|
| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/29/2005 03:17:25 PM · #76 |
Very funny take on gas prices:
Can't Afford My Gasoline
|
|
|
|
08/29/2005 04:32:30 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by VinceDoss:
I owned a Land Rover Discovery and a Range Rover (both 11-16 mpg). Two weeks ago I filled up the Disco's 23 gallon tank and it was over $50.00 USD. I was doing this every week. I drove to the Honda Dealership and traded it in after owning it for 6 years. I now am the happy owner of a Honda Civic Hybrid and getting 40+ mpg. I will keep the Range Rover (classic) for hauling my trailer when needed but I am really digging getting 500-600 mles to a tank of gas. I dont think the price of fuel is coming back down. We need to start changing our use and the auto industry will respond.
 |
See, here is where I see eccentricity. For example, I've long been criticized for driving an SUV. However, if anyone else can tell me of a vehicle that can do the following:
a) carry 1-2 people + a large amount of cargo in a secure (both environmentally and theft) area
OR
b) carry large number of people
OR
c) the ability to tow a trailer full of cargo
I know of no other vehicle capable of doing all three. A minivan can do A or B but is not well equipped for C. A pickup truck can do A or C but is not very well equipped for B. I was in need of a hybrid of a minivan & a truck. In other words, an SUV.
On top of that my SUV offered the safety of
d) 4x4 driving during snowy conditions of the northeast
So when all these people gripe about "all those people driving SUVs - no one needs an SUV". Well some people do. I was able to perform more tasks with an SUV then any other vehicle. Thus...my efficiency was better.
Yes, I was driving a less than fuel-efficient vehicle. I simply did not have
However, I did recently purchase a used 1986 Honda Accord (budget model NO AIR, NO RIGHT HAND MIRROR) - sadly, my Isuzu Rodeo's trany is starting to kick the bucket. A bummer...
But had I had the money to purchase two vehicles I would have purchased only a single SUV to meet my needs and the second car would have been a smaller vehicle.
So Vince, I think you were very wise to liquidate the second SUV. An SUV without any need is usually an exhorberance. But there are many advantages to SUVs that speak for themselves and IMHO justify their existance. Sure, there might be the guy sitting in rush hour traffic on his commute thru L.A. but you never know. He may have a large family and need a 7-passenger vehicle. He may also have a side business in which he tows a trailer. He may not be able to afford a second (or third car if his spouse works). And if he had 3 cars he'd likely be told he was exhorberent. Oft times there is no opportunity for the rich to be righteous...they are condemned by the poorer regardless of their choices.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 12:50:29 AM · #78 |
Im sick of hearing about SUV's. They aren't the cause or the solution to the rise of fuel costs. I'm not getting rid of mine to "save the world"! Instead of whining about us SUV owners...whine to your local elected representatives to find ways for funding alternative fuel research.
It's time to start using alternative fuels...not go back to the stone age riding bicycles.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 07:19:22 AM · #79 |
You're kidding right? Petrol costs chips in your mickey-mouse country. We pay an average of 90p per litre over here. That's $1.62/l, or $7.35 per mickey-mouse gallon. You whinge about your president, but we have his lapdog to contend with.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 09:48:06 AM · #80 |
I think BADDBOYY's point is that the difference between 15-20mpg and 30-40mpg is rather inconsequential. The truth of the matter is that the I.C.E. (Internal Combustion Engine) is really an ineffiency that needs to be moved beyond.
Whether it's fuel cells or Mr. Fusion....we need to advance beyond I.C.E. vehicles. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 11:10:43 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I think BADDBOYY's point is that the difference between 15-20mpg and 30-40mpg is rather inconsequential. The truth of the matter is that the I.C.E. (Internal Combustion Engine) is really an ineffiency that needs to be moved beyond.
Whether it's fuel cells or Mr. Fusion....we need to advance beyond I.C.E. vehicles. |
Exactly my point...It's time for something new. Getting rid of one type of vehicle is not going to make a difference. Governments all over the world have known for the last 20 years that this was a problem and we needed alternative methods.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 11:28:59 AM · #82 |
The difference between 15 and 30 is quite a lot, percentage wise. If we could double the MPG, we'd use HALF as much fuel. that is VERY significant.
It is all based on economics. Look at your own personal life - if you got a vehicle that burned 1/2 the fule, you'd save all that money. You could ride a bicycle, take a bus or carpool. Or perhaps you can't? Then what makes you think an alternative to the ICE will be in your driveway? You are not willing to make the changes necessary NOW, so what will get you to change? Government regulation?
Economically speaking...my car gets 25mpg. it is paid for. I can buy a Prius for $23,000 and get 60mpg. I drive 8,000 miles a year. At $3/gallon i now spend $960 on fuel. With a prius, I'd spend $400. cool, a $560 savings! BUT wait! I'd spend $390 a month on the car payment...so guess what? I'll burn the extra fuel.
As to the ICE - there is a lot more involved than the technology itself. The distribution network for the fuel, the infrastructure than makes the fuel, etc. It is there for gasoline and diesel, it is NOT there for the other fuels.
Also, how do you propose we crack water to make hydrogen? Pound for pound, other hydrocarbon fuels are still the best souce for hydrogen (hydrocarbon, remember?). So we generate electricity to make hydrogen from water. Cars burning gas pollute less than electical power plants.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 11:35:05 AM · #83 |
Originally posted by VinceDoss:
I owned a Land Rover Discovery and a Range Rover (both 11-16 mpg). Two weeks ago I filled up the Disco's 23 gallon tank and it was over $50.00 USD. I was doing this every week. I drove to the Honda Dealership and traded it in after owning it for 6 years. I now am the happy owner of a Honda Civic Hybrid and getting 40+ mpg. I will keep the Range Rover (classic) for hauling my trailer when needed but I am really digging getting 500-600 mles to a tank of gas. I dont think the price of fuel is coming back down. We need to start changing our use and the auto industry will respond.
|
You only moved the problems of fuel usage to some one else...unless you scrapped the old SUV. it was probably bought by the guy you got the Honda from, so all you did was trade fuel bills.
Unless the big thirsty vehicles are removed from the roads completely, they will still be using fuel, too much fuel.
If the auto industry built econoboxes like they did in the late 70s/early 80s with today's engine technology, we'd all be getting 40 mpg.
Want proof? The Mustang with teh big motor puts out more HP that ANY other musting, even the big 429CI Cobra Jet powered cars of the muscle car era. back then they got 5mpg, the new stang will get 14-16. TRIPLE the mileage for the same HP. A 79 Civic got nearly 30 mpg. Doubling that should be easy. Sure, 80 HP is all it had, but it got you around just fine.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 11:50:34 AM · #84 |
Try towing a 2000# load of fire wood home through the mountains of PA with an 80HP "econobox"! Not going to happen. Hell my Yamaha Banshee racing quad produces 85 HP.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 12:17:09 PM · #85 |
I kept track of my fuel consumption for once this last week and here are the facts:
98 Suzuki Swift
32 litre gas tank, filled right up from empty...$32 CAD (@ $.99/litre or $3.08USD/gallon)
Drove 624km before next fillup, mostly at around 95km/h to/from work
624km = 390 miles, 32L = 8.47 gallons
So it looks like I got 46 miles/gallon (5.13L/100km) which means my gas costs me 6.7(USD)cents/mile or 5.1 cents(CAD)/km.
Not bad, huh?
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 12:38:49 PM · #86 |
There is a comparison list at this site - the top ten petrol and diesel engined cars are listed on the link page, and it contains information on pretty much every other vehicle. There are lots of good cars that get over 60mpg, urban/extra-urban mixed fuel consumption data, and 80mpg+ on motorway work. Not many are sold in the US, I'd wager (in Europe, the new Mini is pretty big for a small car).
The other issue, however, with changing cars is the environmental cost of building the things. Dumping repairable cars for the latest models is environmentally very unfriendly, even if the new one is twice as thrifty on fuel.
I don't think that anyone is moaning about people who need to use an SUV. The problem is all of the kids on the school run with mum driving a gas guzzling 4x4 in the urban environment (we used to walk to school, before the press decided to terrorise all parents with the threat of pedophiles). It is a question of attitude changing.
As for new technologies - bring them on. But with a 20-30 year lead in time, something will need to give a little bit sooner. And the new technologies will need to be efficiencies, rather than merely advancing the relocation of the pollution from the road to a power station.
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 12:39:28.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 12:50:10 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by "prof_fate":
The difference between 15 and 30 is quite a lot, percentage wise. If we could double the MPG, we'd use HALF as much fuel. that is VERY significant. |
Yes, a 2:1 difference would be a lot if that was the sole consumption of oil. But it's not...it's far from it.
Oil is used for:
a) heating
b) electric generation
c) lubricants
d) plastics
e) other vehicles (plains, trains, boats, etc.)
f) variety of other lesser
So what you are really referring to is not a 50% savings. But a 50% savings of one percentage group. In this case, about 20% of of the usage. So a 10% savings. However, the fact that much of that 20% is already used by vehicles getting 30-40+ mpg means the savings is probably closer to 5%. That means, we'll have added an extra year for ever 20 years of use. That's really a minimal savings.
Let me exemplify: if there is 100 yrs of oil remaining at current levels, then you just added 5 yrs. There really isn't much difference between 100 and 105 yrs. Even if we gave the higher estimate we'd only be adding 10 more years. Even if we had vehicles that achieved a 100mpg we'd still only be multiplying our reserve by 2x-4x. That's very insignificant.
This is NOT a solution. It's a band-aid on a amputation.
In order to have any significant benefit in a long-term solution we would not need a 100mpg car but rather a 1000mpg vehicle. That is an impossibility. Thus, the only solution is to develop new renewable technology.
Originally posted by "prof_fate":
"if you got a vehicle that burned 1/2 the fule, you'd save all that money" |
I probably spent $1,500 on normal gas activities last year. Had I a vehicle that would have spent half the fuel I would have only spent $750 on gas. However, I need a vehicle that can carry cargo and one that can tow a trailer. In which case, I would have to rent a vehicle at an expense far greater that $750. Or purchase a second vehicle that was more efficient for the commute (something beyond my means at the time).
The result, the most efficient vehicle to meet my needs was the type I own.
"A little side-point..."
Everyone touts mass-transit, but I can recount numerous times I rode the bus with only a few individuals on it. Especially common in the evenings. So is a gigantic diesel tank driving around in circles with 2 people really any more efficient in fuel usage?
"Then what makes you think an alternative to the ICE will be in your driveway?"
Because, as soon as someone offers a vehicle which can fulfill my needs (SUV) and gets 50mpg I will purchase such a vehicle when I first have the means to do so. And if someone came out with a alternative to the ICE in an SUV I would strongly consider it. I have inquired repeatedly of dealers as to when a fuel cell based model will be available. In fact, I have been trying to hold out with my aging Rodeo in waits of just such a unit to come out. Because if I am going to buy a new vehicle - I'd rather invest and support new technology than old. And I'd rather not buy an old ICE a year or two before newtech arrived.
You know very little about me and my decisions. And a bicycle is great rhetoric but unrealistic.
a) living in the northeast there are only a handful of days throughout the year that such can be used (as inclement weather hampers such during most of fall/winter/spring seasons. Rain & extreme humidity makes such use during much of the summer infeasible.
b) they have no ability to transport cargo
c) an immense loss of time, time is money. It would take me probably an hour plus to get to work. The loss of 2 hours time a day would lead to much greater financial loss than the extra gasoline you pointed out.
d) the result is a sweat soaked individual that is inappropriate for business attire
As for carpooling, this works great if you work for a large firm. But if you work for a small firm where every worker lives in different parts of the state it is not a realistic option.
Thus it's not an option...sorry!
Originally posted by "prof_fate":
"As to the ICE - there is a lot more involved than the technology itself. The distribution network for the fuel, the infrastructure than makes the fuel, etc. It is there for gasoline and diesel, it is NOT there for the other fuels." |
That is part of the "new technology". It's why the first fuel cells will probably use methanol. It's not as clean as hyrogen but existing framework of gas stations can be easily converted to handle methanol.
Originally posted by "prof_fate":
Also, how do you propose we crack water to make hydrogen? Pound for pound, other hydrocarbon fuels are still the best souce for hydrogen (hydrocarbon, remember?). So we generate electricity to make hydrogen from water. Cars burning gas pollute less than electical power plants. |
Just like electric cars (which are touted as an alternative but in fact rely on hydrocarbon fuels) a single power plant generates electricity more cleanly. Second, alternative power can be used for extraction. One proposed example, floating solar platforms extracting hydrogen from seawater. Another, is the use of nuclear power plants. Furthermore, there have been recent discoveries of systems that can do so much more efficiently than was at first thought. This goes back to my point...free up the patents and discoveries instead of having them all locked up for pure profit and we'd likely have a reasonably efficient method in hand by now.
Originally posted by "prof_fate":
You only moved the problems of fuel usage to some one else...unless you scrapped the old SUV. it was probably bought by the guy you got the Honda from, so all you did was trade fuel bills.
Unless the big thirsty vehicles are removed from the roads completely, they will still be using fuel, too much fuel.[quote]
Profession of fate or a profression of foolishness. Talk like this is purely rhetoric. The guy who bought the old SUV probably needed an SUV and not a "Honda". He may already even own your Honda. But the rhetoric and damnation your shout out is meaningless. It's people spouting rhetoric like this that is turning so many off from caring.
Regardless of whether a Land Rover or Honda is being driven...it doesn't make a single iouta of difference in the long term. You are talking about a 5% percent difference at best.
[quote="prof_fate"]Want proof? The Mustang with teh big motor puts out more HP that ANY other musting, even the big 429CI Cobra Jet powered cars of the muscle car era. back then they got 5mpg, the new stang will get 14-16. TRIPLE the mileage for the same HP. |
Yeah, and once again...great rhetoric. First off, Mustangs got more than 5 mpg. Now mind you, modified Mustangs for racing might only get 5mpg but that is comparing an orange to a mango and irrelevant as it's not made for normal driving. Secondly, the new Mustang may have more horsepower than the old. But I'll wager 10-to-1 it doesn't have nearly the same "torque". Horsepower must be measured with torque. There was a nice thread talking about how the old JEEPs only had a 100+ HP engine but outperformed many 300hp vehicles because they had a very high amount of torque. So this whole argument is mere rhetoric.
Likewise, as Baddboyy pointed out...and something leftist extremists like yourself refuse to address (preferring to spout irrational babble)...an efficient commuter car cannot perform the tasks that necessitate an SUV or Truck. You build me a vehicle that gets 50mpg, can carry 6-8 passengers, and tow a trailer. And you will have the number one selling vehicle in America.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 01:47:26 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
Just like electric cars (which are touted as an alternative but in fact rely on hydrocarbon fuels) a single power plant generates electricity more cleanly. Second, alternative power can be used for extraction. One proposed example, floating solar platforms extracting hydrogen from seawater. Another, is the use of nuclear power plants. Furthermore, there have been recent discoveries of systems that can do so much more efficiently than was at first thought. This goes back to my point...free up the patents and discoveries instead of having them all locked up for pure profit and we'd likely have a reasonably efficient method in hand by now. |
Coal is still the #1 energy source for elecrtrical generation in the US. it is NOT as clean as the same amout of energy generated from X number of cars.
nuclear - NO nuke plants have been built (as in approved and started construction) in the US since 1979. the current debate is on what to do with the spent fuel, and the transport of it from the plant to the long term storage utility.
I agree bicycles are not the optimum choice, but many of your escuses for using bikes are not valid. perhaps for you the are, but many places in the world ride bikes, including hot humid sweaty places and cold snowy icy places. I know of people that commute, in the NE US, via bicycle. It requires a change in lifestyle. A change you are apparently not ready to make.
Fuel cells are many years off. Quit bothering your local dealer about it. Honda has one out there in field testing. If yo have $1 million you can buy it. Double that if you want to haul all those people with you.
the fact that you will not give up your SUV until we pry it from your cold dead fingers proves my point - in the US there is no way to legislate or price fuel to cause the individual to change their fuelish habits. it is decided on a purely personal and selfish, as well as financial, means.
what is your SUV? Ford has a hybrid SUV out there, and Lexus is due this year or next with theirs. I expect you'll have one then!
time is money, yes. And if the fule lasts 100 or 105 years, we'll both be dead. if it lasts 40 or 44 years, well, then it might matter to us.
the other segments of the economy use more fuel than the car. The media/gov't pick on the car - it effects everyone. If the factories used 30% less fuel , or 30% more fuel, would you know? Or care? Not a real strong rallying point, and as 95% of americans are apathetic anyway, even threatening their cars does little.
Like the 'one day boycott' idea that passes aroud the 'net. Won't work. So today i buy no gas. i drove today, so tomorrow i buy the gas i would have bought today.
Alternatives exist - biodiesel, methanol, electric cars, tiny cars - some methods are not expandable to large use (like those few that burn used french fry oil - not enough used oil to make a dent in the big picture). Or the economics don't work (hybrids, fule cells) or people are not willing to make the lifestyle change (tiny cars, bikes, motorcycles). heat was an option in cars until 40 years ago, and A/C till 20 years ago. Look at WW2 gemany - winter use of open cars, motorcycles. Central heat in homes was not common 60 years ago. Humans can survive using much less fuel. we did it for thouseands of years.
It's a choice.
|
|
|
|
08/30/2005 03:06:09 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by "Prof_Fate":
it is NOT as clean as the same amout of energy generated from X number of cars. |
Actually, hard (low-sulfur) coal can be fairly clean. And power plants equipped with newer technology actually capture a large amount of the waste and pollution. With added refining they can capture much more. It is a lot easier to make a single pipe cleaner than 10,000 pipes.
Originally posted by "Prof_Fate":
nuclear - NO nuke plants have been built (as in approved and started construction) in the US since 1979. the current debate is on what to do with the spent fuel, and the transport of it from the plant to the long term storage utility. |
Very true with regards to no new nuclear plants having been built since 1979. It is in fact quite the tragedy. As nuclear power plant technology (as commonly used in Europe and elsewhere) has advanced quite a bit. New designs are not only immensely safer (the newest designs are constructed so that the start of a meltdown reaction will actually stop the reaction) but many of the new plants can actually use the old waste as fuel. Thus, the building of new more advanced nuclear plants could allow us to reduce our current amount of nuclear waste and provide a means to loosen our reliance on fossil fuels.
Furthermore, there is movement to start new construction. Phase out the older less safe plants with the newer ones. And in the construction designs, the plan is to have surrounding areas of restricted lands. This land would exist as essentially a humanless nature and wildlife preserve for the most part. Thus helping to maintain "natural habitats".
Originally posted by "Prof_Fate":
but many of your escuses for using bikes are not valid. perhaps for you the are, but many places in the world ride bikes, including hot humid sweaty places and cold snowy icy places. |
All of my points were quite valid. And in those places many of the people have a poor standard of living. Many do not even have access to showers. And few have professional business infrastructures. (Now, yes, a few areas are densely populated in Europe, U.S. and elsewhere that allow for such uses more easily such as Manhatten, London, U.K., etc.) But not the case in general. It's just not feasible for me to live two blocks from work.
And frankly, if you're going to spout such moronic rhetoric and exceptions...why don't you !@#$ MOVE TO THOSE COUNTRIES. Then, of course you'd likely not be posting here...few have internet access outside of the above mentioned zones.
"I know of people that commute, in the NE US, via bicycle. It requires a change in lifestyle. A change you are apparently not ready to make."
Give me their names and numbers. Please...do please...tell me who these nameless friends of yours are that commute in the dead of winter on bicycles in New England. And tell me what kind of !@#$% jobs they work. Cause for Joe average person it's not about a change in lifestyle, it's not an option. You show me someone who can make what is normally an hour long bicycle commute in a foot and a half of snow. I call "BULLSHIT" on your rhetoric. Yes, there may be exceptions. And you don't know jack crap about me...my lifestyle...or changes "necessary" to make.
In fact, FYI, in several months I will be relocating and telecommuting.
Originally posted by "Prof_fate":
the fact that you will not give up your SUV until we pry it from your cold dead fingers proves my point |
The fact that you are so determined to pry my SUV off my fingers at any cost. Regardless of the minimal effect it will actually make. The fact that you're such an arrogant self-centered pit of rhetoric is WHY 98% of American's won't listen to you or your kind.
If you're not willing to even listen to and hear other's needs and concerns. Don't expect them to give a crap about yours. You go tell the mom that she should drive a tiny 40mpg Honda instead of her minivan. I'll laugh as she bashes you over the head and says what else is she supposed to fit her four kids and strollers in. (Of course, I know your answer...you probably would exclaim she is an evil right wing polluter for having four kids and should only have one child to help reduce the population growth.)
See, typical of everyone I encounter on the left. Full of condemnation but you have no viable solutions. (And "NOT" is not a viable solution.) You have yet to answer the questions posed to you by those who have asked how are they supposed to "tow" a trailer or carry other cargo. If you can't answer that...you're a sounding brass...like the big gong on the "Gong Show"...
Originally posted by "Prof_Fate":
biodiesel, methanol, electric cars, tiny cars |
Biosdiesel...guess what...it still pollutes, it has negative environmental impact. Do you know how much land would have to be used for that? So are you saying we cut and clear more rainforest...this time, not for food and sustenance but for "oil"
*Starts to shout* "NO RAINFORESTS FOR OIL!" (that's right folks, no more rainforests, we'll cut them down for oil)
Methanol...and just where does methanol come from? and guess what....it still pollutes
electric cars ... are you really that much of a blithering idiot. I'm sorry, are you the one that just !@#$% me out a few paragraphs earlier on how coal (which produces the majority of our electricity) is more polluting than I.C.E. automobile exhaust. Well, electric cars run on electricity...they also can't travel long distances.
Hybrids, they're available. In fact, Toyota makes a small lightweight SUV hybrid. Was kinda shocked though to find out that most hybrid cars only get 3-5 mpg more than their standard counterparts. And it's very likely in 10 yrs most cars will use some form of hybrid, also called auxilliary, engine power.
Tiny cars... you mean like the one's those guys in the funny hats drive around at parades? give me a tiny car that can carry a whole family comfortable, and carry cargo, and the ability to tow a trailer and you got a deal. Such cars are great commuter vehicles. And when a family has the means to own secondary and tertiary vehicles it sure does make a lot of sense. But most common Joe average people don't have the means to do so.
Originally posted by "Prof_Fate":
Or the economics don't work (hybrids, fule cells) |
a) hybrids, added cost for a 3-5mpg increase - guess what, a lot of these are being sold. But it's new technology. It's not yet perfect. No worry, I'll wager in 10 yrs most vehicles sold will have some form of auxilliary power system (which is all a hybrid is, a vehicle with a small auxilliary electric motor).
b) fuel cells, technology isn't there yet. You can't expect new technology to be at a price point available for the masses. It took a decade before the masses owned CD players. It took about 5 yrs before DVD players were commonly owned. Fuel cells is a much bigger leap than either of those. And the technology hasn't been perfected as those items were. Sadly, as I've repeatedly mentioned (and you've not made a single response to), one of the main things holding back perfection to a reasonable enough level for common sales is the restricted patent vault. Take away this barrier and you'd halve the time for us to have viable fuel cells. Oh, you'd probably also increase the average mpg of I.C.E. vehicles by about 5 mpg just by allowing free patent sharing.
Originally posted by "Prof_Fate":
people are not willing to make the lifestyle change (tiny cars, bikes, motorcycles). |
Dealt with tiny cars. Great commuters but to ask a family to use one is irrational. (I bet you're single without many children. Or Yuppie with your 1.3 children.) Trying toting a family in a tiny car. Bikes...been over that one...unrealistic.
Motorcycles, hey I looked into it. Almost bought one. But, you know...there is a lot of risk riding a motorcycle. More than most other vehicles. And I guess when you've had friends who've lossed limbs and loved ones in motorcycle accidents - well, you have to weigh safety. And like the bicycles, they are very seasonal. If I lived in San Diego or an area where I could drive a cycle for most of the year...I probably would.
But you know what...I spent 5 yrs of my childhood life riding a moped. Yup...we were dirt poor, but lived in San Diego and the family car was a moped. Ever try to fit a family of three on a moped. Not too safe...not too legal. How about a family of four?
***
Come on bro...end the rhetoric, be realistic....be compassionate. Get off your soap box and be human....not a liberal voicebox of irrationality.
And the funniest thing....I've got you beat bro....you're all rhetoric and I wonder if there is even any action on your part or simply lack of means.
I myself own an SUV. It's a mid-size Isuzu Rodeo (18mpg). But that's not what I took to work today. Nope, I drove my 30mpg Honda Accord. Not the best MPG but not bad. It's an 86, no frills, doesn't have air conditioning, doesn't even have a right hand mirror. But it's all I could afford as a secondary car. So I sweat it out whenever I drive it...
And in several months when I move, I won't even be driving that to work. I'll be telecommutig from a home office over the internet.
Furthermore, I've even contacted several manufacturers of solar panel technologies on the possibility that we might build our house.
You see, you're all rhetoric and holy assholism. To me, people come first. I am not going to condemn the man driving an SUV who tows a trailer for his construction company during the day and 3 kids and a wife at night. It is, for his needs, and efficient choice. Now, I might take criticism with Barbara Striesand and all these other Hollywood twits condemning SUVs as they drive their limousines, private jets and stretched Humvee's.
But that does not mean I don't care, or have no concern. Just means I'm rational. Nor am I going to get myself into a panic. In fact, I think the best thing that could ever happen to mankind might be to run out of fossil fuels. I think if that happened in 40 yrs that we'd see an amazing rush of ingenuity and invention. I think patents would be stripped away so that any and inventors efforts could be combined to answer the immediate problem and need.
Maybe I'm extreme, I see man's potential for abysmal failing but I likewise see his potential for doing great things.
- The Saj
PS - sorry if you find my reply insulting, but I find your accusational and damning tone of the lifestyles of people you refuse to understand more insulting than any profanity I could possibly think of to use in response. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 03:28:17 PM · #90 |
I confess, I drive a mini-van. My husband drives the Jeep Cherokee.
Oh, how i wish for the days of my 1993 Geo Metro. 55mpg. Fill 'er up for 10 or 12 dollars, go for over a week. Unfortunately, I drove it until it wasn't fit for humans to sit in. Then, my husband got it. :) They got good gas mileage, but they sure weren't built to last long. (Though I did get 150K+ miles on it).
Oh, how i would love to ride a bicycle to work. Let's see, I live on a mountain, in a rural area, and I live about 12 miles from my work. I could probably average 14mph, so just under an hour each way. I could deal with that. Good exercise. Kids to the sitter (the grandparents)? Hmm, I guess they could come to my house. Or Travis could sit on the handle bars (he's 3 1/2, has good balance, but he's big for his age), and Kristi (6 mos) in a child carrier in the back. But then on Mondays, that adds an additional 5 miles to my trip, and on Wednesdays, 17. Hmmm.
Public transit. Yea, I could do that. Oh wait a minute. The nearest stop is like 5 miles away. AND, you have to call for "reservations." AND they recommend that you be at the stop one hour early and prepared to wait up to 2 hours depending on the route and user volume (I swear, I am not making this up).
It's easy to say I should do this, this, and this, but when you look at it, owning a vehicle and driving it is more efficient in the long run than the other alternatives.
When I was in Russia, I met some citizens who were amazed that I lived in my own house and drove my own car. What they couldn't understand is that "apartments" are rare here (except for low-income housing, though town houses and condos are becoming more popular at $2000 or so a month), and without a car, I simply cannot go anywhere.
Solutions are different for everyone. For my family, we have curtailed our once weekly photo jaunts into East TN and surrounding areas, have decided we probably won't go on vacation, and we try to consolidate all of our errands into one trip. It's not much, but if everyone did what they could depending on their situation, it might help a little bit.
At least i find it more effective than sitting at hte computer complaining about the leaders that be. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 03:33:56 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Solutions are different for everyone. For my family, we have curtailed our once weekly photo jaunts into East TN and surrounding areas, have decided we probably won't go on vacation, and we try to consolidate all of our errands into one trip. It's not much, but if everyone did what they could depending on their situation, it might help a little bit. |
Did you really give up all of those things just to use less gasoline?
Just wondering... |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 03:36:08 PM · #92 |
I imagine living on a mountain you still have a pretty nice view...
(although I totally understand the need for travelling - shooting the exact same subject matter day after day would result in - well either the perfect shot or insanity)
Prof_Fate...
There is actually a form of transportation I am quite fond of. It is, IMHO, one of the few truly super-low energy methods of transport. (Along with solar powered cars.) It's called "Sailing"
Sadly, it's not the most effiecient method of navigating from town to town. But alas, it is quite an excellent travel method outside of those inefficiences.
:)
I think you should try sailing to work Prof....
Message edited by author 2005-08-30 15:36:30. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 03:40:58 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by karmat:
At least i find it more effective than sitting at hte computer complaining about the leaders that be. |
at least they're at home on the internet instead of needlessly driving around...ROFL |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 03:49:05 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by thatcloudthere:
Originally posted by karmat:
Solutions are different for everyone. For my family, we have curtailed our once weekly photo jaunts into East TN and surrounding areas, have decided we probably won't go on vacation, and we try to consolidate all of our errands into one trip. It's not much, but if everyone did what they could depending on their situation, it might help a little bit. |
Did you really give up all of those things just to use less gasoline?
Just wondering... |
Pretty much. The cost of gasoline to go to these places really cuts into a family budget. The vacation is not out totally, but instead of going to the coast, we may go somewhere much closer. |
|
|
|
08/30/2005 04:05:48 PM · #95 |
TheSaj summed it up for me.
Most people seem to get in to a panic and make irrational decisions...IE banning SUVS...changing lifestyles...reverting back to the stoneage technology wise to deal with a problem. Instead of taking a deep breath and thinking outside the box for a solution.
I'm concerned about the price of gas...I may complain about paying the price too. We all knew it was coming for years though....but we didn't do anything about it.
I am a huge fan of technology and with proper funding we could find alternate methods of fuel. Hell we have sent a robot to Mars...I think that we can come up with something.
I love my SUV...I use it for all types of things...and until I can find something that can replace it comparibly...You will see me driving around Pittsburgh in my Yukon!
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 06:11:14 AM · #96 |
I have just had my eyes opened when looking at a couple of car manufacturers' sites. The GM page will let you search by fuel economy, based on highway (motorway) figures. The most efficient category in their site is "up to 40mpg" - on a motorway!!! that is a joke.
Peugeot and Citroen have a hole in the US. Citroen sells some cars under the Nissan brand, but none of their small cars.
I have been to the US several times, but never really realised that the problem was this bad: efficient cars just don't seem to be available!! Presumably something to dowith the hitoric low price of gas/petrol.
As for SUV culture: it is a cultural thing. Most people in most parts of the world do not need an SUV.
The US may be a little different, in that it has wider empty spaces. Towns and cities are designed in the post-car era, and are designed for car use. The distances people travel are sometimes huge.
I do not think that there should be criticism of people who use a car to get around, where that is a necessity caused by town/city planning, or because they live in a remote area. Nor should there be a criticism of people who need to carry a large amount of equipment for work (whether truck or van). But the car they choose to drive is another matter.
The problem is one of historic convenience. The US has had it for a long time, and the UK is steadily growing, in the desire for SUVs for all-round convenience on tap. I am quite used to driving a normal car most of the time, and hiring a van when I need to haul large amounts of stuff. Less convenient, yes, but a lot cheaper than hauling around a 2 ton vehicle the rest of the time and rather more efficient.
As for carrying people and luggage - there are a plethora of 5-7 seater large cars with mpgs of 35+ mpg.
Eg the Vauxhall (GM) Zafira, 7 seater:
Imperial Urban (cold) 36.7 Imperial Extra Urban 54.3 Imperial Combined 46.3
from 0-60 mph in 12.0 seconds,reaching a top speed of 109. Diesel, so plenty of torque for a reasonable sized trailer.
(yes - nearly 55mpg on the motorway/freeway).
Or if you want something faster to carry your family of seven in, get the sporty version of the same:
maximum speed of 137 mph and a 0-60 time of 7.6 seconds. 200bhp out of a 2000cc engine
Imperial Urban (cold) 24.4 Imperial Extra Urban 42.2 Imperial Combined 33.2
Yes - still 42 mpg on the motorway/freeway. For a seven seater that can outpace a Mazda MX5/Miata. With luggage space.
The problem is that the GM website does not list the Zafira as being on sale in the US. Instead, you have the Chevy Venture which "offers powerful performance with an 185-hp 3400 V6 engine and entertainment features to make every road trip fun" (3400cc V6 and only 185bhp!!!)
and is their top rated vehicle in the category for fuel efficiency with extra-urban mpg of 26mpg.
The vehicles are there (similar vehicles are made by Citroen and Peugeot and Ford) but are not for sale in the US. US vehicles are reknowned for being inefficient, weighty and pondering beasts that tend not to like corners, but rely on brute muscle. However the time for brute muscle is coming to a close, I fear. SUVs need to evolve into something a little more refined.
Does anyone else see the irony in Katrina washing oil rigs out to sea?
Message edited by author 2005-08-31 06:13:01.
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 06:43:23 AM · #97 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
. You go tell the mom that she should drive a tiny 40mpg Honda instead of her minivan. I'll laugh as she bashes you over the head and says what else is she supposed to fit her four kids and strollers in. ( |
Not getting into this debate - fed up with being called a leftist - but I thought people might find it interesting to know that my father owned one of the first Austin minis (the original ones back in the late 50's).
There were three children + mum and dad and we were aged 7, 11 and 13 when we got it.
We travelled from England to Italy with camping gear including full size tent, cooker, beds, chairs and a selection of tinned food (my mother was really suspicious of any food abroad!) + all our clothing etc.
All of it was packed into the Mini and we still moved at 70mph on the Autostrada. In fact we had Italian men surrounding the car looking at the engine at every stop we made! No air conditioning ( it had those little windows at the back that opened outwards about 30 degrees!), no radio, no headrests and pretty naff seats but we travelled thousands of miles in it in high temperatures.
As I say this was in the late 50s but there is no reason to have a huge car to tote kids around! I used a mini with my two, got in pushchairs ( not the lightweight small fold up ones of today), carrycots and usually the odd friend who came along for the ride. You can manage as long as you have safe seating ( ie child seats if necessary) but I agree it is a lot easier just to sling the luggage in the back rather than pack it, have lots of room between children and the height to see over other cars - it just isn't NECESSARY! We just expect it to be easy and not take some working out.
Thanks for allowing me the nostalgia trip
:)
P
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 09:23:20 AM · #98 |
Originally posted by theSaj:
I imagine living on a mountain you still have a pretty nice view...
(although I totally understand the need for travelling - shooting the exact same subject matter day after day would result in - well either the perfect shot or insanity)
Prof_Fate...
There is actually a form of transportation I am quite fond of. It is, IMHO, one of the few truly super-low energy methods of transport. (Along with solar powered cars.) It's called "Sailing"
Sadly, it's not the most effiecient method of navigating from town to town. But alas, it is quite an excellent travel method outside of those inefficiences.
:)
I think you should try sailing to work Prof.... |
If it keeps raining and the wind keeps blowing, i just might do that!
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 09:29:24 AM · #99 |
Originally posted by Riponlady:
Not getting into this debate - fed up with being called a leftist - but I thought people might find it interesting to know that my father owned one of the first Austin minis (the original ones back in the late 50's).
There were three children + mum and dad and we were aged 7, 11 and 13 when we got it.
We travelled from England to Italy with camping gear including full size tent, cooker, beds, chairs and a selection of tinned food (my mother was really suspicious of any food abroad!) + all our clothing etc.
All of it was packed into the Mini and we still moved at 70mph on the Autostrada. In fact we had Italian men surrounding the car looking at the engine at every stop we made! No air conditioning ( it had those little windows at the back that opened outwards about 30 degrees!), no radio, no headrests and pretty naff seats but we travelled thousands of miles in it in high temperatures.
As I say this was in the late 50s but there is no reason to have a huge car to tote kids around! I used a mini with my two, got in pushchairs ( not the lightweight small fold up ones of today), carrycots and usually the odd friend who came along for the ride. You can manage as long as you have safe seating ( ie child seats if necessary) but I agree it is a lot easier just to sling the luggage in the back rather than pack it, have lots of room between children and the height to see over other cars - it just isn't NECESSARY! We just expect it to be easy and not take some working out.
Thanks for allowing me the nostalgia trip
:)
P |
Hear Hear! My aunt and unlce raised 6 kids, and had me in teh summers as well. All with one car. I remember the summer we went to the cabin in the mountiains, a 3 hour ride in a 72 Dodge Dart. A 2 door sedan. We ewent for a week. We all fit.
I remember well the late 70s early 80s when gas prices spiked to today's equivalent of $3.11. Small cars cost tons extra, IF you could find one to buy. large cars were free. Well, not totally, but close. Caddy's, lincolns, anything with a big block motor that got 12 mpg was $500. It is part of the reason we have mini vans and mini pickups. Today's dodge dakota has a V8. Then it had a 4 cyl.
Due to this hurrican the price of gas is expected to rise 30 cents/gallon. You can drive your Yukon, but you will have to cut back someplace else...
|
|
|
|
08/31/2005 09:58:25 AM · #100 |
"many papers may only be accurate measures of the prevailing bias among scientists."
//www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7915
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Eg the Vauxhall (GM) Zafira, 7 seater: |
Hmm...do you have a picture? I'm not sure if we have that model. Is it a diesel? or gasonline vehicle... (ah...I just read it's diesel). We do not get those diesel models. Furthermore, I don't believe the diesel gas you guys use is the same as ours. I think Europe uses a more refined cleaner diesel than America.
In most cases, when you move to a larger car you wind up only getting a few more mpg.
So you have a choice of a 5-6 passenger sedan at 26mpg or a 5-6 passenger SUV at 22mpg. Not too much of a deciding factor at that level.
Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Does anyone else see the irony in Katrina washing oil rigs out to sea? |
Only if you're a sick twisted bastard...one who cares more about agenda than about the hundreds of bodies washed out to sea.
Originally posted by "riponlady":
Not getting into this debate - fed up with being called a leftist - but I thought people might find it interesting to know that my father owned one of the first Austin minis (the original ones back in the late 50's). |
Just curious...how much MPG did it get?
28/36 mpg Mini-Coopers (Pocket Car)
25/32 mpg
18/22 mpg Toyota Highlander (SUV)
33/28 mpg Toyota Highlander (SUV) Hybrid
Heck, you're looks like you're actually better off driving an SUV in this case. Now, the Highlander is a small SUV. But folks...look at that...we're progressing. When an SUV can get equivalent gas mileage to a pocket car.
And this...
36/31 mpg Ford Escape Hybrid
That's even better than
29/37 for the Honda Accord Hybrid
Though it does not really compare to the 50-60mpg of the Toyota Prius or Honda Insight. (Which are really commuter vehicles.
The other thing that most people don't realize is that hybrid only get that mileage for the first several dozen miles. (Which is usually enough for work and back.) But after that their performance becomes regular.
My point, progress is being made. When you can get a light SUV that gets 36mpg in city driving.
Is it fast enough, good enough, etc. - probably not...but the direction is turning. Even in America. |
|
|
|
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:46:15 PM  |
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/03/2025 12:46:15 PM EDT.
|
