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

"V-for-Vendicar" > wrote in message
...
>
>>> When I was growing up, the family car (a 4-door sedan) was our ONLY
>>> car. My dad took the train to work, I walked to school, and my Mom
>>> stayed home. Many things were within walking distance, including a
>>> small neighborhood grocery store, so unless it was the big weekly
>>> shopping trip the car sat unused most of the time.
>
>
> "Bill" > wrote
>> Well, if you could live that way, then that certainly means everyone else
>> can to. I'm sorry the rest of us have been such fools.
>
> 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.

So, once again, everyone has to live according to your standards?

- B

On Dec 30, 3:02 am, "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."
>
> 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!
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/mostEfficient.shtml

### very fuel efficient and absolutely useless.

--- ---
There are three types of people that you
can_not_talk into behaving well. The
stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil.

1-The stupid aren't smart enough to
follow the logic of what you say. You
have to tell them what is right in very
simple terms. If they don't agree, then
you'll never be able to change their mind.

2- the religious fanatic

If what you say goes against their
religious belief, they will cling to that
religious belief even if it means their
death."

3- There is no way to reform evil-
Not in a million years

There is no way to convince the terrorists,
serial killers, paedophiles, and predators
to change their evil ways. They knew what
they were doing was wrong, but that
knowledge didn't stop them. It only made
them more careful in how they went about
performing their evil acts.

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:

> Shawn Hirn wrote:
>
> > 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.
>
> What Toyota has a 7 litre V-8 ? Simple really isn't it ?
>
> Grahamm

Toyota is #1 in auto sales, so they must be doing something right.

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.

In sci.environment, Scott in SoCal
>
wrote
on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:53:06 -0800
>:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 04:23:12 -0800, The Ghost In The Machine
> > wrote:
>
>>The solution, of course, is to shrink the car and use
>>lighter materials. Ideally, every family of 2 kids
>>under driving age (around 16-18 years) would have three
>>cars:
>>
>>- his car, which would be a tiny 1-seater with very high
>> fuel efficiency, optimized for commuting, and just
>> big enough to hold a briefcase and a cup of coffee.[*]
>
> Even better, his car could be a commuter train. Having one fewer car
> would save the average family thousands of dollars per year in
> insurance, maintenance, and fuel costs.

I did say these were subject to some adjustments. :-)
Unfortunately, a diesel-powered train isn't quite as much
of a savings as it should be, although it's better than
nothing. Two issues are the existence of an efficient
train system, and the feeder bus system surrounding it.

>
>>- her car, which would be a 1 to 3-seater with not quite
>> as high fuel efficiency but which can carry a week's
>> worth of groceries; it can also be used to pick up
>> and drop off kids from various functions, although
>> ideally the kids would use bicycles instead or just walk,
>> as both are healthier, if less safe in some neighborhoods,
>> depending on the age of said kids (obviously babies
>> crawling to the day care center or to Grandma gets
>> ridiculous, but there's a line somewhere).
>
> For me the line was drawn the first day of Kindergarten. My Mom walked
> with me the first day to show me the route; I walked by myself from
> that day on. In 5th grade we moved and I started taking the "L" to
> school. Not until I was in high school and I bought my own car did I
> ever get a ride to school in an automobile.

A fair boundary, so long as the path is safe enough.

>
>>- the family car, which would be a 4-seater primarily
>> intended for long trips and family outings, and it
>> sits in the garage most days.
>
> When I was growing up, the family car (a 4-door sedan) was our ONLY
> car. My dad took the train to work, I walked to school, and my Mom
> stayed home. Many things were within walking distance, including a
> small neighborhood grocery store, so unless it was the big weekly
> shopping trip the car sat unused most of the time.

A workable solution for those thus situated. The problem
is that back in The Day(tm) the big box stores weren't
quite so, well, big, and were probably distributed more
thickly.

At some point this must change. How to effect such, I
for one really don't know, although higher fuel prices
may be the key here.

After all, the more fuel costs, the less the average
family will use it, given sufficient choices.

--
#191,
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

In sci.environment, Bill
>
wrote
on Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:56:57 -0600
>:
>
> "V-for-Vendicar" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>>> When I was growing up, the family car (a 4-door sedan) was our ONLY
>>>> car. My dad took the train to work, I walked to school, and my Mom
>>>> stayed home. Many things were within walking distance, including a
>>>> small neighborhood grocery store, so unless it was the big weekly
>>>> shopping trip the car sat unused most of the time.
>>
>>
>> "Bill" > wrote
>>> Well, if you could live that way, then that certainly means everyone else
>>> can to. I'm sorry the rest of us have been such fools.
>>
>> 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.
>
> So, once again, everyone has to live according to your standards?

The alternative would be expanding the standards, to the
point where families are competing with bigger, better,
faster, more convenient. Presumably, this will eventually
lead to a splitting of the population into the traditional
Haves, which will ultimately reach a plateau (no more competition,
after all), and the Have-Nots, which are blocked.

To be sure, once a certain point is reached,
rationalizations start to set in; the families might think
small is beautiful in some cases. Others might segregate
themselves into a neighborhood which "understands" them.
Still others eke by; some will probably become parasites.

In any event, cities are perfectly planned for the era in
which they are built -- cheap gas, high speed travel,
convenient parking for a smaller number of people.
They work...but it is far from clear for how long, given
the new dynamics. However, cities cannot change on a whim;
there is a huge inertia, simply because roadways cannot
instantaneously be moved from point A to point B, houses
can't simply be picked up and set down, businesses relocate
in a split second, or even within a matter of days.

It should also be noted that when adjusted for inflation,
1981 gas was more expensive than the current price -- though
not by a lot.

http://www.fintrend.com/inflation/im...tion_chart.htm

>
> - B
>
>


--
#191,
Is it cheaper to learn Linux, or to hire someone
to fix your Windows problems?

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

V-for-Vendicar wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote
>
>>I'm sorry you don't understand basic engineering, but there is no such
>>point to be made with that example. These SAE supermilage vehicles
>>represent nothing as far as hidden technology. They simply weigh very
>>little, minimize drag in all forms, and are run in such a manner to
>>maximize fuel economy on a perscribed course that has nothing to do with
>>real life transportation.
>
>
> 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 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.
>
>
> Such competitions illustrate what is possible within the laws of
> thermodynamics.
>
> Now again. Why do you think the Aurthor of that KKKonsevatvie Propaganda
> piece felt the need to lie?
>
> You know. I have never encountered a KKKonservative who wasn't a perpetual
> liar.
>
>
>

I see that you're clearly an idiot. Show me a four passenger vehicle,
able to be produced and marketed today, that can come anywhere close to
the SAE supermileage results. I suspect that you will run into a hard
wall with available technology somewhere before 100 MPG. That doesn't
even take into account light trucks, which are still necessary for many
people (and I'm not referring to people who drive SUVs as cars, I'm
talking about commercial users.)

It's not so much that conservatives lie, it's that idiots like you give
granola-munching hippies a bad name.

The truth, of course, is that I can drive my 19 year old car for a
decade or more on the energy it would take to produce any new car,
efficient or not. So this whole discussion is irrelevant to me anyway.

nate

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

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article >,
> Eeyore > wrote:
>
>>OK that's a UK gallon but it's still 50.4 US mpg !
>>
>>Diesel engines are a large part of the answer. The USA has an irrational
>>fear of them though.
>
>
> Diesel engines are an environmentalist hair shirt.
>
>
>>Modern European diesel engine design is making even
>>SPORTY diesels possible. They have exceptional torque which most drivers
>>like too.
>
>
> 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. I almost bought one in '02 but
couldn't resist the Hand of God Torque (tm) of the 1.8T. That little
motor was almost enough to make me forget how good a V-8 sounded.

nate

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

Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Sun, 30 Dec 2007 17:12:07 -0600,
> (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>
>>In article >,
>>Scott in SoCal > wrote:
>>
>>>Also, if diesel fuel is so superior, how come nobody makes a
>>>DIESEL-electric hybrid?
>>
>>They do. They put them in railroad locomotives.
>
>
> Those aren't the same sort of hybrids. Diesel-electric locomotives
> have no batteries; the diesel prime mover runs a generator which
> directly powers the electric traction motors. There are plans,
> however, to design a true hybrid locomotive with storage batteries and
> regenerative braking.
>
> Adding batteries to locomotives will be a HUGE win, as they will be
> able to take advantage of regenerative braking (right now, the kinetic
> energy of a train going downhill is dissipated as waste heat). Dunno
> why they waited so long to do it, but at least they're working on it
> now.

Really? I knew about the heat dissipation/electric braking, but the
last time I took a serious look at railroads in an engineering sense was
over a decade or so. I figured in the intervening years someone would
have thought to incorporate regen braking as the weight issues due to
the batteries would be much less serious than in a passenger car due to
scaling and indeed, more weight over the drive wheels might actually be
a plus in some situations.

nate

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

In article >, V-for-Vendicar wrote:
>
> "Brent P" > wrote
>> I'm sorry you don't understand basic engineering, but there is no such
>> point to be made with that example. These SAE supermilage vehicles
>> represent nothing as far as hidden technology. They simply weigh very
>> little, minimize drag in all forms, and are run in such a manner to
>> maximize fuel economy on a perscribed course that has nothing to do with
>> real life transportation.
>
> 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?

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

These mileage competition vehicles simply have nothing in common with
real life transportation.

I also note that you're another liberal-conservative binary thinking fool.

>> 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.

> Such competitions illustrate what is possible within the laws of
> thermodynamics.

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

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

The initial article, despite taking some liberties for humor is quite
correct. There is no means at present to get a fleet average as mandated
while producing the sorts of vehicles people want.

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

That's nice binary thinker. I am not on your chart.