You can buy a bidet (pronounced bih-DAY) in just about any plumbing supply store in the Miami
area, this common continental convenience was a ubiquitous plumbing fixture in
Cuba, and they were often pointed out to me by my family as evidence of the
hygienic superiority of the Latin race. Those of you who have traveled in Europe
are no doubt familiar with them.
In the old country, bidets were large porcelain fixtures installed in home
bathrooms, although in Florida, the exile community often made do with
simplified pipe-hose-and-valve devices retrofitted onto the standard commode.
But, for the family that has everything...
What I can't figure out is what the remote controller is for. The web site has sound, turn on your audio.
http://webapps.easy2.com/cm2/flash/generic_index.asp?page_id=36034019
Hmm...that remote is a puzzler. Maybe when someone else is using the bidet, another person, like a co-pilot, can operate the unit using the remote just in case the captain should blackout. A great safety feature. I wonder if they make a marine unit for use in CP 23's?
Bob23
I wouldn't doubt the squared-away houseboat in Mr Greene's post wasn't equipped with one of these beauties, no doubt mated to an environmentally correct holding tank!
Yep, no doubt. I wonder if the red tank up top is the holding tank? maybe they use an old hand pump to get the stuff up there and then the evaporative effect takes over. Will wonders never cease!
Bob23
In South Carolina we use the remote for the drinking fountain.
Talkin' 'bout remotes...
When I had my after-market car radio/CD player installed, there were some comments in the instruction book about the "optional remote" that was available for some models. Now, why would a car radio need a remote controller?
Maybe teenagers might find one handy for back-seat activities, but grownups should just stop and get a room.
Maybe I'm old fashioned, but remotes seem to be a lot more trouble than they're worth. They always need batteries, or they're getting lost behind the cushions. They never get thrown away, so there's always a drawer somewhere full of old ones that go to appliances we no longer own. And of course, the "universal remotes" just push us into another level of abstraction and confusion--a remote for the remotes?
I have a radical idea. Why not just build equipment that is not operated by remotes. All the controls are mounted in plain view on the device itself, so they never need batteries and you always know exactly where they are. What a concept!
I totally agree with your opinion on remotes. We personally have a 5 seperate remotes and a universal remote. They all work fine, we just never have enough batteries on hand to power them all. I find myself always taking good batteries from one remote to power another and so on. I can remember or first color tv. We purchased it back in '82 and it was an enormous 19" diagonally! It had programable push buttons and my friends would always comment that for $20 more, we could have bought the model with a remote. Our daughter was 4, learning her numbers and she made a great remote. And, we never had to replace batteries!
I agree and maybe I'm an old fart, but I remember the days when you had to get up to change the tv, get up to remove the record from the manual turntable and get up to change the volumn on the tuner.
Now, my daughter doesn't know how she'd live without a remote start for her car. Electric car windows are another modern convenience we can't live without. Almost everyone eventually has a problem with 'em. But when was the last time you repaired a hand crank window? I did on my old 1987 Toyota Long Bed Extra Cap pickup. Once in 250,000 miles.
But I do confess to having remotes for the tv. I don't think you can buy flat screens without them, not that I have a flat screen yet.
Bob23
Hmm...progress or regress.
Quote from: Bob23 on December 27, 2010, 04:56:36 AM
Electric car windows are another modern convenience we can't live without. Almost everyone eventually has a problem with 'em. But when was the last time you repaired a hand crank window?
I live in Florida, which is crisscrossed by canals, and every year dozens of people drown when they drive into them. Their doors won't open because of water pressure, and their windows won't open because the electricity is shorted out. The cars slowly fill up and they can't get out. There is evidence most of them survive the crash and are conscious of the fact they are going to die.
They sell little safety hammers so you can break your windows, let in the water and equalize the pressure, providing you can swing them hard enough against the resistance of the water. But no one seems to consider than when you are upside down, panicky, hurt and disoriented, in a pitch-black car that is quickly filling up with cold, foul-smelling water, you are not likely to be able to locate it while you are trying to simultaneously disentangle yourself from the seatbelts, airbags, and other debris in the vehicle. I've yet to hear of anyone using one successfully to escape.
I'm a very good swimmer and I know once I get a window open, I can escape, even if I'm operating completely on autopilot. I also know I can turn a window crank even if I'm in a complete panic, the muscle memory is there because I do it all the time every day. I'm a sailor, and I can't help but subconsciously rehearse emergency procedures and visualize potentially dangerous situations. I also know that the simpler your options are, the most likely they are to work. It's one of the major rules of seamanship: if you haven't got one aboard, it can't fail when you need it.
I've never owned a car with electrical door or window controls; the last one I bought, a 2010 Nissan Versa, was the only manual one left on the lot and I got it at a discount! The salesman was astonished I would even take it off his hands. I also keep my vehicles an average of 10 years before I trade them in, so the fewer complex subsystems they have aboard, the less likely I'll need to have to get them fixed down the line, when parts may be scarce or expensive.
I guess this is just a pet peeve of mine. Most of the mechanical conveniences in our lives were conceived of for marketing reasons, not because they actually make our lives any better or easier. Remember, I'm the guy who owns a toaster with an LED display and a built-in microprocessor, (no, I am not making this up) and it
still can't make a decent side of toast.
Your post made me laugh Henry. I think I understand myself a little more as I dream of buying an antique Porsche with roll down windows....
I agree and maybe I'm an old fart, but I remember the days when you had to get up to change the tv, get up to remove the record from the manual turntable and get up to change the volumn on the tuner.
Me too Bob, but you have to remember that back in that time, there were only two or three channels to go through. Now you have to go through several hundred before you determine that there really isn't anything worthwhile to watch anyway.
I've never owned a car with electrical door or window controls; the last one I bought, a 2010 Nissan Versa, was the only manual one left on the lot and I got it at a discount!
I recently helped my youngest son buy his first brand new car. He asked me to shop online for him since he had a heavy work schedule at the time and I was fancy free. He gave me his requirements (which made me proud). There would be no Auto Trans nor power windows on his Ford Focus, he declared the cost of the inevitable repair on those devices not worth the trouble. I searched a dozen dealerships from Austin to San Antonio and found two dusty units that met his requirements. When I made an offer on one they balked. I reminded the sales person that you may have found a rare third standard deviation of the population of car buyers who would actually desire such a car and you better jump on it when it appears. They took the offer.
ah, the joys of owning the high tech marvel that is a 52 ford f3.
Don't get me wrong. I love my 2001 Tundra with electric locks and windows. That's just they way the SR5 4wd comes. No problems with anything in 180k miles except some frame rust but don't get me started on that one!
I can't understand why they don't put in manual overides on electric windows... guess they want the service business.
I also have a non- computer, non-electric anything carbureted 1984 Accord. Slow as hell, and unfortunately, lies dormant with a bad head gasket. But when she runs, she's still slow as hell, but I guess it's just my small way of thumbing my nose at the high tech electronic world we live in. Maybe driving these old cars sorta takes us back to a simpler time.
Bob23
(Newt: What Porsche are you thinking of buying? I've got my eye on a 1966 912.)
Bob,
This is off-topic but...
Quote from: Bob23 on December 27, 2010, 01:24:54 PM
(Newt: What Porsche are you thinking of buying? I've got my eye on a 1966 912.)
I used to own a 1970 911E. Close to what you are looking for. The E is for fuel injection (mechanical). The PO replaced the fuel injection with dual Weber carbs. That was fairly common as the fuel injection was notoriously unreliable and expensive to repair. It also wanted 102 octane gas which meant get plenty of octane enhancer and "mix your own".
I didn't think the 912 was made in 1966 but I'm probably mistaken if you've had your eye on one.
Curtis
I or the craigslist seller could be mistaken. I remember working on an old 911S back in the day when I was starting out as a foreign car mechanic back in the days when there were foreign cars. 2 Weber 3- barrel carbs, that beautiful Porsche orange-butterscotch color...man I lusted over that car.
Now we drive a Camry...how boringly reliable. Maybe it's a midlife crisis thing, but that Porsche is looking better and better.
Sorry for the thread drift...better than now drifts!
Bob23
Quote from: Bob23 on December 28, 2010, 05:59:01 AM
Sorry for the thread drift...
No need to apologize for the thread drifts, I have a soft spot in my heart for the old "bathtub" Porsches, from the classic age of sports cars. I was motor sport enthusiast in those days, rallyes, autocrosses, gymkhanas; but my meager budget forced me to compete in a Production Class VW beetle (stock engine, highly modified suspension). The Porsche roadsters were my idea of the perfect machine, machines that were partners with humans, not substitutes for them...kind of like sailboats...
Me too, Henry,
I used to race a "Poor Man's Porsche" 140hp Corsa built in 1965 . Never lusted for the money cars. I still own a 67 AH Sprite Mk IV I bought in 1973 for $600.00.
I don't race any more although the Sprite, like my 19 still "goes fast slowly".
TG
If you're looking for something modern that embodies the old roadster spirit, the Miata's are nice. The philosphy used in the original design and carried over even today is "rider and horse as one". From first hand experience that is quite true-you are keenly in touch with the car, the road, the wind and the engine. Love my new Miata.
AND..you won't have to mess around with them much to keep 'em going. To me, that is worth it's weight in gold to actually "use it" and not worry about breaking it, finding parts, etc. They are also extremely cheap to insure.
yea, I know it's not the quite the same thing as an old Porsche, never have and never will be.
And they look pretty good IMO...
(http://i188.photobucket.com/albums/z290/yamaholic_mcarp/Miata/DSC02417.jpg)
For 40 years American sports car buffs have been desperate for something that would bring back the old European roadster. The Europeans couldn't pull it off any more, and our own automakers could only come up with lame excuses like the Corvette and the Thunderbird (whatever their virtues, they are muscle cars, not sports cars). Why did it take the Japanese to give us the Miata?
It's not just the mechanical and design concept I'm talking about, it's the ability to judge the market and give it what it wants in a quality package at a reasonable price. That requires more than just the engineering idea behind the roadster, that has existed for half a century. It requires innovation and courage, real entrepreneurial spirit, the willingness to take a chance, not just depend on the marketing weenies and the bean counters to tell you how to run your business.
When I first saw Miatas on the street, and the word got out that they were as dependable and reliable as Toyotas, I realized the American automobile industry was not only finished, it deserved to be.
But apparently, we can still make microprocessor-controlled bidets.
lets see me 6'5" in a miata. drove one once fit like a glove an "oJ" glove. think ill stick with old trucks. and if i want to go fast ill street rod it. think of it a 429 cobra in that old 52. gives me goose bumps.
I've always liked the Miatas although never drove one. Some folks think they're girlie cars but they have a great track record of dependability.
My brother in law has a 2001 Honda S-2000 and THAT IS ONE FAST CAR! 9000 rpm readline, real stiff ride, tight suspension and steering, 6 speed trans. It's rawness reminded me of the old British cars- TR-6 and the like except the S was running and not leaking something. Too bad that Honda stopped importing them. I think the replacement is just another boring front wheel drive car.
But the Porsche, ah, that sound of air-cooled ponies behind you. What can replace that? That, my friends, is music.
Bob23
Sorry I haven't caught up on this thread for a while. Did anyone mention that Porsche did make a 912 in 66, but it had a different engine in it- I think it was the pancake 914. Thank you for the reviews of the Miata, my wife has a Mini-S with a supercharger and inter cooler in it- I was driving it the other day and it reminded me of the old 911's. I am sure it won't be as reliable. Every once in a while I see a 914-6, that is my idea of a fine car....
Quote from: HenryC on December 28, 2010, 03:59:38 PM
The Europeans couldn't pull it off any more, and our own automakers could only come up with lame excuses like the Corvette and the Thunderbird (whatever their virtues, they are muscle cars, not sports cars).
Hahahaha... sorry but I can't bring myself to think of my 69 Z28 as a lame excuse for anything! This pic was taken in the spring. The only change since then is I pulled the Rally Wheels and replaced them with what was every guys dream wheels when I was growing up in the 60's and 70's... Cragar SS Mags!
(http://i1125.photobucket.com/albums/l594/CPYOA/com-pac%20lounge%20pics/1969Z28.jpg)
That is no doubt a righteous ride, my friend, but to the true purist, a sportscar is not just fast in a straight line, it is also at home on a road course, negotiating increasing and decreasing radius, un- and reverse-banked turns, hairpins, chicanes, s-turns, pavement changes, and other problems requiring the need for numerous downshift, braking and acceleration maneuvers. Real race cars are expected to make right as well as left hand turns, and a real road race is never canceled on account of rain, (or even snow, for that matter).
Nice car, Rich! A buddy is restoring a green '69 SS as we speak. I think it has a 427 4-speed in it (going from faded memory, could be wrong). The last two he did, a '66 goat and 71 El Camino came out beautifully. He flipped those two but is keeping the SS.
I love most if not all "classic" and "sports" car for what they are. That goes for any country of origin and and marque, but admittedly I'm not real crazy about old Dodges. Old Camaro's and muscle cars are great for laying rubber, shooting out of the hole and just plain cruisin' and drooling over. The stock Miata will never beat one in a straightline, but in the curves or on a track, goodbye muscle car.
Speaking of which, I really need to get off my butt and sell the old car before I change my mind about it and have to face the wrath of the admiral. Hate to see it go, a 1991 Toyota MR2 turbo (mid-engined and modified!). I will miss spanking the kids and their V8 muscle cars as it does quite easily. Off the line for the first 100 feet perhaps not, but thereafter...WHOOSHH!!!!
When I retire, and that won't be for a long time, a dream is to build a kit Cobra. Don't care that's it's a fake, almost all of them out there are anymore.
Rich:
Beautiful Camaro and, coming from a foreign car guy, that's saying something. Cragar SS mags; now there's a term you don't hear much anymore. They indeed were THE whell to have. Thanks for the memories.
Newt:
Yes, I am old enough to remember the 914's new. Back then they took alot of flack- Sort of a VW trying to be a Porsche. Now they bring big bucks but then again so do VW bugs.
Mike:
A good friend (and Ford freak) built a kit Cobra. He couldn't spring for the 427 (for which I have since forgiven him) went with a 350 instead. Kit or not, the sex appeal is still there. And way cheaper at the body shop.
And speaking of cars, I noticed that the Motor Trend car of the year is the Chevy Volt. Please, child, tell me this is not a joke. I guess we know who owns MT.
Bob23
amen rich--buy american
Aha! In a factory stock configuration I would agree that most (not all) muscle cars were not known for their "cornering" ability. The smaller models like the 1st generation Camaro and Mustang weren't nearly as rough cornering as were the larger Chevelle's and Roadrunners etc... but don't assume that every 60's muscle car you see on the road is stock. Many have been rebuilt with much better suspension and will surprise you if you underestimate them. As an example take a look at this video of a 69 Z28 chasing a 72 Porsche RSR at one of those tracks in California that are open to the public daily. While the Z28 is never actually able to pass the RSR it does keep up and passes everything the RSR does until the last minute or so of the video when a newer Porsche ends up between them... and this is hardly a drag strip straightaway. There are lots of turns in both directions to negotiate and the Z28 only spun slightly on one of them near the end of the video. Pretty impressive for an old muscle car if you ask me. It is 9 minutes long and with occasional "language" that might not be good for the little ones to hear...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_D6HG8BuZk (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_D6HG8BuZk)
Your point is well taken, Rich, but I could probably find you some examples of souped-up Ferrari's and Porsche's tearing up the quarter-mile, too. Especially if they're fairly handicapped by engine displacement, the sports cars can be quite impressive in the 0-60 department. (Don't get me wrong, I'm from Don Garlits country, I'm a big rail car fan and I have haunted a few dragstrips in my time!).
The point I'm trying to make is the difference of philosophy between the two types of driving, and drivers. Its like the difference between a cigarette boat and Bristol Channel Cutter.
I get your point Henry. You remind me that one of my growing up buddies had a 60-something Triumph Spitfire. Sometimes we would cruise in my Camaro and other times in his Spitfire. And while the Spitfire did not have near the get up and go that the Camaro did it was still a fun car to drive. No less fun but definately a "different" ride than the Camaro.
I g uess it comes down to what appeals to you. I've always been sort of a non-conformist. Didn't try to be; it's just the way I see things. The gas guzzling American cars never appealled to me but rather I was just a natural VW freak. And of course, being a proper VW freak meant that I learn who invented 'em non other than Ferdinand Porsche. Yeah, that Porsche. Of course, Hitler financed them through the stolen money of the German worker, but let's not gete into that here.
The foreign car offering at the time was mostly British, German and the Japanese were just getting a stronghold here. I remember the first Honda coming into our shop with a blown engine. If my memory serves me ok, it had an aircooled engine, front wheel drive and 10" wheels. It might have been the early CVCC. I remember looking at the car and thinking:"This car company is going nowhere." Yeah, I don't pick stocks any better, either.
The first Toys were troublesome and the parts availability from the dealer was poor. But the Pick-up and especially the LandCruider were built rock-solid. I worked on an early 70's Landcruiser and couldn't beleive the build- like a real trucl. It probably weighed more than my 2001 Tundra.
Man, have I drifted here. Anyway, the general thinking of the foeign car companies just seemed to appeal to me more than the American car philosophy which was to redisign the model every year to increase sales.
Bob23
Wow... CVCC... my first two cars were used. The first was a 66 Chevelle SS 396. I should never have sold that car. The second was a 67 RS/SS 350 Camaro. And then came the gas "crisis" in the mid 70's. The lines at the gas stations often wrapped around the block and took what seemed like hours to finally get to the pumps... and when finally at the pumps the attendant says no fills allowed and the limit is 5 gallons... AARRGGHH! In the Camaro 5 gallons was barely enough to get to work and back one day and then back to the waiting line for my next 5 gallons... So... I finally sold the Camaro and bought my first new car... a 1976 Honda Civic CVCC 5 speed! What a great little car! 47 freaking miles per gallon in 1976! And after 35 years people now get all excited about a car that gets 30 something per gallon... but that's a discussion for some other forum! The CVCC only came in two bright collors... yellow or orange. Mine was yellow and for a new car cost a whopping $3500! I should have never sold that car either. Thanks for the memories Bob!