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

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. Not that there's anything wrong with
motorcycles (have been considering buying one, actually, but just can't
justify it because it's not practical)

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

Sure they will.

nate


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

On Dec 31, 8:18 pm, Nate Nagel > wrote:
> 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. Not that there's anything wrong with
> motorcycles (have been considering buying one, actually, but just can't
> justify it because it's not practical)
>
> > Within 3 decades all automobiles will have such restrictions on usage, and
> > people will rent larger vehicles when the need arrises.
>
> Sure they will.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

### Within 10 years the world will return to sanity and
a lot of those environmental idiocies will be gone
with the wind. Bye bye Algore

--- ---
"To date, no convincing evidence for AGW
(anthropogenic global warming) has been
discovered. And recent global climate
behaviour is not consistent with AGW model
predictions."

*Dr. Richard Courtney, a UN IPCC expert
reviewer and a UK-based climate and
atmospheric science consultant

>> Well, fools in the sense of building cities and towns that require the
>> inefficient consumption of resources. Constructing a city that demands a
>> car, is one example of stupidity. Building an economy based on planned
>> product failure is another.


"Bill" > wrote
> So, once again, everyone has to live according to your standards?

My standards? No. The Limitations that nature imposes on them? Of
course.

Efficiency is computable. Energy consumption is measurable.

The deceit and immorality of KKKonservative Liedeology is not.

"Bill" > wrote
> LOL. Good try. Or perhaps here in Texas they just don't sell as well as in
> the People's Republic of California.

Well if Washington can't provide competent governanace, then California
will.

"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.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Not that there's anything wrong with
> motorcycles (have been considering buying one, actually, but just can't
> justify it because it's not practical)
>
>> Within 3 decades all automobiles will have such restrictions on usage,
>> and people will rent larger vehicles when the need arrises.
>>
>
> Sure they will.
>
> nate
>
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
> http://members.cox.net/njnagel

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>> Well, fools in the sense of building cities and towns that require the
>>>inefficient consumption of resources. Constructing a city that demands a
>>>car, is one example of stupidity. Building an economy based on planned
>>>product failure is another.
>
>
>
> "Bill" > wrote
>
>>So, once again, everyone has to live according to your standards?
>
>
> My standards? No. The Limitations that nature imposes on them? Of
> course.
>
> Efficiency is computable. Energy consumption is measurable.
>
> The deceit and immorality of KKKonservative Liedeology is not.
>
>

A good rule of thumb seems to be that assuming that anyone that anyone
who uses cutesy little insults for a particular group or ideology is
usually not worth paying attention to. You appear to be true to that form.

Did you have any original ideas to put on the table, or are you here to
just be insulting?

nate

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

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Bill" > wrote
>
>>LOL. Good try. Or perhaps here in Texas they just don't sell as well as in
>>the People's Republic of California.
>
>
> Well if Washington can't provide competent governanace, then California
> will.
>

That's funny.

What's your actual goal? To reduce the consumption of fossil fuels?
That's actually a goal that I can understand and agree with. How do you
do it? Raise taxes on fossil fuels. NOTHING ELSE WILL WORK. Any other
"solution" will only result in lots of unintended consequences,
loopholes, workarounds, etc. and will not have the desired result.

nate

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

> In article >, V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>
>> 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
> As I tried to explain before, but I will try again even if it is likely
> hopless since you seem to be a new form of idiot who cannot even quote
> text
> properly.

You said nothing about thermodynamics.

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?


"Brent P" > wrote
> 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.

That KKKonservative claim was a bald faced lie.

Why does Brent P, feel the need to defend a bald faced KKKonservativre
LIAR?

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>In article >, V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>>
>>
>>> 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
>
>>As I tried to explain before, but I will try again even if it is likely
>>hopless since you seem to be a new form of idiot who cannot even quote
>>text
>>properly.
>
>
> You said nothing about thermodynamics.
>
> 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?

Where is the 2K MPG car? Please bring it by so I can test drive it.

I'm waiting...

still waiting...

still waiting...

Hmm, I guess you don't understand the meaning of the phrase "real world."

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

You're awful free with the word "liar" for a, well, liar.

Until you show me a functional 2000 MPG car that I can buy today and
drive today you are a liar (as you have repeatedly stated that it
exists) and should apologize to Brent as well as everyone else who has
been reading your drivel on the off chance that you'd start showing
signs of intelligence.

nate

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

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>> I see you got over the KKKonservative LIE that the new mileage
>> regulations
>> break the laws of thermodynamics.
>> Why do you think the Author of that KKKonservative propagana piece felt
>> the need to lie?


"Brent P" > wrote.
> I see you can't follow a thread. Can't quote text properly. And have
> control characters in your posts that mung terminal emulation.

I don't see anyting in quotations. Perhaps you are imagining them for
the purpose of altering the subject.

The KKKonservative claim was that 36+ mpg is a violation of the laws of
thermodynamics.

The existacne of a 2000+ vehicle illustrates how detached from reality
that KKKonservative Liar is.


"Brent P" > wrote.
> These mileage competition vehicles simply have nothing in common with
> real life transportation.

Not relevant. The claim was about thermodynamic limits, not practicality.

You don't seem capable of staying on topic.


"Brent P" > wrote.
> I also note that you're another liberal-conservative binary thinking fool.

Ah... What a laugh. Normally KKKonservatives accuse Liberals of seeing
too many shades of grey.

Make up your mind Mother ****er.

Oh ya.. I forgot. KKKonservitives don't have one.


>>> I know you control freaks think that the only reason a honda civic
>>> doesn't get 5,000mpg is a lack of motivational legislation, thing is
>>> you're wrong. SAE supermilage competition has less to do with real life
>>> driving than me commuting to work on my bicycle.

V for Vendicar wrote:
>> Such competitions illustrate what is possible within the laws of
>> thermodynamics.



"Brent P" > wrote.
> I can do as well with a bicycle and have infinite fuel economy. What's
> your point?

Well actually you can't since you will consume more fuel to go the same
distance than those vehicles do.

My point is that the KKKonesrvative claim that 36+ MPG is a violation of
thermodynamic principles is simply a bald faced lie.

Now again. Why do you think the Aurthor of that KKKonsevatvie Propaganda
piece felt the need to lie?


"Brent P" > wrote.
> The initial article, despite taking some liberties for humor is quite
> correct.

This is KKKonservative talk for "The article is a lie."


You know. I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a
perpetual
liar.