading! Please feel free to add to anything I've said, point out any glaringly obvious flaws or things I've missed, or just straight up disagree! This took me three hours so I hope it makes sense and is somewhat easy to follow. Buzz Buzz Buzz!! 🐝🐝 |