The Ackerman steering gear mechanism is preferred to the Davis steering gear mechanism, because ?->(Show Answer!)

1. The Ackerman steering gear mechanism is preferred to the Davis steering gear mechanism, because

Write Comment

Comments

Tags

Show Similar Question And Answers

QA->A sliding mesh gearbox has a gear ratio 4:1 at the third gear position. The clutch shaft gear has 15 teeth and its mating lay shaft gear is having 45 teeth. If the main shaft gear contains 28 teeth, the mating lay shaft gear should have:....

QA->Ackerman steering mechanism is popularly employed to steer the front wheels because:....

QA->Ackermann steering mechanism is used for :....

QA->Cylinder block construction by mono-block is preferred to individual cylinder construction because of?....

QA->A Hook’s joint in a automobile transmission system is preferred when the driving and driven shafts are:....

MCQ->The Ackerman steering gear mechanism is preferred to the Davis steering gear mechanism, because....

MCQ->The condition for correct steering of a Davis steering gear is (where α = Angle of inclination of the links to the vertical)....

MCQ->In order to resolve the conflicting preferences, one of Dev’s friends suggested Dev, his family members and the HR manager to identify their most and the least preferred candidates without considering the concerns of other stakeholders. I. Dev’s most and least preferred candidates: Bal Singh and Chetan respectively II. Family members’ most and least preferred candidates: Bal Singh and Chintan respectively III. HR manager’s most and least preferred candidates: Chethan and Bal Singh respectively Which of the above three statements is/are in conformity with the information provided in the passage?....

MCQ->Sun Life Insurance Company issues standard,preferred, and ultra-preferred policies. Amongthe company’s policy holders of a certain age,50% are standard with a probability of 0.01 ofdying in the next year, 30% are preferred with aprobability 0.008 of dying in the next year, and20% are ultra-preferred with a probability of0.007 of dying in the next year. If a policy holderof that age dies in the next year, what is theprobability of the deceased being a preferredpolicy holder?....

MCQ-> Recently I spent several hours sitting under a tree in my garden with the social anthropologist William Ury, a Harvard University professor who specializes in the art of negotiation and wrote the bestselling book, Getting to Yes. He captivated me with his theory that tribalism protects people from their fear of rapid change. He explained that the pillars of tribalism that humans rely on for security would always counter any significant cultural or social change. In this way, he said, change is never allowed to happen too fast. Technology, for example, is a pillar of society. Ury believes that every time technology moves in a new or radical direction, another pillar such as religion or nationalism will grow stronger in effect, the traditional and familiar will assume greater importance to compensate for the new and untested. In this manner, human tribes avoid rapid change that leaves people insecure and frightened.But we have all heard that nothing is as permanent as change. Nothing is guaranteed. Pithy expressions, to be sure, but no more than cliches. As Ury says, people don’t live that way from day-to-day. On the contrary, they actively seek certainty and stability. They want to know they will be safe.Even so we scare ourselves constantly with the idea of change. An IBM CEO once said: ‘We only re-structure for a good reason, and if we haven’t re-structured in a while, that’s a good reason.’ We are scared that competitors, technology and the consumer will put us Out of business — so we have to change all the time just to stay alive. But if we asked our fathers and grandfathers, would they have said that they lived in a period of little change? Structure may not have changed much. It may just be the speed with which we do things.Change is over-rated, anyway, consider the automobile. It’s an especially valuable example, because the auto industry has spent tens of billions of dollars on research and product development in the last 100 years. Henry Ford’s first car had a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber types, a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, and four seats, and it could safely do 1 8 miles per hour. A hundred years and tens of thousands of research hours later, we drive cars with a metal chassis with an internal combustion, gasoline-powered engine, four wheels with rubber tyres a foot operated clutch assembly and brake system, a steering wheel, four seats – and the average speed in London in 2001 was 17.5 miles per hour!That’s not a hell of a lot of return for the money. Ford evidently doesn’t have much to teach us about change. The fact that they’re still manufacturing cars is not proof that Ford Motor Co. is a sound organization, just proof that it takes very large companies to make cars in great quantities — making for an almost impregnable entry barrier.Fifty years after the development of the jet engine, planes are also little changed. They’ve grown bigger, wider and can carry more people. But those are incremental, largely cosmetic changes.Taken together, this lack of real change has come to man that in travel — whether driving or flying — time and technology have not combined to make things much better. The safety and design have of course accompanied the times and the new volume of cars and flights, but nothing of any significance has changed in the basic assumptions of the final product.At the same time, moving around in cars or aero-planes becomes less and less efficient all the time Not only has there been no great change, but also both forms of transport have deteriorated as more people clamour to use them. The same is true for telephones, which took over hundred years to become mobile or photographic film, which also required an entire century to change.The only explanation for this is anthropological. Once established in calcified organizations, humans do two things: sabotage changes that might render people dispensable, and ensure industry-wide emulation. In the 960s, German auto companies developed plans to scrap the entire combustion engine for an electrical design. (The same existed in the 1970s in Japan, and in the 1980s in France.) So for 40 years we might have been free of the wasteful and ludicrous dependence on fossil fuels. Why didn’t it go anywhere? Because auto executives understood pistons and carburettors, and would be loath to cannibalize their expertise, along with most of their factoriesAccording to the above passage, which of the following statements is true?
....