Nobel laureate rings energy alarm bell

[mubs]

New.com. Glad at least some people think about this.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm glad he's doing what he's doing but nobody will listen until oil gets expensive and/or there's massive climate change. Sadly, it's human nature to do nothing about a problem until it comes up and bites you in the behind. The fact is that fossil fuel use kills over 600,000 per year in the US alone from various cancers. That's already a great reason to stop using it, not to mention that polluted air just plain smells bad. The additional reasons of global warming and declining supply are just icing on the cake as far as I'm concerned.

I have to say though I'm a bit distressed at the ideas for alternatives mentioned in that article. Solar power is the most promising but even that can probably only satisfy 10 or 20% of energy needs. What we really need is to make commercial fusion viable. In the absence of that just build more nuclear power plants. Put them deep underground to avoid problems of contamination in case of meltdown. When the plant is obsolete you can just leave it and the spent fuel safely underground.

Transportation is a big energy consumer but even that is not beholden to fossil fuels. Cars can get their power from the power plants either via direct electrical transmission or from batteries recharged from the grid or solar power. Forget fuel cells. Making hydrogen consumes far more energy that it gives back in a fuel cell. Transporting hydrogen is a terrorist's dream. I'd rather see vehicles that carry no explosive fuels, whether gasoline or hydrogen. In fact, the auto makers abandoned promising BEV (battery electric vehicle) technology in favor of giving us fuel cells at some much later time as a delay tactic. In ten years they'll tell use that fuel cell vehicles are not commercially viable and all we'll have still is the archaic internal combustion engine. The internal combustion engine is a dinosaur which should have died ten years after the fuel crisis of the 1970s. BEVs are the way to go. I'm tired of hearing about limited range and other nonsense. They're fine for 95% of the times people use their vehicles. If more R&D were thrown at the problem we would have better batteries by now. Supercapacitors in particular look very promising. Here is an interesting EV site which says much the same things as I do.

 

[sechs]

One of the funny things is that most people don't consider coal to be an alternative to oil. It's plentiful and domestic (there's a ~300 year supply in the United States alone), and if mined and used properly, quite clean (although there's a lot of effort in "properly"). Oh, and it's cheap.

What we need are electric cars, fuel-cell batteries, and solar power, and we'd be set.

 

[Howell]

Running out of energy would be bad. But, we need to stop worrying about "global warming".

Arctic Ocean Was Balmy 70 Mln Years Ago -Study
http://www.co2science.org/edit/v7/v7n49edit.htm
http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2180

 

[Howell]

In fact, the auto makers abandoned promising BEV (battery electric vehicle) technology in favor of giving us fuel cells at some much later time as a delay tactic.

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/42cd2010-4d74-11d9-b3be-00000e2511c8.html

 

[Fushigi]

Ford and Nissan have both licensed Toyota's technology to make hybrids, while Honda has developed its own system.

Slightly misleading. Ford & Nissan licensed Toy's 1st gen hybrid technology from the original Prius. The current Prius is Toy's 2nd gen. And obviously an improvement since the car is larger & heavier but gets even better mileage than the original Prius.

Otherwise, the vehicle to watch on the sedan front is definitely the Accord hybrid. It retains a strong VTEC V6 but adds hybrid technology and displacement-on-demand for something like 31 city/38 highway. That kind of mileage without sacrificing the performance Americans are used to.

While I'm not a huge fan of SUVs, I wish more would take the hint from Ford & Toyota/Lexus and Hybrid-ize their SUV fleet. The hybrid Escape will get better mileage than most sedans. Toyota's Lexus division is rolling out a hybrid version of the RX SUV, so that should be good. And I think that'll make it's way into the Highlander eventually.

 

[jtr1962]

I was just laughing reading this line in that article Howell linked to:

He pointed to independent forecasts that hybrid engines could power 5-15 per cent of the world's cars by 2020.

We shouldn't even be using internal combustion engines in 2020, but to say we'll only have 5% to 15% of vehicles hybrids (with the rest presumably regular internal combustion engines) by 2020 is laughable. This is progress? We should have been rid of combustion engines on autos for 20 years by now. The technology certainly exists. Exactly what is wrong with straight electrc vehicles powered by batteries for 99% of the real world driving people do? People seldom need to go over 100 miles in one shot. On the rare times they do, just rent a gas car. The limited range thing has been blown out of all proportion by automakers resistant to change.

On the hybrid SUV thing, one word comes to mind here-dumb. You use hybrid technology to try to improve fuel economy on a vehicle which is ill-suited to it. It seems like we forgot what we learned about aerodynamics overnight. If you want good economy start by reducing frontal area and streamlining. On after that does using hybrids make sense. We can design driveable vehicles with drag coefficiencts of 0.08 (maybe even less). Those should be the norm. I'd like to see a Cd of 0.12 or less mandated by law. There is no good reason for boxy vehicles like SUVs.

 

[Buck]

The Tatra T87 already had a Cd of 0.36 in the mid 1930s -- and this was a roomy five-seater car.

 

[Fushigi]

On the hybrid SUV thing, one word comes to mind here-dumb. You use hybrid technology to try to improve fuel economy on a vehicle which is ill-suited to it. It seems like we forgot what we learned about aerodynamics overnight. If you want good economy start by reducing frontal area and streamlining. On after that does using hybrids make sense. We can design driveable vehicles with drag coefficiencts of 0.08 (maybe even less). Those should be the norm. I'd like to see a Cd of 0.12 or less mandated by law. There is no good reason for boxy vehicles like SUVs.

For the Escape, gas 4 cyl gets 22 city, 25 highway, gas 6 cyl gets 20/25, and hybrid w/4cyl gets 36c/31h (from Ford's site). For those city miles, that's an 80% improvement in mileage over the V6 while maintaining comparable power. Why or how is that dumb? City mileage doesn't benefit that much from Cd, does it? If so, you can apply any Cd changes to both the gas & hybrid versions; both should improve even more. The problem with changing Cd is most aerodynamic vehicles aren't as visually appealing. And while that shouldn't be a major factor when comparing vehicles, it is.

And I think it's critical to realize that, despite high gas prices and 'lack of true need', SUVs and pickups represent something like half of all vehicle sales in the US. If you can make dramatic upgrades in mileage on your worst offenders, I would consider that more valuable to the environment vs. the 30-40% better mileage from making a hybrid sedan. Think of all the light-duty commercial vehicles like delivery vans, plumbers, the van fleets from utility providers, etc. all going hybrid. The savings in fuel from commercial vehicles would be huge.

 

[mubs]

Links to LA Times reviews. You need to "register", but can get a working username/pw at BugMeNot. Don't give up easy; if one combo doesn't work, click on the "did not work for me" button on BugMeNot, and it'll give you another.

Hybrid Accord V6

Hybrid Ford Escape

I recommend that everybody read them.

 

[mubs]

Fushigi is right on - very valid points, all of them. Some of these are addressed in the LA Times Escape review.

 

[Buck]

Good information in those links mubs, thanks for sharing them with us.

 

[jtr1962]

For the Escape, gas 4 cyl gets 22 city, 25 highway, gas 6 cyl gets 20/25, and hybrid w/4cyl gets 36c/31h (from Ford's site). For those city miles, that's an 80% improvement in mileage over the V6 while maintaining comparable power. Why or how is that dumb?

It's dumb in that vehicles like that shouldn't even be made unless there is a real need for it. You don't see me complaining that an 18-wheeler gets maybe 4 mpg because that's the best you can do given the requirements. If someone really needs to tow 10,000 pounds, drive on a glacier, or drive up the side of a building then I have no complaints about them owning an SUV. For most, though, it's a status symbol and/or a means to compensate for poor driving habits by intimidating other drivers. Ever been on a bike with a wild pack of SUVs bearing down on you? I have and it isn't pleasant. They make little enough sense even in the suburbs. In a large city they make zero sense.

I find it fascinating that the few times that auto makers offered straight electrics they sold out very quickly. I think the site I linked to earlier has some references to that. Let's face it, automakers are resistant to change. The big oil lobby doesn't want electric cars. The irony here is that if electrics were to be mass produced they would be far cheaper than internal combustion vehicles. There are no precision moving parts such as an engine or a complex mechanical transmission. Regenerative braking is built in-just use the drive motors as generators and add some electronics to make it all work smoothly. The one Achille's heel of straight electrics, battery capacity, would improve given enough R&D. Even as it stands, state of the art batteries and good vehicle design can give ranges of probably 200 miles. How many times a year does the average person drive more than that? Supercapacitors, once they reach high enough energy density, will allow recharging in no more time than it takes to fill up, making the range issue moot. And given enough demand, gas stations can easily convert to "recharging" stations.

The pieces needed to mass produce electric vehicles all exist. Most have existed since the 1980s. We simply don't have the will to make them, and the public has been mislead into thinking they aren't viable. Make the public more aware of those 650,000 annual pollution-related deaths and I think there will be a strong push to get rid of our fossil fuel based way of life, or to at least restrict the emissions to centralized power plants where they can be captured. Coal-burning plants can be virtually zero emission with technology to sequester the CO2 emissions. Sure, I'd really like fusion, but in the interim clean coal power with electric vehicles represents a good alternative. As a bonus, you get rid of the noise pollution from internal combustion engines as well.

City mileage doesn't benefit that much from Cd, does it?

City mileage is affected somewhat by Cd in that reducing frontal area and Cd can improve mpg by maybe up to 100%, despite the low speeds, all else being equal. Remember that while 30 or 40 mph may seem slow enough to not benefit much from aerodynamics, any cyclist will tell you that there is substantial air drag at those speeds. However, more than anything rolling resistance affects mileage at low speeds, and SUVs are heavy, and have big tires with a lot of rolling resistance. Remember that the auto makers sold the public on SUVs because those were the vehicles they made the most profit on. Given enough marketing, the public can be sold on more sensible vehicles. Also, for urban dwellers who take mostly short trips of 20 miles or less (often way less), the ideal vehicle of choice is the straight electric. It's a damned shame there hasn't been legislation to mandate zero emission vehicles within the limits of large cities. The savings in health care would be worth the costs and the relatively minimal inconvenience.

The problem with changing Cd is most aerodynamic vehicles aren't as visually appealing. And while that shouldn't be a major factor when comparing vehicles, it is.

Again, marketing. The public really has no set taste and can be made to like anything via proper marketing. I'm thoroughly convinced of that given some of the stupid, ugly things which have become "fashionable". I don't think we've ever had a very streamlined vehicle so it would be a completely different look, sort of resembling those human powered vehicles. Plenty that marketing can do with that. I personally think boxy vehicles look disgusting but maybe in part that's influenced by the way their needless lack of efficiency rubs me the wrong way. And from a logical perspective, you only see what the vehicle looks like while you're walking towards it to get in it. I care more about what it looks like inside rather than out. If the average user worries about outside appearances just to appeal to a bunch a strangers while they're driving then that speaks volumes about the superficiality of Western culture. Really, the idea of a car of a status symbol is silly at best. It's to get you from point A to point B.

Think of all the light-duty commercial vehicles like delivery vans, plumbers, the van fleets from utility providers, etc. all going hybrid. The savings in fuel from commercial vehicles would be huge.

Now here this makes more sense since the form of those vehicles is dictated by their function, and in many cases commercial vehicles are already as efficient as they can be shape-wise because companies who use them care about the bottom line. With the constant stop and go hybrids can increase efficiency enormously. Still, I tend to think for short haul local delivery vehicles straight electrics make the most sense. Buses are probably a natural for hybrids, though, unless we go to something better like overhead power wires (or straight electric if possible for a given route).

 

[Handruin]

Another thing I seldom see mentioned is that cars are not the only thing which require oil. How many products can you think of use some type of petroleum or oil based product?

Think of what would happen to the economics of the following:
The road we drive on - pavement?
Tires?
Plastic bottles?
CD-ROMs/DVD's?
Milk Containers?
(basically anything plastic)
Cosmetics?
Soaps?
Candles?

The list could probably go on and on.

 

[Buck]

Since we're talking about cars, coefficient drag, tree-huggers and eco-wienies, has anyone seen reviews about the new Ford GT? Ford did a nice job entering the production-class 200 mph club! Although not the cream of the crop, the GT certainly stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the other members of this club available in the U.S., namely Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren, Porsche Carrera GT, Lamborghini Murcielago, and the Ferrari F430.

 

[mubs]

In the last 6 years that my wife has had a daily commute, it's been <= 8 miles one way. I've wished and wished there was an all electric vehicle available that was affordable - we've would have bought it. Now by the time her engine has warmed up, she's shutting it off. Higher wear and tear, lower mileage

 

[sechs]

Another thing I seldom see mentioned is that cars are not the only thing which require oil. How many products can you think of use some type of petroleum or oil based product?

Think of what would happen to the economics of the following:
The road we drive on - pavement?
Tires?
Plastic bottles?
CD-ROMs/DVD's?
Milk Containers?
(basically anything plastic)
Cosmetics?
Soaps?
Candles?

The list could probably go on and on.

Ever heard of cement?

Everything else can be , has been, and is made from plant or animal matter, which, ultimately, is solar power.

 

[Handruin]

Sure. It's used for model airplanes and other hobby items so you can cement the parts together. I bet it's made out of petroleum products also.

Oh, right, you meant the other cement. Yup, I've heard of that one also. The thought of concrete was not forgotten. It only applies to roadways in my above example. I haven't researched the negative effects of mass usage of concrete. I'm sure there's something negative that would cause for alarm.

I understand your point, but the process of how things are made right now, it would take a serious change to move back to plant and animal products. With your argument, we could suggest people stop using cars and move back to horse and buggy.

 

[sechs]

If I were arguing something, perhaps. I was just pointing out ways that the petrochemical industry is not necessary.

We lived before it and we can live after it. This time, tho' we can use electric cars.

 

[Clocker]

Since we're talking about cars, coefficient drag, tree-huggers and eco-wienies, has anyone seen reviews about the new Ford GT? Ford did a nice job entering the production-class 200 mph club! Although not the cream of the crop, the GT certainly stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the other members of this club available in the U.S., namely Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren, Porsche Carrera GT, Lamborghini Murcielago, and the Ferrari F430.

Hey Buck-
Keep an eye open for the new Corvette Z06 at your local Chevy dealer. Here's what I know from some people in the know at work: 500+HP hand-assembled V8, under 3,100 lbs., 60mph in approximately 3.5s. Quarter mile in approximately 11.5s. I say, if you're going to burn some oil...have fun doing it!

 

[Handruin]

Hand assembled V8? That's a new leaf for GM isn't it? With a spec like that I can only imagine the price tag and availability. I'm going to guess $80K+

Man for a 3.5 seconds 0-60 time, I would have expect sub 11 sec 1/4 mile. None-the-less that's a fast car.

 

[jtr1962]

Another thing I seldom see mentioned is that cars are not the only thing which require oil. How many products can you think of use some type of petroleum or oil based product?

Think of what would happen to the economics of the following:
The road we drive on - pavement?
Tires?
Plastic bottles?
CD-ROMs/DVD's?
Milk Containers?
(basically anything plastic)
Cosmetics?
Soaps?
Candles?

The list could probably go on and on.

Doug, it's the burning oil for power part which concerns me more than anything else. The other methods of using oil you mentioned put far less junk in the air than using it for fuel. In fact, all the more reason to conserve oil since it's a finite resource and very useful for something besides fuel (for which there are many other alternatives).

 

[jtr1962]

In the last 6 years that my wife has had a daily commute, it's been <= 8 miles one way. I've wished and wished there was an all electric vehicle available that was affordable - we've would have bought it. Now by the time her engine has warmed up, she's shutting it off. Higher wear and tear, lower mileage

And the bitter irony is that if one was mass produced, it would actually cost less than a gas-engined car. It's a chicken and egg sort of thing where I feel the government may need to step up to the plate and jump start the EV industry.

BTW, I don't know what sort of physical condition your wife is in or how old she is, but 8 miles to me each way sounds very feasible by bicycle if a suitable route exists (i.e. no limited access expressways). It would personally take me 25 to 30 minutes to go 8 miles by bike in average NYC traffic conditions (I can actually do this distance in <20 minutes going flat out). The only show stopper here besides physical condition of course is if the bicycle friendly local route is much more circuitous than her current commute. Just make sure when choosing a route than it isn't too hilly and you can't accidentally make a wrong turn and end up on a highway. That actually happened to me once. I was going along a nice sweeping downhill curve and ending up getting on the Grand Central Parkway for one exit. Fortunately I was behind a bus which blocked most the wind and I managed to creep up to at least 58 mph (maybe 60+ but I couldn't afford to glance at my speedo at the time I hit what felt like my peak speed) before I got off at the nearest exit. Yeah, that kind of speed on a bike feels like about 200 in a car. I actually did hit 65 mph once but that was on a local NYC street with a long downhill and a 40 mph lulu of a tailwind.

 

[RWIndiana]

Jtr, A Bike? A plain, ordinary (perhaps 15 speed) bike? Say it ain't so! One pebble and you'd have been a goner! You are one dangerous dude.

On another topic:

SUV's are truly evil. Every day you hear about SUV's going on the rampage and killing people, demolishing property, destroying our environment. Not to mention killing the poor helpless victims inside (some may call them "drivers," but we know better). SUV's are out for total destruction and domination of the world, mark my words. Why, just last year an SUV forced me to buy it. I knew it would run me over unless I obeyed, and now I am nothing but it's slave. I must do it's bidding or it will fly off the road, killing me and at least ten school children.

Another topic change:

Hey I honestly think we would all be happier and more content if we just drove horse and buggies. Get rid of electricity, go Amish. lol. Actually I really am half serious, but I will wait for one of ya'll to make the first leap before I do. Heh. Think about it though, traffic accidents would rarely, if ever, be fatal; there would be no need for stop lights; parking would be infinitely easier; our vehicles would automatically fuel up whenever they weren't being used. Hmm.... Maybe cars will become obsolete?


Yes I'm nuts thank you.

 

[Mercutio]

Some random thoughts
I sincerely suspect that automakers could make a vastly more efficient Internal Combustion Engine were they given any real incentive to do so. Of course, the hobgoblin of dwindling petrol reserves just isn't that incentive - running out of oil isn't something anyone is going to worry about until we reach the point of shortages and gas prices rivalling those of European nations.

Of course, a more efficient engine would no doubt require greater cost. And you know what? I'm fine with that. Plenty of people have WAY, WAY more car than they need - I have a strong urge to key every H2 or Expedition I see. Cripes. I have two full size sedans I drive regularly in which I have been the only passenger for the last 3 years.
Pinko commie that I am, I'm of the opinion that 1. Cars aren't worth anything close to what we pay for them and 2. They should be generally more expensive as a barrier to keep people from buying more car than they need. Yes, those statements are contradictory, but every time I see an 18 year old with a new Mustang or a single woman in an SUV, those two thoughts pass in my mind.

Americans largely live in suburb or suburban-like places, places where spawl makes anything but a car highly impractical. I'm not getting on a bike and peddling my fat ass around the town where I live. Forget the fat ass part (yes, gladly, I know) . I drive seven miles to buy most of my groceries in bulk. I couldn't do that on a bike. The roads in between aren't made for cycle traffic (no shoulder or sidewalk and high speed limits) and I don't have the cargo capacity I need. So I drive my rediculous 6-cylinder Taurus or 8-cylinder Crown Vic 7 gougingly inefficient miles to buy milk and toilet paper.

And as I type this I understand completely why jtr rants about public transportation every couple months. It IS disgusting.

 

[Buck]

Since we're talking about cars, coefficient drag, tree-huggers and eco-wienies, has anyone seen reviews about the new Ford GT? Ford did a nice job entering the production-class 200 mph club! Although not the cream of the crop, the GT certainly stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the other members of this club available in the U.S., namely Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren, Porsche Carrera GT, Lamborghini Murcielago, and the Ferrari F430.

Hey Buck-
Keep an eye open for the new Corvette Z06 at your local Chevy dealer. Here's what I know from some people in the know at work: 500+HP hand-assembled V8, under 3,100 lbs., 60mph in approximately 3.5s. Quarter mile in approximately 11.5s. I say, if you're going to burn some oil...have fun doing it!

Sounds very nice Clocker. Here is a good read over at Automobile Magazine. article

 

[i]

A question for anyone here: When you come across computer-related products that absolutely suck, do you continue to buy them? A Sony optical drive, for example. Does anyone here that hates them continue to buy them anyway?

If not, then why do people still buy into cities where they experience frustration with their transportation options?

I live in Arlington, Virginia. The public transportation throughout this part of northern Virginia, DC, and into southern Maryland is very good.

I don't own a bike.

I also don't own a car. (Shocking!)

That's how it's been for me for nearly 3 years now, and I can't see any compelling reason to be changing that arrangement anytime in the near future.

Just as with any other product, I say vote with your dollars. Does a given city suck when it comes to offering you options for getting from one place to another? If so, why the heck are you spending your time and your money there?!

Just like city planners, the individual has a choice as to how they they want to operate, and what they're willing to do to make it happen. In my opinion, you can't criticize one without looking at the other with equal scrutiny.

 

[Handruin]

I understand your point i, but comparing the likes of not buying a Sony, compared to changing your entire life-style, is not as similar. A person may have a lot of family in a city area, or be dependent on a job in a specialized area. Moving away to make a point isn't as easy as not buying a Sony optical. There are many viable alternatives to the Sony. In comparison, if I had to change my motherboard, ram, CPU, and hard drive in order to buy something other than a Sony, than that might be a fair comparison.

 

[Clocker]

Since we're talking about cars, coefficient drag, tree-huggers and eco-wienies, has anyone seen reviews about the new Ford GT? Ford did a nice job entering the production-class 200 mph club! Although not the cream of the crop, the GT certainly stands shoulder-to-shoulder with the other members of this club available in the U.S., namely Mercedes-Benz SLR McLaren, Porsche Carrera GT, Lamborghini Murcielago, and the Ferrari F430.

Hey Buck-
Keep an eye open for the new Corvette Z06 at your local Chevy dealer. Here's what I know from some people in the know at work: 500+HP hand-assembled V8, under 3,100 lbs., 60mph in approximately 3.5s. Quarter mile in approximately 11.5s. I say, if you're going to burn some oil...have fun doing it!

Sounds very nice Clocker. Here is a good read over at Automobile Magazine. article

Nice article but that's the 'slow' Corvette...the Z06 will blow that one away!

 

[jtr1962]

If not, then why do people still buy into cities where they experience frustration with their transportation options?

I live in Arlington, Virginia. The public transportation throughout this part of northern Virginia, DC, and into southern Maryland is very good.

I don't own a bike.

I also don't own a car. (Shocking!)

Maybe I'm the only one here who thinks in exactly the same way. I stayed in NYC after college despite a smaller variety of job choices for the very reasons you mention. I simply don't wish to be a slave to a car so that means living in an area that offers comprehensive public transportation. Say what you will about it, the subway and/or city buses can take you within a few blocks of nearly anywhere worth going to in NYC except in the borough of Staten Island, often faster than you can drive the same distance, and for only $2 (actually $1.67 if you purchase 6 rides for $10). This is so much better than having to pay thousands to buy the vehicle in the first place, and then often over $1000 annually just to insure it. This is even before you get into fuel and repair costs. Given all the headaches associated with owning a car, it's amazing that such a large percentage of the population has bought into the idea of owning their own transportation. Sure, there are some conveniences, but then again I don't consider door-to-door service to be a good thing since the sedentary American population would be better off walking to subway stations. And then we have the injuries and deaths associated with automobile use thanks to clueless idiot drivers.

You're 100% right, i. People should vote with their feet and not move to a city or take a job that requires you to buy your own transportation. Cities should be planned with the idea that the automobile is a convenient luxury owned by a relatively small percentage of the popualation rather than by almost everyone. I venture to guess that the great public transportation required in such a city would quickly encourage those for whom a car was a big expense to get rid of it. This is certainly true in a city like New York where 50% of the adults over 18, including myself, have neither a license nor a car.

You might try a bike, though. It's another great way to travel short distances at very low cost.

 

[jtr1962]

Jtr, A Bike? A plain, ordinary (perhaps 15 speed) bike? Say it ain't so! One pebble and you'd have been a goner! You are one dangerous dude.

Yep. Plain old 21-speed road bike. The funny part with the 65 mph run was that I could have gone even faster but my gearing limited my top speed. Figure that with a 53 tooth gear on the crank and a 12-24 cluster in back, plus a 27" tire, when I reach 180 RPM (about the fastest I can do) this translates to a road speed of 63.9 mph. With that steep downhill plus a 40 mph tailwind I'm pretty sure that even at 65 mph the hill was supplying more than enough for to maintain my speed. Most of my pedaling energy was going right into acceleration. I'd say given a high enough gear, I might have broken 80 mph that day. It was a rare combination of a great hill, a very rare tailwind, and no traffic.

Yes, I'm plenty aware of the consequences of falling at those kinds of speeds but the hard truth of it is that any speed much over 30 mph can easily kill or severely injure you. I reach over 30 mph at some point on nearly every ride but I never hit ballastic speeds unless I've been on that stretch of road very recently. A pebble won't harm me but a pothole might. Still, plenty of techniques exist for less than smooth roads. The funny thing is that with potholes, faster is usually better. You literally fly over the pothole. At 40 mph you'll only drop a quarter of an inch going over a two foot wide pothole. You might feel a good bump when your tire hits the other side but you probably won't fall. On the other hand, if you give in to your instincts and brake to 20 mph, you'll fall a full inch, and probably go over handlebars first when you reach the other side. I'm not dangerous-I just know how and when to reach high speeds. It isn't as often as you think, either. It probably been a few months since I've last taken my bike over 40 mph. I can't remember the last time I got over 50 mph. There just haven't been any good, fairly safe opportunties to do so.

 

[RWIndiana]

I'll take your word for it.
What you say makes sense, of course, just make sure your tires are screwed on right. lol. I'm sure you do check your bike out fairly well before taking off. Maybe my concern stems from a little accident I had with a moped on a dirt road at a pretty good speed. I'm probably just a clutz.

Given all the headaches associated with owning a car, it's amazing that such a large percentage of the population has bought into the idea of owning their own transportation.

The above is actually somewhat of a religious issue with me. Everyone has the idea that they must own a car, and they almost put it at the same level as getting baptized or getting married. It's nothing but a status symbol for most, which makes it an idol. Yet Christians are the worst (it seems) when it comes to materialism of this sort. It's as if Christians think that Christians need to be prosperous in material things, and they need to show that to others by collecting things they do not need. To me, that is sin. The only thing that the Bible even allows us to show to others is "good works," which doesn't include a fancy car the last I checked.

Most people hardly even need one car, yet they have three or four sometimes. Now I can understand "worldly" people doing this, but not professing Christians. I find it appalling, because I believe God finds it appalling.

I could go on for a long time on this sort of thing so I better stop while I'm ahead (or behind).

 

[sechs]

jtr1962, you should try living out here in Calilfornia without a car. A far different experience....

 

[Buck]

Nice article but that's the 'slow' Corvette...the Z06 will blow that one away!

That's also the slow 911. :wink:

 

[Handruin]

Mmmm...Carrera GT VS Z06. My money is on the Carrera GT. In about 1/2 hour, download a nice video about the Carrera GT here. The file is still uploading and should be done around 11:00PM -5GMT.

 

[Clocker]

Maybe...only testing will tell. But, but how many Z06's will you be able to buy for the price of the CGT? :wink:

 

[Buck]

Clocker, what is the price range for the Z06?

 

[Buck]

Wow, the information regarding the new Z06 really is being kept a secret. Autoweek has an article about a man that posted a photo of the new Corvette and then later had two GM Security guards visit his home about the illegal release of the photo. I've chosen not to link this thread to the article.

 

[Clocker]

I know a guy who worked with a contract employee in Pontiac, MI who was canned for putting out some pictures he doctored up to look like the next generation and put on a 'Vette website for fun. They take that stuff pretty seriously around here.

I'm not sure of the cost of the Z06 but I'd expect it to be much less expensive than the Porsche...

 

[Buck]

I'm not sure of the cost of the Z06 but I'd expect it to be much less expensive than the Porsche...

Yes, I doubt it will be even close to the Porsche's $440,000.00+ price tag.