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

> V-for-Vendicar > wrote:
>> Scientists are generally rational people, and the data is the ultimate
>>arbitor of truth.


"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote
> The data in this case are statistics, which can be the opposite of
> truth.

The probability of that being true is near zero.

"Matthew T. Russotto" > wrote
> You can't do that, village idiot. Reducing highway speeds directly
> results in a decreased standard of living.

It's either an amazing coincidence that exactly 60 mph produces the
optimal standard of living or that highway speeds of > 60 mph must produce
an even higher standard of living.

So what is the optimal standard lf living speed? My Ignorant Little
KKKonservative Mother ****er?

10,000 mph? 100,000 MPH?

Ahahahahahahahaha. You are too stupid to be permitted to breathe.

>> EV1.
>>
>> You can buy one but only in it's crushed state. But it was working
>> perfectly before GM took it back from it's user and crushed it in the
>> middle of the night.


"Nate Nagel" > wrote
> It still wasn't a practical car for most people.

A range of 80 miles wasn't practical enough for most people?

BULL****.

"Justin Case" > used a stick in the sand to
babble
>> Which doesn't prove the models correct.
>>
>> Swill
>
>When will you idiots wake up. It's the sun, stupid.
>
>http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles....87279412587175

About time somebody brought that up.

Swill

"V-for-Vendicar" > used a stick in
the sand to babble
> Your chronic failure is that there is absolutely <NO> data that implicates
>the sun in the observed warming of the last 100 years. <NONE>

A hundred years worth of data is pretty much useless.

Swill

"V-for-Vendicar" > used a stick in
the sand to babble
>The EV1 doesn't exist because it was too successful and the vehicles were
>forceably taken from it's users, and crushed in the middle of the night.

Too bad that comment is full of partisan spin rather than simple
facts.

Swill

Nate Nagel > used a stick in the sand to babble
>See above. Your obviously sincere wish for practical electric vehicles
>to be available does not necessarily imply that mean, bad old Big
>Industry is suppressing some world saving technology out of greed (such
>rumors are not new, DAGS on the Fish carburetor...) it just means that
>the technology has not caught up with our ability to imagine something
>better. Despite the massive resources of GM (and others) behind the
>effort to change that situation. It's clear you like to hate on GM, and
>I'm not a big fan either, but their actions with respect to the EV-1
>program are perfectly understandable, and I give them big props for
>trying the experiment in the first place.

*applause*

Nobody else has put a completely electric car in consumers' hands for
long term testing. Those cars were leased and at the end of the
leases, were returned. Some leases were extended.

GM took the cars back, examined them and then naturally crushed them
into scrap. One of the principle concerns was fire damage from
overheated cables. Many of the returned cars show melted and burned
insulation on power cables.

GM learned a lot from the EV1. Expect a much improved version at some
later date. In the meantime, they're working on other projects.

Swill

"V-for-Vendicar" > used a stick in
the sand to babble
> Only because the automotive industry refuses to build them. EV1 being a
>prime example of the corruption in the AmeriKKKan automotive industry.
>
> There are of course no shortage of kits available for converting cars to
>electirc operation. The motors and charging equipment and mounts cost as
>little as a couple of thousand bucks and mount directly to the existing
>drive train of the target vehicles.
>
> Is it your claim that Amateurs can readily do what the Automotive industry
>can not (even in the face of the fact that they produced such a vehicle
>(EV1) and then took back all vehicles from their users and then crushed them
>in the middle of the night?

Have you seen these "cars" built by amateurs? They don't comply with
safety standards and certainly aren't anything I'd want to drive.

Swill

Nate Nagel > used a stick in the sand to babble
>> Well that's what you get when you make a limited run of luxury vehicles
>> and then refuse to sell them and then refuse to advertise them.
>
>Luxury? Wow. Your delusion knows no bounds.

Surely he's not referring to the EV1 as a luxury car? Lol!

Swill

Nate Nagel > used a stick in the sand to babble
>> The users of those vehicles loved them. And ultimately that is why they
>> were destroyed while still in prime working condition. They were a threat
>> to GM's aftermarket service business. They were far too reliable.
>
>Exactly wrong. GM crushed them while they were *still* reliable, before
>they had a chance to need expensive battery pack replacements and thus
>acquire a bad reputation.

And before they had a chance to catch fire or explode. Can you
imagine the legal repercussions of a battery pack exploding acid all
over a driver on a hot summer day in heavy traffic?

Swill