Coping With The New CAFÉ Standards OR Defying the Laws of Physics

In article >,
Nate Nagel > wrote:
>>
>> I've been hearing about the modern ones for decades now. Every time I
>> check one out, it's still a stinky, sooty, noisy, diesel just like any
>> other.
>>
>> And because diesel is made from the same fraction as home heating oil,
>> it is more expensive than gasoline in the winter in my part of the US.
>
>Try a TDI, they really aren't bad.

Judging from the back windows, they are.

--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article > ,
What Me Worry? > wrote:
>"Eeyore" > wrote in message
...
>
>> There is no 300 mpg hybrid.
>
>http://www.aptera.com/
>
>Better tell Aptera that their car doesn't exist. They're already selling
>'em!

1) It's classified as a motorcycle, not a car.
2) It is not being sold; they are selling "reservations" for $500.
It is not in production.
3) They are claiming to have achieved 230mpg with a diesel. The
300mpg claim for the hybrid is cheating; it starts with the battery
full and ends with the battery drained.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Lloyd > wrote:
>
>Actually diesel fuel stays about the same, while gas goes up and down,
>so sometimes gas is cheaper than diesel and sometimes not.

Lloyd! How's the couches??? Anyway, diesel prices certainly do not "stay
the same". Gas goes up and down, and diesel goes up and down, but not
on the same cycle.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article ]>,
Alan Baker > wrote:
>In article >,
> "What Me Worry?" > wrote:
>
>> > They simply weigh very
>> > little, minimize drag in all forms, and are run in such a manner to
>> > maximize fuel economy
>>
>> That is the formula for the 300 MPG hybrid that is in production *right
>> now*.
>>
>> http://www.aptera.com/
>>
>> Why not tell us how the Aptera guys "don't understand basic engineering."
>> That should be worth a laugh.
>
>Sure. They probably understand basic engineering. And because of that,
>their answer is a car with barely enough room for two people with next
>to no trunks space.

A three wheeled enclosed motorcycle with barely enough room for two
people and next to no trunk space. Making it technically a motorcycle avoids
automobile safety standards which would make the project impossible.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

On Dec 31, 10:49*am, "Bill" > wrote:
> "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article > ,
> > "Bill" > wrote:
>
> >> "Shawn Hirn" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> > In article >,
> >> > Eeyore > wrote:
>
> >> >> Kurt Lochner wrote:
>
> >> >> > AKA sniveled ineptly:
>
> >> >> > >The new gas mileage standards mandated
> >> >> > >by the recently passed energy legislation
> >> >> > >defy the laws of physics..
>
> >> >> > leotard, you don't know any physics to speak of..
>
> >> >> The laws of physics certainly do tend to say that expecting a 7 litre
> >> >> V-8 (or even say a more humble 4 litre) to do 35 mpg is wishful
> >> >> thinking
> >> >> ! But who actually NEEDS one ?
>
> >> > Strange how Toyota's been doing it for around ten years and their Prius
> >> > is probably one of the more popular models on the roads today.
>
> >> If it's one of the most popular models on the road, how come I've never
> >> actually seen one on the road?
>
> > Where do you live? In the parking lot in the apartment complex where I
> > live, there's at least one Prius there every time I walk by. I can't go
> > out for a drive without seeing several Priuses on the road.
>
> Less than a half mile outside the central business district of the fourth
> largest metropolitan area in the US (DFW), on a major thoroughfare (five
> lanes/one way).
>
> - B- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

HELL, one of the richest cities in the nation / world
can't even support a decent NPR staion, so you must
expect silliness from them.

wrote:
> On Dec 30, 5:36 pm, "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."
>>
>>V for Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>>>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!
>>
>>"Brent P" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>These vehicles are completely irrelevant to anything useful for
>>>transportation on public roads.
>>
>> The KKKonservative claim was that such cars can't exist because they would
>>require a rewrite of the laws of thermodynamics.
>>
>> When were those thermodynamic laws rewritten to allow the 3,145 MPG car in
>>the above contest?
>>
>>"Brent P" > wrote
>>
>>
>>>They are as I recall a recombent bicycle with an ICE that runs at full
>>>throttle and then coasts, rinse and repeat.
>>
>> With a battery assisted recumbant that has a full enclosure, Joe Average
>>can hit a speed of 40 mph without breaking a sweat.
>
>
> ### But will they pass the Highway Safety regs?? <G>
>

Most certainly not. FMVSS's are the reason that a lot of small (yet
still practical) cars aren't offered in the US. If you wanted to offer
an ultimate-mileage type vehicle in the US it would certainly be
significantly compromised due to passive restraint, side impact beams,
etc. relative to something that could be offered elsewhere. Nor would
it be wise to offer something like that anyway; in our litigious society
the liability of offering a "defective" product like that would be immense.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:

>> ### But will they pass the Highway Safety regs?? <G>

> Most certainly not. FMVSS's are the reason that a lot of small (yet
> still practical) cars aren't offered in the US. If you wanted to offer
> an ultimate-mileage type vehicle in the US it would certainly be
> significantly compromised due to passive restraint, side impact beams,
> etc. relative to something that could be offered elsewhere. Nor would
> it be wise to offer something like that anyway; in our litigious society
> the liability of offering a "defective" product like that would be immense.

The conflicting regulation of government is really going to come into
play with this new CAFE requirement.

The reality I think will be that it will take just one automaker to just
charge customers the gas guzzler tax and CAFE penalty and deliver the
product people desire and then this thing will just be a big sales tax on
new vehicles.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>>### But will they pass the Highway Safety regs?? <G>
>
>
>
>>Most certainly not. FMVSS's are the reason that a lot of small (yet
>>still practical) cars aren't offered in the US. If you wanted to offer
>>an ultimate-mileage type vehicle in the US it would certainly be
>>significantly compromised due to passive restraint, side impact beams,
>>etc. relative to something that could be offered elsewhere. Nor would
>>it be wise to offer something like that anyway; in our litigious society
>>the liability of offering a "defective" product like that would be immense.
>
>
> The conflicting regulation of government is really going to come into
> play with this new CAFE requirement.
>
> The reality I think will be that it will take just one automaker to just
> charge customers the gas guzzler tax and CAFE penalty and deliver the
> product people desire and then this thing will just be a big sales tax on
> new vehicles.
>

It is sad to me that there may be people that would buy a somewhat
compromised vehicle in terms of passive safety to obtain greater mileage
(myself included; I'd be happy to get rid of a lot of electronic mess
especially and own a simpler, easier-to-maintain vehicle) but don't
legally have that option.

I'll repeat the prediction I made a couple weeks ago that restoration of
older cars for daily use may become a viable option within the next few
decades, as new cars will become simply unobtainable for the average
person (well, the average person who doesn't want any significant amount
of debt save for perhaps a mortgage, that is.)

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

"Alan Baker" > wrote
> Sure. They probably understand basic engineering. And because of that,
> their answer is a car with barely enough room for two people with next
> to no trunks space.

For most tasks that is more than adequate.

Within 3 decades all automobiles will have such restrictions on usage, and
people will rent larger vehicles when the need arrises.

In article >,
"V-for-Vendicar" > wrote:

> "Alan Baker" > wrote
> > Sure. They probably understand basic engineering. And because of that,
> > their answer is a car with barely enough room for two people with next
> > to no trunks space.
>
> For most tasks that is more than adequate.

It would be completely inadequate for my life and I don't do anything
that far out of the ordinary: I play hockey and my gear wouldn't fit;
the same for golf; and skiing.

>
> Within 3 decades all automobiles will have such restrictions on usage, and
> people will rent larger vehicles when the need arrises.

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."