A Very Light Car

"Ed Huntress" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 08:44:02 -0700, whoyakidding's ghost
> > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 18:30:11 -0400, Ed Huntress
> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Mar 2013 15:05:09 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
> wrote:
>>>
>>>>While KiddingNoOne continues to live in fantasy land and is in total
>>>>denial of what the Chevy Volt is (An overweight, fat, pig) here is a
>>>>company with a proven record of success (They won the X-Prize) that
>>>>has the right idea:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.edison2.com/
>>>
>>>This one has it by over 100 lb. (900 lb.)
>>>
>>>http://tinyurl.com/c8mfsw2
>>>
>>>Lotus 6. 1952. Nice aluminum work, too.
>>
>>Both LOOK nice. No competition for the Volt though.
>
> <g> No. Those are post-WWII club racers. I only brought them up
> because of the "very light car" subject line. They make an interesting
> contrast with today's crop of superlights.
>
> Those club racers had *horrible* drag coefficients, but low frontal
> area. The Cd on a Lotus 7 is around 0.70; the same as a bicycle with
> rider. The Cd for a Hummer H2 is 0.57. For a Volt, around 0.28. A
> paving brick is 2.1. <g>
>
> They were not designed for economy, nor for top speed. They were
> designed for acceleration and fast cornering on short road-racing
> tracks. For the hardy weekend hero-driver, they could be driven to
> work or school all week. That's the service my 1967 MG Midget
> performed; it was one of the last of the club racers.
>
>>
>>I have to chuckle at all these impractical and or pie in the sky
>>vehicles, most of them 2 seaters that are being touted as lighter than
>>a Volt, which is a 4 seat series hybrid hatchback with serious utility
>>that one can actually buy here in the present reality. AKA reality.
>>Duh. We might as well add this as well
>>http://www.autoblog.com/2011/07/12/2...-drive-review/
>>Apples to oranges, and lots of unobtainium and impractical layouts.
>>How many years was the Aptera touted as being the next new thing? 2
>>seats, 3 wheels, licensed as a motorcycle and could haul about as much
>>cargo as a bike. Yet it still ended up at nearly a ton and its main
>>claim to fame was being on magazine covers and burning up investment
>>cash. Both the projected weight and the price kept creeping up with
>>every new revelation until bankruptcy. Never did prove that it was
>>safe enough to compete in the market as a real car. Of course the
>>backers said it absolutely could. The very same people who kept
>>claiming perennially that it was soon to be available, and that they
>>could sell a vehicle with $20k of EV components for $20k. At some
>>point it appears they were going to 4 wheels and 4 seats, which I bet
>>they figured out was the only route to mass market and funding.
>>
>>The VW XL1 is headed down a similar road. 2 seats, small interior
>>volume, expensive materials, and bound to be hundreds heavier the
>>closer it gets to market, which it is now another year overdue for
>>even the projected handful of samples. So long as anything can
>>maintain its vaporware status its promoters might as well say it only
>>weights 1000 pounds, can go 1000 miles, and costs $1000.
>>
>>Meanwhile, here in reality, I had a nice sunny drive in the Volt
>>yesterday afternoon. About 35 miles to destination, came up about a
>>mile short on the battery. But only because the last 4 miles climbed
>>1100'. On the return trip the engine only ran briefly on the downhill
>>section. All the rest was regen or battery. Then went another 3 miles
>>on the level before the engine started again. Sweet tech. In engine
>>mode it still goes nearly as far past a corner on battery as it spent
>>decelerating and braking. I fill up so seldom that last time I briefly
>>forgot which side the tank was on. I'm surprised how many people
>>recognize the car and want to talk about it. I even got a thumbs up
>>from a usually morose construction flagman the other day. I'm more
>>satisfied with the Volt than I've been with any of my new vehicles for
>>quite a while, which is something considering I swore I'd never buy
>>another domestic model. And I'm not alone.
>>http://www.autoblog.com/2012/11/29/c...er-satisfacti/
>>http://gas2.org/2011/11/21/jay-leno-...nets-2365-mpg/
>>
>>Yeah I could be finding fault with the Volt and pining for a flying
>>car or whatever instead, but then I'd be taking work from backseat
>>drivers. ****, not even backseat drivers, full time chair drivers like
>>Bonkers.
>
> The Volt is on the right track, given the batteries we have to work
> with. It's still a car for enthusiasts who want to be the first on
> their block. But so were the Lotus 6 and 7, in a different way.

Exactly.

But Kidding needs to masturbate in full pub(l)ic view, so I guess WE
shouldn't rain on his erectile parade, eh?

If the Volt came out with a Convertible, fuknKidding would immediately trade
in his current Volt, regardless of the beating he'd take, just to have his
hair -- and ascot -- blow in the wind.... Thumb's Up, donchaknow.....
goodgawd....
A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
pickup, with a 6 foot bed....

Oh, and I LIKE the Volt -- it is a fundamentally good design, just muckied
up with some dumb ****.... like, well, 1,800 unnecessary pounds, and 18,000
unnecessary dollars.
--
EA








>
> --
> Ed Huntress

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:


>If the Volt came out with a Convertible, fuknKidding would immediately trade
>in his current Volt, regardless of the beating he'd take, just to have his
>hair -- and ascot -- blow in the wind.... Thumb's Up, donchaknow.....
>goodgawd....

That's all you got, more made up nonsense. I got tired of convertibles
about 2 decades ago. Wind in my hair? Gives me a headache, which is
one of the reasons I wear a helmet when riding, whether legally
required or not.

>A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....

Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
radio?

>Oh, and I LIKE the Volt -- it is a fundamentally good design, just muckied
>up with some dumb ****.... like, well, 1,800 unnecessary pounds, and 18,000
>unnecessary dollars.

Do you know the meaning of the word contradiction? It can't be
fundamentally good if it's double the correct weight and triple your
price.

If you had a brain in your head then you'd instinctively know that the
only way to get serious weight reduction and meet the same goals would
be to use expensive materials, which would **** up your idea of
cutting the price by 2/3. And if any of your ideas were as easy as
you say they are, then they'd have been implemented long ago.

I predict that you will NEVER put up an ounce of proof to support your
rants, and neither will Bonkers. Well OK Bonkers will probably find
some Popular Science covers and pretend the artwork makes his case. In
fact I don't understand why he doesn't post a jpg of some money and
pretend it's his paycheck.

"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>If the Volt came out with a Convertible, fuknKidding would immediately
>>trade
>>in his current Volt, regardless of the beating he'd take, just to have his
>>hair -- and ascot -- blow in the wind.... Thumb's Up, donchaknow.....
>>goodgawd....
>
> That's all you got, more made up nonsense. I got tired of convertibles
> about 2 decades ago. Wind in my hair? Gives me a headache, which is
> one of the reasons I wear a helmet when riding, whether legally
> required or not.
>
>>A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
>>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>
> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
> radio?

Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just WHERE
the weights arise from?
Then mebbe you can answer yer own Q.
Oh, silly me.... but you DON'T know what the weight profile is.....
OK, carry on, as usual.

>
>>Oh, and I LIKE the Volt -- it is a fundamentally good design, just muckied
>>up with some dumb ****.... like, well, 1,800 unnecessary pounds, and
>>18,000
>>unnecessary dollars.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word contradiction? It can't be
> fundamentally good if it's double the correct weight and triple your
> price.

Sure it can. Your brain is just too hormonally out of whack to grok the
notion. Low-T AND high-E??

Oh, and you are a car engineer/designer, now? AND and astronaut?? AND a
gourmet chef.... wow.....
you must drink Dos Equis beer.... stay thirsty, my asshole friend....
--
EA


>
> If you had a brain in your head then you'd instinctively know that the
> only way to get serious weight reduction and meet the same goals would
> be to use expensive materials, which would **** up your idea of
> cutting the price by 2/3. And if any of your ideas were as easy as
> you say they are, then they'd have been implemented long ago.
>
> I predict that you will NEVER put up an ounce of proof to support your
> rants, and neither will Bonkers. Well OK Bonkers will probably find
> some Popular Science covers and pretend the artwork makes his case. In
> fact I don't understand why he doesn't post a jpg of some money and
> pretend it's his paycheck.
>

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>> > wrote:

>>>A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
>>>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>>
>> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
>> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
>> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
>> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
>> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
>> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
>> radio?
>
>Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just WHERE
>the weights arise from?

YOU have repeatedly claimed that a vehicle that cost a billion to
develop by an army of engineers could have been designed at half the
weight and one third the price by some quack on Usenet. As if GM for
some strange reason forgot to try to make it light. It's YOUR job to
make your case, so start quacking! Instead all we've seen is more made
up **** and dodging and weaving. The single slightly feasible thing
you've suggested is to leave out 30 pounds of rear seat airbags, which
is a pathetically helpless demonstration of how little thought you
gave to your 1800 pound number. Obviously you have NOTHING else to
support your claims, exactly as I predicted. Oh wait, there's still
the promised manifesto! Which I expect to see the day after Moller's
skycar flies around the world nonstop.

On Mar 26, 10:20*am, whoyakidding's ghost >
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>
> > wrote:
> >If the Volt came out with a Convertible, fuknKidding would immediately trade
> >in his current Volt, regardless of the beating he'd take, just to have his
> >hair -- and ascot -- blow in the wind.... *Thumb's Up, donchaknow.....
> >goodgawd....
>
> That's all you got, more made up nonsense. I got tired of convertibles
> about 2 decades ago. Wind in my hair? Gives me a headache, which is
> one of the reasons I wear a helmet when riding, whether legally
> required or not.
>
> >A 3800# compact car.... * another few hundred pounds, you'd have a *4WD
> >pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>
> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
> radio?
>
> >Oh, and I LIKE the Volt -- it is a fundamentally good design, just muckied
> >up with some dumb ****.... *like, well, 1,800 unnecessary pounds, and 18,000
> >unnecessary dollars.
>
> Do you know the meaning of the word contradiction? It can't be
> fundamentally good if it's double the correct weight and triple your
> price.
>
> If you had a brain in your head then you'd instinctively know that the
> only way to get serious weight reduction and meet the same goals would
> be to use expensive materials, which would **** up your idea of
> cutting the price by 2/3. *And if any of your ideas were as easy as
> you say they are, then they'd have been implemented long ago.
>
> I predict that you will NEVER put up an ounce of proof to support your
> rants, and neither will Bonkers. Well OK Bonkers will probably find
> some Popular Science covers and pretend the artwork makes his case. In
> fact I don't understand why he doesn't post a jpg of some money and
> pretend it's his paycheck.

Facts that KiddingNoOne can't deal with in the fantasy world he lives
in. These would be facts that are in addition to the fact that he
can't handle that the Chevy Volt is severely overweight:

I post with my real name. KiddingNoOne hides behind an alias and is an
anonymous posting pussy. Perhaps it's time for someone to point out
that at least everyone knows what Gummers name really is. If you're
going to attack someone and their positions and you don't make your
real name known I immediately lose a good deal of respect for that
person no matter how well they state their positions.

I have several videos on You Tube that I've done to back up my
arguments and points of view on topics that I often talk about.
KiddingNoOne has never linked to any video's he's ever done.

I have several blogs including one that has well over 75,000 page
views and many comments from readers. KIddingNoOne has never linked to
a blog he has done.

There are over 550 members of my very active LinkedIn group called:
CADCAM Technology Leaders. KiddingNoOne has never provided any link to
any group he runs.

My LinkedIn profile shows how many LinkedIn connections I have. It
also shows exactly who my LinkedIn connections are (if you're linked
to me). KiddingNoOne has never provided any details showing who his
connections are.

I actually have some limited direct experience with an electric car
company that failed. In my opinion it failed because it was 3 wheeled
vehicle and could not obtain the government funding it needed. They
had some very good ideas and lots of deposits from people who were
interested in purchasing it. They were a local San Diego company who
went bankrupt. I've posted quite a bit of information on this car in
the past. KiddingNoOne has never posted any information on any
electric car company he's been involved with. The only thing
KiddingNoOne has ever done in regards to electric vehicles is pretend
the Chevy Volt he owns isn't overweight and brag about how he makes
enough money to purchase it.

Perhaps I should be calling KiddingNoOne.... KiddingNoOne'sGhost.

"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> > wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
. ..
>>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>>> > wrote:
>
>>>>A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
>>>>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>>>
>>> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
>>> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
>>> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
>>> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
>>> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
>>> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
>>> radio?
>>
>>Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just WHERE
>>the weights arise from?
>
> YOU have repeatedly claimed that a vehicle that cost a billion to
> develop by an army of engineers could have been designed at half the
> weight and one third the price by some quack on Usenet. As if GM for
> some strange reason forgot to try to make it light. It's YOUR job to
> make your case, so start quacking! Instead all we've seen is more made
> up **** and dodging and weaving. The single slightly feasible thing
> you've suggested is to leave out 30 pounds of rear seat airbags, which
> is a pathetically helpless demonstration of how little thought you
> gave to your 1800 pound number. Obviously you have NOTHING else to
> support your claims, exactly as I predicted. Oh wait, there's still
> the promised manifesto! Which I expect to see the day after Moller's
> skycar flies around the world nonstop.

You wouldn't understand it, anyway, cuz, well, deys numbers involved....
But it's coming, just got Haas problems, is all.

In fact, since YOU are so effing smart, YOU should outline the what-if
strategy, for determining, when/where/if/how electrics are more
user-economical than gas. Quite a few surprises, if you do it right. A big
IF, in your case.

As far as GM goes, cuz GM made it 3800#, it MUST be 3800#, right????
Gee, I guess they didn't include Logic 101 in your GED/Astronaut curriculum,
eh?

3800# for a compact *energy-saving GREEN car* is PRIMA FACIE ridiculous.
Oh, sorry.... here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prima_facie

--
EA




>

On Mar 26, 11:24*am, whoyakidding's ghost >
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> >> > wrote:
> >>>A 3800# compact car.... * another few hundred pounds, you'd have a *4WD
> >>>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>
> >> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
> >> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
> >> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
> >> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
> >> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
> >> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
> >> radio?
>
> >Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just WHERE
> >the weights arise from?
>
> YOU have repeatedly claimed that a vehicle that cost a billion to
> develop by an army of engineers could have been designed at half the
> weight and one third the price by some quack on Usenet. As if GM for
> some strange reason forgot to try to make it light. It's YOUR job to
> make your case, so start quacking! Instead all we've seen is more made
> up **** and dodging and weaving. The single slightly feasible thing
> you've suggested is to leave out 30 pounds of rear seat airbags, which
> is a pathetically helpless demonstration of how little thought you
> gave to your 1800 pound number. Obviously you have NOTHING else to
> support your claims, exactly as I predicted. Oh wait, there's still
> the promised manifesto! Which I expect to see the day after Moller's
> skycar flies around the world nonstop.


GM didn't forget to make the Volt light. GM made a conscious marketing
decision to pander to the general public rather than educate them.
That you can't deal with this reality or the fact that the Volt is
overweight shows how far you have your head shoved up your ass and
what a massive ego trip you are on.

You purchased a concept that's badly flawed because the electric
technology that's available doesn't work for an overweight vehicle
like the Chevy Volt.

You accuse EA of having nothing to support his claims and in addition
you claim I'm "bonkers" to defect the fact that you can't deal with
the realities of what the Chevy Volt really is. Guess what... it's not
working. All it shows is how ****ed your reasoning is, that your ego
rules you and that you live in fantasy land. You a KiddingNoOne.

"jon_banquer" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 26, 11:24 am, whoyakidding's ghost >
wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
> .. .
> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> >> > wrote:
> >>>A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
> >>>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>
> >> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
> >> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
> >> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
> >> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
> >> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
> >> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
> >> radio?
>
> >Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just
> >WHERE
> >the weights arise from?
>
> YOU have repeatedly claimed that a vehicle that cost a billion to
> develop by an army of engineers could have been designed at half the
> weight and one third the price by some quack on Usenet. As if GM for
> some strange reason forgot to try to make it light. It's YOUR job to
> make your case, so start quacking! Instead all we've seen is more made
> up **** and dodging and weaving. The single slightly feasible thing
> you've suggested is to leave out 30 pounds of rear seat airbags, which
> is a pathetically helpless demonstration of how little thought you
> gave to your 1800 pound number. Obviously you have NOTHING else to
> support your claims, exactly as I predicted. Oh wait, there's still
> the promised manifesto! Which I expect to see the day after Moller's
> skycar flies around the world nonstop.


GM didn't forget to make the Volt light. GM made a conscious marketing
decision to pander to the general public rather than educate them.
================================================== ======

Exactly.
I'd add, tho, that pandering to the public often is not an escapable option.
Remember, assholes like Kidding are allowed to vote....



That you can't deal with this reality or the fact that the Volt is
overweight shows how far you have your head shoved up your ass and
what a massive ego trip you are on.

You purchased a concept that's badly flawed because the electric
technology that's available doesn't work for an overweight vehicle
like the Chevy Volt.
================================================== =====

I'd make the concession that the Volt works pretty well, given those flaws.
It IS basically well-designed, notwithstanding the 150 cup-holder syndrome.
Kidding, tho, can't distinguish grey, much less colors.



You accuse EA of having nothing to support his claims and in addition
you claim I'm "bonkers" to defect the fact that you can't deal with
the realities of what the Chevy Volt really is. Guess what... it's not
working. All it shows is how ****ed your reasoning is, that your ego
rules you and that you live in fantasy land. You a KiddingNoOne.
================================================== =============

Assholes like kidding are genetically programmed to *vigorously* suck the
cock of the Status Quo, and the more they can suck it in pub(l)ic, the more
vigorous they become. I wish I had Kidding on MY dick, for a while.....
I"d be a happy camper indeed.
--
EA

"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
> "jon_banquer" > wrote in message
> ...
> On Mar 26, 11:24 am, whoyakidding's ghost >
> wrote:
>> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 13:58:10 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > wrote:
>> >"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
>> .. .
>> >> On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 12:34:37 -0400, "Existential Angst"
>> >> > wrote:
>> >>>A 3800# compact car.... another few hundred pounds, you'd have a 4WD
>> >>>pickup, with a 6 foot bed....
>>
>> >> Why don't you explain exactly how to do that instead of making ****
>> >> up? No, you can't use magic motors or redesign the market. Why don't
>> >> you start by listing the weight reduction of eliminating computers and
>> >> airbags. Let's see how close that number is to your target. I expect
>> >> 20 pounds of computers, so you only have to find 1780 pounds of
>> >> airbags at 5 pounds each. Maybe if you take the volume knob off the
>> >> radio?
>>
>> >Why don't you stop being a little bitch, and actually enumerate just
>> >WHERE
>> >the weights arise from?
>>
>> YOU have repeatedly claimed that a vehicle that cost a billion to
>> develop by an army of engineers could have been designed at half the
>> weight and one third the price by some quack on Usenet. As if GM for
>> some strange reason forgot to try to make it light. It's YOUR job to
>> make your case, so start quacking! Instead all we've seen is more made
>> up **** and dodging and weaving. The single slightly feasible thing
>> you've suggested is to leave out 30 pounds of rear seat airbags, which
>> is a pathetically helpless demonstration of how little thought you
>> gave to your 1800 pound number. Obviously you have NOTHING else to
>> support your claims, exactly as I predicted. Oh wait, there's still
>> the promised manifesto! Which I expect to see the day after Moller's
>> skycar flies around the world nonstop.
>
>
> GM didn't forget to make the Volt light. GM made a conscious marketing
> decision to pander to the general public rather than educate them.
> ================================================== ======
>
> Exactly.
> I'd add, tho, that pandering to the public often is not an escapable
> option. Remember, assholes like Kidding are allowed to vote....
>
>
>
> That you can't deal with this reality or the fact that the Volt is
> overweight shows how far you have your head shoved up your ass and
> what a massive ego trip you are on.
>
> You purchased a concept that's badly flawed because the electric
> technology that's available doesn't work for an overweight vehicle
> like the Chevy Volt.
> ================================================== =====
>
> I'd make the concession that the Volt works pretty well, given those
> flaws. It IS basically well-designed, notwithstanding the 150 cup-holder
> syndrome.
> Kidding, tho, can't distinguish grey, much less colors.

And here's another thought-let:
Altho low-weight can be expensive (if you go carbon fibre, exotic alloy,
etc), shedding weight thru shedding, say, 75 of the 150 cup holders should
go a long way not only toward shedding weight, but shedding $$ as well.

The Kidding asshole reduces this to stawman knobs'n'****, but there are all
kinds of structural things that can be done -- one of which is reducing the
effing size of the gas power plant, which Kidding still dudn't
unnerstand...... cuz, well, the VW beetle just wadn't good enough for his
philistinic materialistic ass, cuz he needs to play RocketMan.

So shedding weight and shedding cost proly go proportionally hand-in-hand,
up to a point, proly the carbon-fibre point.
Exept for the Pandering issue, bec of assholes like Kidding who are allowed
to vote, both with their literal vote and with their dollars.
Assholes like Kidding not only should not be allowed to vote in elections,
they should be given a controlled allowance, and be TOLD what to spend it
on.

And, btw, one day carbon fibre ought to be dirt cheap, cuz, well, WTF is
cheaper on this planet than effing carbon?????
Sheeeit, we could "mine" carbon from effing CO2.....

The only fly in that milk is the Special Interest groups (aka:
Congress'n'profiteering friends), who could keep the price sky high pert
near forever, just like oil is artificially sky high.
Thus, the ass****ings will never really stop, they'll just find/make
different orifices on our economically hapless bodies.
--
EA


>
>
>
> You accuse EA of having nothing to support his claims and in addition
> you claim I'm "bonkers" to defect the fact that you can't deal with
> the realities of what the Chevy Volt really is. Guess what... it's not
> working. All it shows is how ****ed your reasoning is, that your ego
> rules you and that you live in fantasy land. You a KiddingNoOne.
> ================================================== =============
>
> Assholes like kidding are genetically programmed to *vigorously* suck the
> cock of the Status Quo, and the more they can suck it in pub(l)ic, the
> more vigorous they become. I wish I had Kidding on MY dick, for a
> while..... I"d be a happy camper indeed.
> --
> EA
>
>
>
>

On Tue, 26 Mar 2013 14:57:27 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:


>I'd make the concession that the Volt works pretty well, given those flaws.
>It IS basically well-designed, notwithstanding the 150 cup-holder syndrome.

LOL Your opinion is insanely contradictory, and made entirely
worthless anyway by all your stupid evasions.

The fact is that GM went after the middle of the market. They had a
lot on the line and could hardly afford reviewers complaining the Volt
felt cheap or tinny. So they aimed a little above the Prius in wheel
size and heft. Note that the Prius plug-in weighs about 550 pounds
less than the Volt, with probably about 200 of that coming from a
substantially smaller battery. That leaves about 350 pounds used to
make the Volt a little bigger here and there, go three times as far on
battery, perform substantially better, and have the quality to support
a substantially better warranty. Its customer satisfaction numbers
bear out the success of the strategy. Face it, GM knew exactly what it
was doing, and you and Bonkers are a couple of empty suits pretending
that baseless rants can trump reality.

What's that Lassie? Toyota is stupid too? Yeah right, none of these
car companies know anything compared to you two because none of them
have an invisible magic weight reduction strategy!