"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
> In article >, V-for-Vendicar
> wrote:
>>
> wrote
>>> "The efficiency of an internal combustion engine is
>>> based on total energy of the fuel and the amount of
>>> energy used to perform useful work. So by
>>> legislating a fuel efficiency increase of about 40%,
>>> our Congress Critters were attempting to rewrite Laws
>>> of Thermodynamics."
>>
>> Over 30 teams from the U.S., Canada, India and Bahrain participated in
>> the
>> SAE's annual mileage competition June 7-8, 2007 in Marshall, Michigan.
>> The
>> competition requires the development and construction of a single person,
>> fuel efficient vehicle. All vehicles must be powered by a small
>> four-cycle
>> engine, have a minimum of three wheels, and the driver must be fully
>> enclosed to prevent contact with the ground. The winner is based on a
>> combination of best fuel economy and points from technical inspections of
>> the vehicles. The 2006 winner, the University of British Columbia,
>> achieved
>> a record 3,145 miles per gallon!
>
> These vehicles are completely irrelevant to anything useful for
> transportation on public roads.

The point is made: 40% increase in fuel efficiency standards isn't even
coming close to maximum theoretical efficiency. It's a pitiful increase,
which has already been achieved in production vehicles today (they'll just
have to stop making the inefficient vehicles - problem solved).

> They are as I recall a recombent bicycle with an ICE that runs at full
> throttle and then coasts, rinse and repeat.

Well, they sure as hell aren't Hummer H2's, that's for sure. So sorry if
that ****es off the irresponsible and the stupid; but automobiles are gonna
change - finally - to MUCH more fuel-efficient designs. By orders of
magnitude. When gasoline hits $10/gallon, the market for SUV's will approach
zero, while buyers for the 300MPG hybrids (ready for production right now)
will be on a 2-year waiting list.