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

"Nate Nagel" > wrote
> 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.

Very true. And yet such vehicles are exceptionally practical within a
infrastructure consisting of similar vehicles. Weights are so low that
accidents would produce bruses rathere than shattered bones and death. Foam
bumpers would suffice and roll bars could be made out of thin aluminum
tubing rather than thick heavy steel.

If the existing infrastructure is not accomodating to improved consumptive
efficiency then that infrastrurcture will be required to change.

In 30 years the automobile as a 4 passenger vehicle will be a thing of the
past, and ultralight, single or double passenger vehicles - primarily
battery driven - will have taken their place. Speeds will have been reduced
and at that point cities will begin legislating the remaining legacy scrap
boxes off the road.

"Shawn Hirn" > wrote
> Toyota is #1 in auto sales, so they must be doing something right.

They are actually producing a quality product that is responsive to the
needs of the people and unlike the AmeriKKKan automotive industries,
engineer their products to exceed government emission standards rather than
using immoral political tactics to prevent those standards from being set.

I wouldn't purchase an AmeriKKKan made car if my life depended upon it.

I will never financially support the ****ing Immoral and Incompetent
Cocksuckers that run that dying industry.

The AmeriKKKan people have been raped by Ford, GM, and Chrysler for the
last 50 years. Every year they take it up the ass and many spread their ass
cheeks with both hands in order to facilitate the act - loving every moment
of it.

We call them, ignorant losers.

"Studemania" > wrote
> Ten years or so ago, Top Gear had a bit about an Indian (nation, not
> US bike) single cylinder Diesel MC of 500cc.
> I wonder what that gets under normal conditions.

Motorcycle or car? I would anticipate 30 Mpg if it's a motorcycle.

"Studemania" > wrote
> I'm a middle-of-the-roader who thinks that you didn't add much useful
> to this discussion, which is one of the best I've seen on a NG in
> years. 'Tis a shame....

Feh. I don't tollerate liars and encountered on quoted in this thread.

Hence I illustrated the lie. KKKonservatives tried to defend the lie and
lost.

The pattern is always the same.

"V-for-Vendicar" > wrote in message
...
>
> V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> The claim was that 35 MPG would require a violation of thermodynamics.
>
>
> "Eeyore" > wrote
>> By a complete IDIOT ?
>
> By yet another in an endless stream of KKKonservative Liars.
>
> I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a perpetual liar.
And I've never encountered a DemoCC**** who wasn't a thief.
>
>

"V-for-Vendicar" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Studemania" > wrote
>> I'm a middle-of-the-roader who thinks that you didn't add much useful
>> to this discussion, which is one of the best I've seen on a NG in
>> years. 'Tis a shame....
>
> Feh. I don't tollerate liars and encountered on quoted in this thread.
>
> Hence I illustrated the lie. KKKonservatives tried to defend the lie and
> lost.
>
> The pattern is always the same.

And DemoCC****s will drain your wallet and steal your savings.
>
>
>

V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> "Eeyore" > wrote
> > 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 ?
>
> Few people. For commuting a 2 cylinder engine is more than enough,
> particualrly if it's desel. Particularly if you reduce the car's frontal
> area and turn it into a tow seater from front to back.

What advantage do you think a 2 cylinder engine has ?

Graham

In article >, V-for-Vendicar wrote:

> You said nothing about thermodynamics.

Glad you finally figured that out bright eyes.

> The KKKonservative claim was that the laws of thermodynamics would have to
> be voilated in order to get 36 MPG. Here we have a real world device that
> is getting over 2,000 mpg.

> So when were those laws of thermodynamics rewritten?

And in your binary world view I am supposed to defend this wacky concept
that is in your own mind. The author of the article took some liberties
to express the point that the law demands something that is beyond
present technology for the kinds of vehicles people want. The author is
correct on his basic point.

It's not really that the laws of thermodynamics are being re-written as
the laws themselves are rather generic. The Otto cycle is however
unlikely to achieve those sorts of mpg figures in real world driving
conditions moving a vehicle like those people want. That is
thermodynamics, but a rather specific part which you have zero
understanding of. Hell. You cannot even make a proper usenet post.
> > The vehicles in an SAE supermileage contest are NOT CARS in any sense
>> that the public thinks of cars.
>
> Not relevant. The claim was that 36mpg + is a violation of the laws of
> thermodynamics.

Only in your own stupid impaired mind.

> That KKKonservative claim was a bald faced lie.
> Why does Brent P, feel the need to defend a bald faced KKKonservativre
> LIAR?

Is your real name Scott Nudds by any chance? You sound like him, but on
acid.

In article >, V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote
>> 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.
>
> If that's what you want.
>
> And it will still reduce AmeriKKKan consumption of them.
>
> So much for KKKonservative Losers.

Yes, you're scott nudds on acid.

peter wrote:
> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>> 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.
>>
>> Seems barely better than a motorcycle. Certainly couldn't replace
>> my current company-supplied vehicle.
>
>
> ================================================== =========================================
> Oh one of the lucky ones, you buy a car and the company you work for
> pays for it. Do they cover all vehicle expenses, including fuel?
> You're far better of than some silly geese I know. These guys work
> for a company that retains that part of their wage that would go to
> vehicle expenses, then gives it back to the poor boob with the
> declaration that the company is providing them with a car. Yeah
> these are the guys that are responsible for so much of our troubles.
> You know the type , they grovel and kneel and say 'YES SIR' to every
> suit, uniform or clerical collar they see. These guys are fascist
> food. I'm happy to see that you Nate are above that, and insisted
> that you choose your car,and got any kickback coming, rather than see
> that bribe go to some minor 'manager' who gives the real boss a cut.
>

Yes, it's all paid for, although I'm not sure where that came from. I
don't really see any difference between being provided with a "free"
(nothing in this world is free, I'm sure my salary would be
significantly larger without it) leased vehicle and being given an
allowance toward the purchase of my own vehicle. I believe the main
difference is insurance; I think the company is doing me a favor by
setting things up the way they did - I don't get to choose my vehicle,
but then again, I also don't have to insure a vehicle "for business use"
which would be very expensive (my employer self-insures.)

But the point that I was trying to make was, for the kind of work I do,
I often spend all day visiting several job sites, with a trunkload of
parts, drawings, submittals, etc. to be dropped off at various points
along the way. I couldn't do that with a glorified motorcycle, no
matter how appealing the concept of riding a motorcycle around all day
might be.

nate

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