Spain Gets Smart - Cuts Highway Speed Limit to 50 mph, City to 25 mph

Nate Nagel wrote:

> Eeyore wrote:
> > Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>Eeyore wrote:
> >>>Nate Nagel wrote:
> >>>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>I don't dispute that higher prices will result in less consumption. I
> >>>>>dispute that they will result in development of viable alternative
> >>>>>energy sources.
> >>>>
> >>>>Maybe another way to put it is that alternative energy sources that are
> >>>>currently not economically viable, but are close enough that the
> >>>>greenies still bring them up at cocktail parties (to every engineer's
> >>>>consternation) will *become* viable as the cost of traditional fossil
> >>>>fuels rises.
> >>>
> >>>To some degree perhaps. I'll eat my hat if hydrogen ever makes it though, yet it >>>gets
> vast research subsidides that a moderately educated high school leaver could >>>show are
> pointless.
> >>
> >>>Butanol is interesting.
> >>
> >>I agree, hydrogen is not a fuel, it's essentially a chemical battery if
> >>you will (since it requires electricity to produce) and you can get
> >>greater efficiencies from normal batteries.
> >>
> >>We've already had the butanol discussion, it's intriguing but not a
> >>replacement for gasoline, and I have heard nothing about it other than
> >>previous discussions here so there must be reasons why it's not being
> >>seriously pursued, although I don't know exactly what they are.
> >
> > Butanol is NOT a gasoline replacement ? You can literally fill your car up with it and > not
> notice the difference. Not even a big ECU map change required (if at all).
>
> We've had this discussion before, and it will not directly replace
> gasoline.

My sources say it can. Maybe not in a fussy engine ?


> You WILL need a map change at a minimum if you want your car
> to not run like ****.

Not a big deal. I'll bet any 'flex-fuel' car will accomadate it already. Get it into production
and every ECU will come off the line butanol or ethanol or even methanol compatible.


> > It is being pursued in the UK by DuPont and Shell or BP.
>
> It's not even a blip on the radar here.

You might care to to ask yourself why. ADM doing too well from ethanol maybe ?

Graham

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>> Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>> Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>> Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Eeyore > wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Note you've also ignored effective frontal area,
>>>>>>>>>> which is just as important as coefficient of drag.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yes, that affects total drag and American cars are
>>>>>>>>> known for being bigger than most Euro models.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Again, you're making stuff up.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No I'm NOT ! The numbers are out there. See for yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your claim, you support it. And claiming a 1996 Dodge
>>>>>> Viper convertible as a "typical American sedan" ain't going
>>>>>> to cut it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Smallish cars (super minis so-called) are very popular
>>>>>>> here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Small" in terms of total size or mass isn't what is at
>>>>>> issue here. Small in terms of frontal area is the issue.
>>>>>> The Smart, for instance, is quite small, but I bet its CdA
>>>>>> is quite high (because it's so tall).
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok, why don't we elect some popular vehicles and make direct
>>>>> comparisons if the > data's out there ?
>>>>>
>>>>> For a typical mid-size 'family' car in Europe I elect the
>>>>> Ford Mondeo or Opel >>>Vectra.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Fine. Chevy Malibu or Ford Fusion.
>>>>
>>>> Malibu: 0.30. It's a Vectra with a facelift BTW.
>>>> http://www.acarplace.com/brands/gm/reviews/malibu.html
>>>
>>>
>>> Yeah but it's not a classic 3 box sedan. It's quasi Euro styling
>>> with the hatch/fast back > that helps the Cd..
>>
>> What do you want? It's a typical American sedan currently
>> available.
>
>
> Fair enough. Maybe your designers are wising up to good aerodynamic
> design. Just don't mention Hummers !

I believe that that "wising up" happened sometime in the early 80's with
the introduction of the Taurus.

>
>>>> Fusion: 0.33
>>>> http://www.cars.com/go/crp/research....Selection=true
>>>> Vectra: depending on what year, given as 0.28 to 0.30
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.topspeed.com/cars/opel/20...a-ar26338.html
>>>
>>> "The distinctive look, which also impresses with the exemplary
>>> low drag coefficient of 0.28" That's the current model.
>>
>>>> Mondeo: 0.31
>>>> http://www.goauto.com.au/mellor/mell...E?OpenDocument
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NOW SHUT THE **** UP ALREADY.
>>>
>>> Look, this isn't personal you know.
>>
>> You're *making* it personal with your constant assholery,
>> especially when as in this case you're completely off base.
>
>
> It has been traditional for US sedans to have larger Cds and CdAs
> than Euro cars.

When?

> You also typically fit larger engines.

This much is true.

> Can you not see why I'd like to point out these deficits to you ?

Um.... because you're not very bright and you're also a douchebag with
self-image issues who likes to attempt to make himself feel better by
pointing out the (real or perceived) shortcomings of others?

> It's hitting you at the gas pump.
>
> Incidentally, Saturn recently introduced 2 Euro built or based models
> into their range. The Astra (Opel Astra) and Aura (Opel Vectra).
>
> Both have minimum size engines in the USA that are about 30% larger
> than the equivalent Euro model. Check it out for yourself. Why ?

Yes, I already know this. The answer really is "why not." There's no
penalty for a larger engine here like there is in Europe, and the 3.5 is
already certified for use in US passenger cars.

nate

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

Eeyore wrote:
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>
>
>>Eeyore wrote:
>>
>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>
>>>>Eeyore wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Nate Nagel wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I don't dispute that higher prices will result in less consumption. I
>>>>>>>dispute that they will result in development of viable alternative
>>>>>>>energy sources.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Maybe another way to put it is that alternative energy sources that are
>>>>>>currently not economically viable, but are close enough that the
>>>>>>greenies still bring them up at cocktail parties (to every engineer's
>>>>>>consternation) will *become* viable as the cost of traditional fossil
>>>>>>fuels rises.
>>>>>
>>>>>To some degree perhaps. I'll eat my hat if hydrogen ever makes it though, yet it >>>gets
>>
>>vast research subsidides that a moderately educated high school leaver could >>>show are
>>pointless.
>>
>>>>>Butanol is interesting.
>>>>
>>>>I agree, hydrogen is not a fuel, it's essentially a chemical battery if
>>>>you will (since it requires electricity to produce) and you can get
>>>>greater efficiencies from normal batteries.
>>>>
>>>>We've already had the butanol discussion, it's intriguing but not a
>>>>replacement for gasoline, and I have heard nothing about it other than
>>>>previous discussions here so there must be reasons why it's not being
>>>>seriously pursued, although I don't know exactly what they are.
>>>
>>>Butanol is NOT a gasoline replacement ? You can literally fill your car up with it and > not
>>
>>notice the difference. Not even a big ECU map change required (if at all).
>>
>>We've had this discussion before, and it will not directly replace
>>gasoline.
>
>
> My sources say it can. Maybe not in a fussy engine ?
>

If you just read the stuff you posted the last time we talked about
this, anyone with any kind of engineering background can see from just a
few parameters that "your sources" are optimistic at best. (that is,
they're lying to you.)

>
>> You WILL need a map change at a minimum if you want your car
>>to not run like ****.
>
>
> Not a big deal. I'll bet any 'flex-fuel' car will accomadate it already. Get it into production
> and every ECU will come off the line butanol or ethanol or even methanol compatible.

"not a big deal." Well then remap my ECU to run on butanol. I even
happen to have a spare one laying around that I can ship you.

>>>It is being pursued in the UK by DuPont and Shell or BP.
>>
>>It's not even a blip on the radar here.
>
>
> You might care to to ask yourself why. ADM doing too well from ethanol maybe ?

Probably because it's no better than ethanol as a gasoline replacement,
from the data you posted.

nate



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

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Note you've also ignored effective frontal area, which is just as
>> >> >> important as coefficient of drag.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, that affects total drag and American cars are known for being bigger than
>> >> >most Euro models.
>> >>
>> >> Again, you're making stuff up.
>> >
>> >No I'm NOT ! The numbers are out there. See for yourself.
>>
>> Your claim, you support it. And claiming a 1996 Dodge Viper
>> convertible as a "typical American sedan" ain't going to cut it.
>
>Are you seriously claiming they'd measure the Cd with the roof DOWN ?

1) Why not? I don't know about the Viper, but I've seen both figures
for the Miata. (no, I don't remember what they are)
2) Even with the top up, convertibles tend to have a poorer Cd than
cars with a fixed roof.
3) Even the non-convertible Viper isn't a sedan. Nor is the Viper typical.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >> Eeyore > wrote:
>> >> >"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Note you've also ignored effective frontal area, which is just as
>> >> >> important as coefficient of drag.
>> >> >
>> >> >Yes, that affects total drag and American cars are known for being bigger than
>> >> >most Euro models.
>> >>
>> >> Again, you're making stuff up.
>> >
>> >No I'm NOT ! The numbers are out there. See for yourself.
>>
>> Your claim, you support it. And claiming a 1996 Dodge Viper
>> convertible as a "typical American sedan" ain't going to cut it.
>>
>> >Smallish cars (super minis so-called) are very popular here.
>>
>> "Small" in terms of total size or mass isn't what is at issue here.
>> Small in terms of frontal area is the issue. The Smart, for instance,
>> is quite small, but I bet its CdA is quite high (because it's so tall).
>
>Ok, why don't we elect some popular vehicles and make direct comparisons if the data's
>out there ?
>
>For a typical mid-size 'family' car in Europe I elect the Ford Mondeo or Opel Vectra.

I elect the Mercury Sable or the Chevy Malibu.

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

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote:
>
>> Nate Nagel > wrote:
>> >Eeyore wrote:
>> >> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> >>>Greg Goss wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Shrug. If you don't want to regulate the speed to control gas
>> >>>>consumption, then let the market do it. Do you complain about gas
>> >>>>prices at $4 or $5? How about when it goes to $10?
>> >>>
>> >>>Nope. High gas prices are what we need to encourage conservation and
>> >>>the development of viable alternate energy sources. Nothing else will work.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> Sure works in Europe.
>> >>
>> >> Graham
>> >
>> >*sigh*
>> >
>> >there's lots of ways that the US is better than your average Yurrupeon
>> >country, and you don't see all us 'murricans mentioning them in EVERY
>> >DAMNED POST. Give it up, already.
>>
>> There's even more ways the US is better than the UK (which is a year
>> or two ahead of us on Orwell's program). But you know, Graham's
>> anti-Americanism
>
>I an not 'anti-American'. You'd know if I was.

And indeed I do.

>> wouldn't be quite so bad if it weren't for the fact
>> that 99 times out of 100, he is completely off base.
>
>So why do your cars use more fuel than ours ?

Cars in the same class use similar amounts of fuel per mile in the US
and Europe.

>It's a simple enough question.

With a couple of dead obvious answers.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>Butanol is NOT a gasoline replacement ? You can literally fill your car up with it and not
>notice the difference.

No, you can't, because

1) Its stochiometric ratio is 11.2. Your ordinary gasoline-powered
car will be expecting a fuel with a ratio of 14.6. The mixture
will be far too lean.

2) Its motor octane number of 78 is quite poor. Which means you'll get
knocking and pinging under load.

(why do I get a sense of deja vu? Oh, it's because we HAVE been here before)
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

In article >,
Eeyore > wrote:
>
>
>It has been traditional for US sedans to have larger Cds and CdAs
>than Euro cars.

Err, Nate and I have pretty much destroyed that claim. If you're
going to bring up notchback sedans (which haven't been common in
decades, and were available in Europe as well), I'm going to bring up
the old Volvo bricks, and the VW bug.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.

"Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >
wrote in .70:

> Larrybud > wrote in
> . 245.20:
>
>> "Speeders & Drunk Drivers are MURDERERS" >
>> wrote in .70:
>>
>
>>>
>>> Hey stupid. What makes you think highways are designed for 75
>>> or for any particular speed??
>>
>> Because of the radius of the turns, and the long exit and
>> entrance ramps.
>
> Long ramps??? HAHAHAHA. That's a laugh. The ones i see are way
> too short and that causes huge problems. Mergers don't have
> enough space to reach the speed limit. One more reason speed
> limits should be lowered.

If you'd drive a car that had more than 2 of it's 4 cylinders firing
you wouldn't have that problem.

wrote in
.
com:

> On Aug 1, 7:34*pm, "(PeteCresswell)" > wrote:
>
>>
>> I'm with you in thinking that anybody who is halfway conscious
>> and trying sb able to merge into the right lane of most
>> highways... but, at least here in Southeastern Penna, there are
>> a few really egregious exceptions.
>
> There are many highways throughout the country which were built
> in the 1950s or earlier with very small ramps, or carry far more
> traffic than they were designed for. As such, merging on such
> highways is not easy.

When a freeway carrys more traffic than they were designed for you
have traffic jams. So there shouldn't be any problem.

Never ONCE did I run into a ramp that was "too short" to accelerate
up to the speed traffic was running. And in MI, drive 80 or die.