Europe Considers BAN ON SPORTS CARS to Combat Global Warming

noone wrote:
>
>I'm all for it if we can ban pickups and SUVs in the process.
>

I'm thinking most americans drivers that I've witnessed should go back
to horse and buggy.


--

We're all here
because we're not all there.

> The idea is to limit CO2, a so-called greenhouse gas blamed for causing
> the earth's temperature to rise.
>
> But the debate isn't just about how much carbon dioxide to allow into
> the atmosphere and whether the amount actually matters. It's also about
> disdain some hold for the size or speed of the cars others drive.

Well, what do you expect? Vote in statists, and get what you deserve,
good and hard.

Next target: Beaters. They spew 50 times what any Ferrari spews.

Marc Gerges wrote:
> Sandy > wrote:
>
>>"Marc Gerges" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>>There's no benefit in driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.
>>>
>>
>>The benefit is that you get where you're going sooner. Duh.
>>
>
>
> Yes - in theory. In practice at most times on most roads I drive there's
> enough traffic and other reason to reduce your speed that in the end you
> won't spend a lot of time at 100+ mph and therefore your time saving is
> relatively minor. You will spend a lot of time accelerating to this kind
> of speed and that is expensive in gas.
>
> Real world numbers I pushed a car capable of 140mph on german highways
> for a trip of about 3 hours and won about 15 minutes. Cost a lot of
> stress and a fill up (which cost those fifteen minutes). Not worth it
> for me. Maybe different on other roads and conditions.

so you think you wouldn't have had to fill up if you only went 90?

>
> cu
> .\\arc

On Jul 13, 6:00 am, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
(Hector Goldstein)" > wrote:
> noone wrote:
>
> >I'm all for it if we can ban pickups and SUVs in the process.
>
> I'm thinking most americans drivers that I've witnessed should go back
> to horse and buggy.
>
> --
>
> We're all here
> because we're not all there.

Better not...PETA would raise accusations of horse abuse.

MLOM:

<< reply limited to r.a.d >>

> On Jul 13, 6:00 am, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
> (Hector Goldstein)" > wrote:
> > noone wrote:
> >
> > >I'm all for it if we can ban pickups and SUVs in the process.
> >
> > I'm thinking most americans drivers that I've witnessed should go back
> > to horse and buggy.
> >
> > --
> >
> > We're all here
> > because we're not all there.
>
> Better not...PETA would raise accusations of horse abuse.

Could you imagine being a horse and having sandpaper horseshoes and a
horn constantly blasting in your ear (to say nothing of having a rabid
k00k sitting on your back)?



--
"Years ago i had a vehicle in which i rigged up a switch so the horn
would stay on continuously. I used it when backing up or when
driving thru a congested area. Worked real well though it prolly
wouldn't if everybody had one."
--Speeders & Drunk Drivers Are MURDERERS, a.k.a SADDAM, LBMHB, lb-VH..
12/6/2006, 0141hrs

Ref: http://tinyurl.com/y72pnu
Message ID:

necromancer wrote:
> MLOM:
>
> << reply limited to r.a.d >>
>
>>On Jul 13, 6:00 am, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
>>(Hector Goldstein)" > wrote:
>>
>>>noone wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm all for it if we can ban pickups and SUVs in the process.
>>>
>>>I'm thinking most americans drivers that I've witnessed should go back
>>>to horse and buggy.
>>>
>>>--
>>>
>>>We're all here
>>>because we're not all there.
>>
>>Better not...PETA would raise accusations of horse abuse.
>
>
> Could you imagine being a horse and having sandpaper horseshoes and a
> horn constantly blasting in your ear (to say nothing of having a rabid
> k00k sitting on your back)?
>

Which is why it's actually a good idea. I don't like horses much (I
fear anything that big that has a will of its own) but it'd be priceless
to see Aunt Judy thrown and kicked.

nate


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

Nate Nagel:
> necromancer wrote:
> > MLOM:
> >
> > << reply limited to r.a.d >>
> >
> >>On Jul 13, 6:00 am, "Murderous Speeding Drunken Distracted Driver
> >>(Hector Goldstein)" > wrote:
> >>
> >>>noone wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>I'm all for it if we can ban pickups and SUVs in the process.
> >>>
> >>>I'm thinking most americans drivers that I've witnessed should go back
> >>>to horse and buggy.
> >>>
> >>>--
> >>>
> >>>We're all here
> >>>because we're not all there.
> >>
> >>Better not...PETA would raise accusations of horse abuse.
> >
> >
> > Could you imagine being a horse and having sandpaper horseshoes and a
> > horn constantly blasting in your ear (to say nothing of having a rabid
> > k00k sitting on your back)?
> >
>
> Which is why it's actually a good idea. I don't like horses much (I
> fear anything that big that has a will of its own) but it'd be priceless
> to see Aunt Judy thrown and kicked.

Excellent point. Though seeing AJ trampled in a stampede would also be
nice....

--
necromancer

Deadly Psychopath. And Proud of it, Man!!

Fred G. Mackey > wrote:
>> Real world numbers I pushed a car capable of 140mph on german highways
>> for a trip of about 3 hours and won about 15 minutes. Cost a lot of
>> stress and a fill up (which cost those fifteen minutes). Not worth it
>> for me. Maybe different on other roads and conditions.
>
> so you think you wouldn't have had to fill up if you only went 90?

Rising speed decreases mileage. Very quick.

You don't notice really when you spend only a minute or two 'up there'.
Once you're at >>100 mph for an hour, you'll notice how quickly the gas
gauge starts to drop.

cu
.\\arc

"Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
>
> Marc Gerges wrote:
> > Sandy > wrote:
> >
> >>"Marc Gerges" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>
> >>>There's no benefit in driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.
> >>>
> >>
> >>The benefit is that you get where you're going sooner. Duh.
> >>
> >
> >
> > Yes - in theory. In practice at most times on most roads I drive there's
> > enough traffic and other reason to reduce your speed that in the end you
> > won't spend a lot of time at 100+ mph and therefore your time saving is
> > relatively minor. You will spend a lot of time accelerating to this kind
> > of speed and that is expensive in gas.
> >
> > Real world numbers I pushed a car capable of 140mph on german highways
> > for a trip of about 3 hours and won about 15 minutes. Cost a lot of
> > stress and a fill up (which cost those fifteen minutes). Not worth it
> > for me. Maybe different on other roads and conditions.
>
> so you think you wouldn't have had to fill up if you only went 90?

Assuming a car engine that is as efficient at 140 as 90, it is going to
use 2.4 times as much fuel at 140.

In article >,
Greg Procter > wrote:

> "Fred G. Mackey" wrote:
> >
> > Marc Gerges wrote:
> > > Sandy > wrote:
> > >
> > >>"Marc Gerges" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >>
> > >>>There's no benefit in driving faster than 80-90 mph in my eyes.
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >>The benefit is that you get where you're going sooner. Duh.
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > > Yes - in theory. In practice at most times on most roads I drive there's
> > > enough traffic and other reason to reduce your speed that in the end you
> > > won't spend a lot of time at 100+ mph and therefore your time saving is
> > > relatively minor. You will spend a lot of time accelerating to this kind
> > > of speed and that is expensive in gas.
> > >
> > > Real world numbers I pushed a car capable of 140mph on german highways
> > > for a trip of about 3 hours and won about 15 minutes. Cost a lot of
> > > stress and a fill up (which cost those fifteen minutes). Not worth it
> > > for me. Maybe different on other roads and conditions.
> >
> > so you think you wouldn't have had to fill up if you only went 90?
>
> Assuming a car engine that is as efficient at 140 as 90, it is going to
> use 2.4 times as much fuel at 140.

Let's look at a specific case:

My Miata gets about 500km on a tank at 100 kph. So each 500 km would
involve one fuel stop of -- counting getting off the highway, fueling up
and getting back to speed -- ten minutes. That reduces my average speed
to 500/(5 + 1/6) kph.

In fact, you can generalize to:

e: fuel economy in kilometres per litre.

t: tank capacity in litres

s: speed in kilometre per hour

f: fueling time in hours

V: average speed.

V = et/(et/s + f)

Which in this instance equals 96.8 kph.

Now, if we raise the speed to 120 kph, we know that power (and thus
roughly fuel flow per unit time) will rise with the square of that
increase, but distance travelled will also rise in proportion, so fuel
economy will fall in inverse proportion to the increase in speed
(approximately)[1]. So at 1.2 times the speed, my Miata should get
something like 416.7km on a fill.

Plugging that figure into our equation...


V = 416.7(416.7/120 + 1/6) = 114.5kph


So how about 160kph (getting close to as fast as my Miata can go):

500/(160/100) = 312.5 kilometres on a tank and

V = 147.42 kph.

What about 200kph?

250 kilometres on a tank and V = 250/(250/200 + 1/6) = 176.5kph.

Still faster point to point.

How about 400 kph? Insane, I know, but this is all somewhat hypothetical.

125 kilometres per fill and an average speed of 260.9 kph.

Now, what if we *double* the fill time?

100kph now gives 93.75kph average.

120kph gives 109.5

160 gives 136.7

200: 157.9

400: 193.54

So, as long as you don't mind paying the cost, don't worry about the
argument that you shouldn't drive faster because it will end up taking
you longer because of the time you lose filling up.

[1] This webpage shows that my linear relationship between speed and
fuel economy isn't far off. If anything it shows that the relationship
actually favours faster speeds:

<http://www.recumbents.com/wisil/demma/superMileageVehicle.htm>

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."