Why C.A.F.E Standards are Dumb

[Howell]

You're right; I'd like to put half the US population over my knee.
Consider it a call for education. The law goes into effect and you get to complain about the lack of availability of V8 engines in grocery-getters. Then people get to explain to you why your solution to the problem is not really a good solution.

In the end you are just not allowed to act stupid.

 

[Pradeep]

One of the things I've noticed in the USA, as opposed to Australia/Europe, is that people tow massive things behind their trucks/SUVs. Boats, 5th wheel trailers, car trailers etc. Obviously not all SUVs are used to tow. But there are certain things that a car cannot do.

 

[jtr1962]

For those of you interested in a dose a reality relative to CAFE standards, here's a good read

http://www.mema.org/publications/articledetail.php?articleId=7751

Interesting article. It seems the thrust of the article is that CAFE standards will be difficult to raise because of people's current buying preferences. Now exactly whose fault is it that people have these buying preferences? Yes, it's the automakers who for years pushed SUVs and other large vehicles precisely because those vehicles gave them the most profit margin. And those same automakers spread the myth that the only way to safety is bulk. Funny, tell that to the Indy car drivers who walk away when their less than 2000 pound car hits a concrete wall at 200 mph. You can engineer safety without bulk, but it costs more. Since there is only so much people are willing to spend on a car, that means a smaller profit margin. Of course, if these smaller, safer cars had the advantages of mass production which their larger cousins do, that might not be so. Seems like a chicken-egg argument here if you ask me.

It also seems aerodynamics was dumped in favor of boxy styling. Why? Hmm, I'll hazard a guess that boxes are cheaper to make than jelly beans, so why not advertise to get people to prefer boxes? Lost in the article is the simple fact that a vast majority of consumers are sheep. Advertise anything heavily enough and they'll buy it. The automakers could have just as easily incented buyers to love smaller, very aerodynamic vehicles. They still could to meet the new CAFE standards. As for trucks/SUVs, I realize a certain segment of the population NEEDS their capabilities, and there's nothing wrong with producing enough to meet that need. Again, it's a matter of advertising. An SUV ad should be geared towards a farmer or contractor or anyone who needs to haul heavy loads or go off-road on a regular basis, not a soccer mom. And despite their size, SUVs could still be made somewhat more aerodynamic than they are. In fact, exterior shape should be left entirely in the hands of the engineer's CAD program (i.e. optimized for the least drag given the size constraints), not the stylists. The stylists can add a few minor styling cues which don't impact drag much but should mainly stick to the vehicle interior, which is what the owner sees most of the time anyway.

In the end with the development of several new battery technologies I really feel the way forwards will be with straight electric vehicles. Five minute recharge plus acceptable range between charges are possible right now. It's just a matter of building the things. They will make any new, tougher CAFE standards mute. And longer term we really need to invest much more heavily in building useful public transportation. Cars will always serve a valuable niche function, but we need to stop shoehorning them into every transportation role. If we could make public transportation convenient enough so as to replace even half the trips currently made by auto that will go a long way towards solving the problem. Remember that 75 years ago few people had cars yet they were able to get around. If we can rebuild the system we once had, but to more modern standards, it will help immensely.

 

[Bozo]

jtr1962:
The auto manufacturers build what the public will buy. There are plenty of cars available that get decent millage. They are sitting on lots. Ask Chrysler. In the past year, they have had to buy/rent large amounts of acreage to store their unsold cars.
Indy cars are over $200,000.00 each. They only hold one person and have no creature comforts.
Aerodynamics: 98% of all autos in the US never venture more than 25 miles from their home. Most do 55MPH or less. Maybe 2 weeks out of the year the auto is taken on vacation. Areo plays a very insignificant roll in these cars millage.
I test drove a few of the battery/hybred cars. You can have them. I don't enjoy driving a car where my shoulders rub the passengers shoulder and my knees rub the steering wheel. In the winter I ware boots, and it is unsafe to press the gas and brake at the same time with one foot. I have also gotten my right foot caught under the brake pedal in one of the hybreds. My head rubbed the roof in another. Maybe you like kiddie cars, but I don't
I could pobbably outrun one of these ecco-cars going up any decent hill. A family members hybred with 4 adults in it maintains a speed of 27MPH going up a quarter mile, 12% grade near my house.
75 years ago the majority of the population live in cities. Now they are rural. I live 18 miles from where I work and would gladly use mass transit if it was available, and dependable.
A couple of points to remember: The hybreds run their gas motor all winter long to produce hot water for cabin heat. Gas millage goes down the tube.
100% electric cars have little or no heat and what they do have sucks power from the batteries. Even less range.
Anytime a politition get behind something, he is only there to fill his bank account.

Bozo :joker:

 

[jtr1962]

Aerodynamics: 98% of all autos in the US never venture more than 25 miles from their home. Most do 55MPH or less. Maybe 2 weeks out of the year the auto is taken on vacation. Areo plays a very insignificant roll in these cars millage.

If that's the case then EVs would be perfect for most people. I was under the impression based on car buying choices that most people drive 100 miles each way to work while towing 6000 pounds, or climb up mountains every weekend. Or at least that's what these idiotic car commercials lead me to believe.

I test drove a few of the battery/hybred cars. You can have them. I don't enjoy driving a car where my shoulders rub the passengers shoulder and my knees rub the steering wheel. In the winter I ware boots, and it is unsafe to press the gas and brake at the same time with one foot. I have also gotten my right foot caught under the brake pedal in one of the hybreds. My head rubbed the roof in another. Maybe you like kiddie cars, but I don't

First off, you couldn't have driven a straight electric because none are made. GM stupidly decided not to continue development of the EV1 in the 1990s or there might be plenty of good electrics now. Second, I'm not a fan of hybirds. They still have a gas motor, they still smell, they're still noisy, and to top it all off they're even more complex than an already hideously complex gas car. Third, an electric or any other "environmentally friendly" vehicle doesn't have to be a matchbox. You can have electric trucks, too. In fact, if we go straight electric then the size/weight issue becomes less important. You can use regenerative braking. You can get your electric power from many non-fossil fuel sources such as nuclear, solar, hydroelectric. You're perpetuating myths here. Besides that, ever consider that maybe these econoboxes are purposely made flawed? The automakers make a smaller profit margin on them. They only make them because they have to to meet CAFE standards while still selling the higher profit gas guzzlers. They don't *want to* sell a lot of them, so they purposely make them unattractive.

BTW, I personally feel cramped even in a large SUV which is why I prefer public transit. That's yet another reason why I fail to see why cars became so popular. Even the largest are still claustrophobic. You can't even stand up, walk around, or use the bathroom as you can on a long-distance train.

I could pobbably outrun one of these ecco-cars going up any decent hill. A family members hybred with 4 adults in it maintains a speed of 27MPH going up a quarter mile, 12% grade near my house.

Let's see. If we assume the car plus passengers weigh in at 3000 pounds then you need about 26 HP plus aero/tire losses (about 3 or 4 HP) to maintain 27 mph up a 12% grade. So that means the car in your example is only developing 30 HP???? I find that hard to believe. Maybe something is wrong. Even a bus can manage better than 27 mph on a 12% grade.

75 years ago the majority of the population live in cities. Now they are rural. I live 18 miles from where I work and would gladly use mass transit if it was available, and dependable.

Actually, more people are in/near cities now than at any time in the past, and the population density will only increase as suburbs are abandoned for various reasons (the cost of transport, the time spent driving everywhere). Mass transit can serve a lot more people than it does if only we would invest more money in it. It seems politicians nowadays love to put new mass transit projects in places where they know they won't do well. They then use the expensive failures to point out how mass transit is dead, nobody wants it anymore, etc. Instead try maybe putting the same money into another subway line in NYC or Chicago or Boston, or perhaps a new commuter rail line in any one of thousands of suburbs. If it's fast, safe, convenient it will get people out of their cars.

A couple of points to remember: The hybreds run their gas motor all winter long to produce hot water for cabin heat. Gas millage goes down the tube.
100% electric cars have little or no heat and what they do have sucks power from the batteries. Even less range.

The heating/cooling loads for an electric vehicle add only about 10% to the power drain. This is a well-documented fact in EV circles. Think about this logically. To heat or cool a small room in a house, it only takes a kilowatt or less. A car is less well insulated, but also smaller. It takes roughly the same amount of power. The power for traction at even 50 mph is already at least 6 or 7 kW, or about ten times the heating/cooling load. So heating/cooling decreases your range by <10%. Big deal.

 

[jtr1962]

Actually, more people are in/near cities now than at any time in the past, and the population density will only increase as suburbs are abandoned for various reasons (the cost of transport, the time spent driving everywhere).

Source for above statement.

1900-39.6% urban, 60.4% rural (total population-76,212,168)
1990-75.2% urban, 24.8% rural (total population-248,709,873)

By 2050 some estimates put the percentage living in urban areas at greater than 90%. The northeast from Boston to Washington and most of coastal California will basically be two large megalopolises by then, each with well in excess of 100 million people.

 

[ddrueding]

Anytime a politician gets behind something, it is only to fill his bank account.

After reading your post, this is the part I agree with

 

[Clocker]

Now exactly whose fault is it that people have these buying preferences? Yes, it's the automakers who for years pushed SUVs and other large vehicles precisely because those vehicles gave them the most profit margin.

jtr- Why don't you just take it one step further. It really is big oil's fault for making oil/gasoline so cheap for so long. If gas would not have been $0.99 per gallon throughout the early 90's nobody would have been interested in SUVs. So, let's just make gas cheaper and regulate that more and more and more so that we can't afford that.

And those same automakers spread the myth that the only way to safety is bulk. Funny, tell that to the Indy car drivers who walk away when their less than 2000 pound car hits a concrete wall at 200 mph. You can engineer safety without bulk, but it costs more. Since there is only so much people are willing to spend on a car, that means a smaller profit margin.

Indy cars are purpose built machines that have no reasonable limit with respect to cost. You probably knew that though. You are clearly stepping out of the bounds of your knowledge. I suggest you learn a little bit about automotive body structure design before you profess to be knowledgeable about it. Sure we can make cars out of all aluminum which costs 3x as much as steel and has 1/3 the strength but in the end that won't get you very far. Sure, Audi has done it (the A-eight) but you don't see much in that area any more because they never had any meaningful production and definitely didn't have to worry about affordability. With all the safety regulations now being added (pole side impact performance @ 35mph is a biggy) cars are getting heavier all the time. And the rub is that mass begets mass. A heavier vehicle needs to be stronger so don't expect the trend go down much as long as safety standards keep going up. It's not bad engineering but you have to make something that can be produced at a reasonable rate and cost. Exotic metals are not the answer and will result super expensive vehicles. High strength and ultra high strength steels are the answer (we use them now) even though they have their own limits (which make the swoopy and sleek aerodynamic styling you desire even more difficult and limit customer choice). Ever wonder why Volvo's have always basically been boxy hulks? If you knew the type of metals they use, you'd understand why.

Or, maybe you'd have us all driving Indy cars? Sounds kind of cool to me but I'll need to figure out what to do with the ~1,000 pounds of ceiling tile and the golf clubs I'll be hauling tomorrow.

 

[ddrueding]

I'm tired of needing everyone to be protected from everything all the time. Eventually we will all be in padded cells, fed the exact balance of nutrients our body needs.

Seatbelts, Airbags, crumple-zones. Fine. We are quickly entering the narrow-end of the cost/benefit equation.

I will nod to Clockers professional knowledge on this one. If you only had to meet the crash standards of 1990; what could you do with todays materials, techniques, and methods?

 

[jtr1962]

jtr- Why don't you just take it one step further. It really is big oil's fault for making oil/gasoline so cheap for so long. If gas would not have been $0.99 per gallon throughout the early 90's nobody would have been interested in SUVs.

That's certainly true, and if anyone is to blame it would be the government for not having higher gas taxes. And that basically brings us full circle. Sure, I'd rather have $10 per gallon gas and no CAFE regulations so as to let the free market choose.

Indy cars are purpose built machines that have no reasonable limit with respect to cost. You probably knew that though. You are clearly stepping out of the bounds of your knowledge. I suggest you learn a little bit about automotive body structure design before you profess to be knowledgeable about it.

My point here was not to have us all ride around in Indy cars, but rather to suggest a compromise between that and what we have now. I'm thinking more in the restraint department. Five-point harnesses are way better at preventing death/injury than lap belts/shoulder belts. Just incorporating that one simple thing could make a vehicle safer without adding any bulk.

With all the safety regulations now being added (pole side impact performance @ 35mph is a biggy) cars are getting heavier all the time. And the rub is that mass begets mass. A heavier vehicle needs to be stronger so don't expect the trend go down much as long as safety standards keep going up.

Weight doesn't effect efficiency that much if you do regenerative braking. Of course, you either need a hybrid or an electric for that. It's really the poor aerodynamics I'm more concerned about. Here again electrics can give us a huge advantage (no front grille and a flat underbody). And as I said earlier electrics probably make efficiency concerns less important, thus making more "wasteful" vehicles possible.

Or, maybe you'd have us all driving Indy cars? Sounds kind of cool to me but I'll need to figure out what to do with the ~1,000 pounds of ceiling tile and the golf clubs I'll be hauling tomorrow.

I'll guess then that you own a moving van too just for the rare occasions you move. My point is that unless you do something on a pretty regular basis, I don't see that you need a vehicle with that capability. If you haul loads like this weekly or several times a month, then yes, you need a vehicle which can do it. On the other hand, if the last time you did something like this was six months or a year ago, cheaper to just rent a truck or have it delivered. That brings us back to my point about getting customers to realize the kind of vehicle they really need for their daily use, as opposed to making them lust after features they'll never need due to clever advertising.

Central to the conversation about safety/weight:

When will self-driving cars be technically feasible? That would pretty much make most of the safety regulations moot by reducing collisions to near zero. I know they have adaptive cruise control and lane following right now. How long until the driver is completely out of the picture? Ten years? Twenty? A show I watched said by 2030 but TV is never known for its accuracy. It seems most people nowadays would rather talk on their cell phones anyway, so better to just hand over the actual driving to the car itself.

 

[jtr1962]

I'm tired of needing everyone to be protected from everything all the time. Eventually we will all be in padded cells, fed the exact balance of nutrients our body needs.

I'm with you there. If only we had the will to make driving tests harder, periodically retest, and get the worst 25% of drivers off the roads for good, accidents would probably almost never happen. In fact, insurance companies use the term "collision" because accident implies nobody is at fault.

Another point is that the best accident protection is accident avoidence. If I can swerve around something on my nimble but totally unprotected bike, while the hulking SUV behind me plows into it, who ends up better off? Accident avoidence is one area where small, light cars excel. My mom's 300C damned well better protect me well because between the car's bulk and my mom's slow reflexes we'll have a hard time avoiding a sudden obstacle.

 

[Clocker]

I will nod to Clockers professional knowledge on this one. If you only had to meet the crash standards of 1990; what could you do with todays materials, techniques, and methods?

It's hard to put numbers to it since we've never engineered a body to meet the standards of yesterday, but, vehicles would be significantly lighter (by using lower gage higher strength materials) and cheaper (less material results in less cost). Bodies of yesteryear easily had panels that were easily 1.0-1.5mm thick. Today, exterior and many interior upper structure panels are, routinely, 0.7mm thick.

Harnesses are an interesting idea although I doubt anyone would want to use them because they'd be uncomfortable and limit movement too much. I can tell you don't drive much.

I just don't understand why people don't believe in being given the right to choose with minimal government involvement.

With respect to accident avoidance: get your damn bike off the road and onto the sidewalk where it belongs.

 

[Clocker]

Bodies of yesteryear easily had panels that were easily 1.0-1.5mm thick. Today, exterior and many interior upper structure panels are, routinely, 0.7mm thick.

I should have said upper structure exterior panels. Underbodies always use heavier gage metal but the reduction in mass would be similar (on a %age basis).

 

[ddrueding]

People are cattle. They cannot be trusted to make decisions that are in their long-term best interest. Even smart or powerful individuals are tempted by short-term profits; just look at sub-prime loans, leveraged buyouts, or some acts of our current administration for examples.

I am against telling someone that they can't do something, that should be a last resort. I am not against education, making sure that they understand the costs and take responsibility for the consequences of their actions. So long as the costs and consequences are known and accounted for, let people do what they want.

If I want a car made of aluminum foil without seatbelts, fine. If I want a tank, fine. But if I drive the tank, I need to be directly responsible for all the associated costs; road damage, fuel consumption (and associated pollution cleanup), possible additional road congestion, and any injury/deaths that result from my choice.

 

[jtr1962]

Harnesses are an interesting idea although I doubt anyone would want to use them because they'd be uncomfortable and limit movement too much. I can tell you don't drive much.

Couldn't they be offered as an option? And a lot of people still don't use even standard selt belts. Uncomfortable? Riding in a car by definition is uncomfortable compared to a train, so I'll just be a little more uncomfortable but safer.

I never had a license. It just wasn't my cup of tea. Like dd my preferred cruise speed was 100+ even when I had a permit. I figured I'd either end up in jail by driving at speeds I felt comfortable at, or in a ditch after falling asleep if I tried to drive at the limit, so I never bothered taking a road test. Add to that requirements for insurance, the expense of the car itself, inability to find a car I liked (i.e. an electric), and it all seemed like a bum deal. It still does. Perhaps when the day of all self-driven electrics with low operating cost and no need for auto insurance or driving licenses comes I'll consider buying a car. Like I said, given all the drawbacks I'm amazed cars are as popular as they are. I can travel on the subways here every day as many trips as I want for a maximum of $76 a month, or $3.33 per round trip if I ride infrequently. I can get to pretty much any place worth going to by subway or commuter rail or Amtrak. Just the insurance on a car would run me a good $500 a month here.

 

[Bozo]

I had the privilage of driving the Honda all battery whatever it was called many years ago. I missed my chance at an EV1.
And, there was an all battery car made in the 1930's ????

The toyota Prius millage drops from 56MPG to 34MPG in the winter. Just ask my sister-in-law. She owns one.
It also sucks going up hills with a full load. Google search says a Prius weighs 2932LBs empty, but I would like to weigh one. The gas motor only developes 82FT-LB of torque. I think my John Deere has more than that.
It's drag coefficient is .26. I don't think that matters a whole lot in city driving.
And, the Prius (in my opinion) is butt ugly.
One thing to keep in mind: there is what is 'on paper' and there is 'real world'.

Bozo :joker:

 

[jtr1962]

I had the privilage of driving the Honda all battery whatever it was called many years ago. I missed my chance at an EV1.
And, there was an all battery car made in the 1930's ????

The Honda undoubtably had a lead-acid battery, which basically sucks. No power in the cold, heavy, and needs to be replaced every 5-7 years. This technology, which didn't exist even 5 years ago, should make EVs feasible.

About the Prius, I read about lots of owners who rave about them. Maybe your sister-in-law got a lemon. Hybirds and in general the internal combustion engine are technological dead ends anyway. With oil starting to get pricey, plus supplies dwindling, the end of the road is coming for the internal combustion engine, no doubt about it. Whether it will take another ten years, twenty, or more, who knows. Like the incandescent light bulb, I've little doubt the time will come when you can only see them in museums.

 

[P5-133XL]

I just don't understand why people don't believe in being given the right to choose with minimal government involvement.

I do, but I also agree that Government needs to address issues of national importance. Energy policy, is such a national issue. Like military defense, without government involvement, we would be dependant upon others for our well being. We, as a country, have currently gotten into such a situation. It is only responsible, for the government, to address the situation and strive to improve it. Market forces are what has gotten us into this mess and obviously, we, as a nation, can not depend on market forces to have the forsight needed to get us out of it before large-scale problems don't occur.

In the end, the government is doing the right thing. It is forcing the automobile industry to improve efficiency and thereby improving the nations dependance on forign oil. The industry is not doing it on its own, just like the government had to insist on seatbelts because the industry wasn't doing that on its own either.

They are not interfering with the basic market forces by telling you how to do it, or what price you need to sell at. They are doing it to all, so no one gets an unfair competitive edge. Level playing fields are good things!

Yes, the cars will undoubtably cost more and fewer may be sold because of it. Are fewer cars on the road, a bad thing? I think not. Higher cost -> lower profit: Not necessarily. Profit all depends on many things and for the most part, profit is much more related supply/demand and to market share than simply price. If, in the end, the only choices the people have are amoung high-efficiency vehicials, then I am willing to put down money that the car a person picks to buy will be a high-efficiency automobile. If they choose not to buy and go public transportation or use a bicycle then that is a good thing too...

In the end, the companies that win, are the ones that produce the best cars for the money within the limits the government allows. So I sugguest, that the industry stop bitch'n and start getting to work. There are the people that bitch, complain, resist, impead, and then there are the people that, in spite of adversity, roll up their sleaves and get the job done. Which, of the two types do you think are going to be winners and which are going to be the losers?

 

[Stereodude]

I do, but I also agree that Government needs to address issues of national importance. Energy policy, is such a national issue. Like military defense, without government involvement, we would be dependent upon others for our well being. We, as a country, have currently gotten into such a situation. It is only responsible, for the government, to address the situation and strive to improve it. Market forces are what has gotten us into this mess and obviously, we, as a nation, can not depend on market forces to have the foresight needed to get us out of it before large-scale problems don't occur.

In the end, the government is doing the right thing. It is forcing the automobile industry to improve efficiency and thereby improving the nations dependence on foreign oil. The industry is not doing it on its own, just like the government had to insist on seatbelts because the industry wasn't doing that on its own either.

Why is trying to use less oil the only solution? If we really wanted to be less dependent on foreign oil shouldn't we also get our own supply of oil? The US has tons of oil... There's a bunch in Alaska, off the coast of California, off the coast of Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, etc, etc... But the EPA and the the environmentalists won't let us drill for it.

But yet, it's ok for Castro to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, but not the US. I'm sure the Cubans will be far more environmentally responsible than the US.

 

[fb]

You make it sound like a big sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, but it's not like we need to go back to living in caves and poking ants out of the ground with sticks you know.

 

[Clocker]

The only logical way to relatively quickly reduce oil consumption is to raise the price of oil. Not only will that cause people to be more efficient in their use of it but it will also encourage the development of alternative energy sources. Just trying to reduce consumption doesn't do anything to encourage energy diversity. We should not be so heavily dependant on any one source of energy. That's one big reason why supporters of higher CAFE are so clueless.

Another thing I find funny is that people think that by raising CAFE in the future they will magically have the same breadth of vehicle choices they have today. They won't and they will be disappointed. It will again be the manufacturers fault.

The other funny thing is that nobody seems to care about unfairly regulating industries as long as it doesn't affect the choices that they want to make. Comments here about the wasted energy by computers and the massive pollution they produce through waste routinely fall on deaf ears. Hypocritcal. I guess when their time will come, eventually.

Don't forget "CAFE laws put the entire burden of fuel and carbon conservation on cars and ignore industry sources, home energy use, airlines, agriculture, trucking, locomotives, etc. Yes, cars and trucks do consume a great deal of energy, but of America’s total energy consumption of about 100 quadrillion BTUs (in 2005), the vehicles affected by CAFE only account for some 18 percent of that total."

Raised CAFE won't make a lick of difference in our oil consumption for many years because of how long it will take to replace the fleet of vehicles in the US. We're more likely to have plug-in hybrids or a hydrogen economy before higher CAFE can really make a difference.

While we're limiting choices for people, maybe the government could dictate how many miles we are allowed to drive per year. That could have an immediate effect on our oil usage and allow a more centralized authority to make decisions for us since you seem to be more comfortable with that. Or, maybe they can tell us how far away from our place employment we are allowed to live? Excellent, soon I won't have to think for myself at all!

Higher gas taxes are more fair because it make people who use the most, pay the most.

 

[Howell]

I just don't understand why people don't believe in being given the right to choose with minimal government involvement.

With respect to accident avoidance: get your damn bike off the road and onto the sidewalk where it belongs.

Marketing severely influences peoples buying decisions. Just look at the marketing budgets of corporations comparatively. The new Transformers movie was a GM marketing coup. The only effective tool for combating marketing is education and there is just no effective tool left to disseminate the information. People don't want to read the newspaper anymore and complain when the TV news gets too long and interrupts their sitcoms.

Bicycles are vehicles and belong on the street. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

 

[Howell]

While we're limiting choices for people, maybe the government could dictate how many miles we are allowed to drive per year. That could have an immediate effect on our oil usage and allow a more centralized authority to make decisions for us since you seem to be more comfortable with that. Or, maybe they can tell us how far away from our place employment we are allowed to live? Excellent, soon I won't have to think for myself at all!

Higher gas taxes are more fair because it make people who use the most, pay the most.

Excellent point! Since the original post was about CAFE standards I should probably comment on it. I don't like it either.

 

[Clocker]

Marketing severely influences peoples buying decisions. Just look at the marketing budgets of corporations comparatively. The new Transformers movie was a GM marketing coup.

Does nobody on this Earth accept responsibility for their own decisions? Or is it businesses role to guide consumers to make the 'right' decisions (at least the decision you think is right).

Exactly how was the Transformers movie a marketing coup? Sure, I'll say it was an innovative idea to increase brand awareness, maybe, but any consumer that buys any vehicle just because they saw it in the movie might want to do a little more research. I don't believe a majority of consumers are that stupid and I surely don't believe the rest of society should be limited because a small minority are clueless.

I think it makes a little more sense for a bicycle to run into a pedestrian on the sidewalk than to run into a vehicle on the road. At least for the cyclist. Unless there's a dedicated lane for cyclists, they have no place on the road where they create a high likelyhood for a deadly accident.

 

[Howell]

Why is trying to use less oil the only solution?

It's not the only solution but it is the best solution. Eating less and exercising is not the only solution to losing weight. But it sure beats the alternatives.

 

[Stereodude]

You make it sound like a big sacrifice to reduce oil consumption, but it's not like we need to go back to living in caves and poking ants out of the ground with sticks you know.

Really, where did I say that?

 

[Stereodude]

Bicycles are vehicles and belong on the street. Sidewalks are for pedestrians.

Bicycles belong on a bike path, not in the street.

 

[Stereodude]

It's not the only solution but it is the best solution. Eating less and exercising is not the only solution to losing weight. But it sure beats the alternatives.

Those two are almost comparable...

Why doesn't the gov't rework our roads so people don't spend time stopped at traffic lights or in stop and go traffic wasting gas? Cars get much better fuel economy running at a constant speed instead of constantly accelerating. They could save more oil by improving the flow of traffic than by changing the C.A.F.E. standards to 35MPG and the effect would take place much sooner, and for all vehicles on the roads, not just the new cars that C.A.F.E. standard affects.

 

[Stereodude]

The only logical way to relatively quickly reduce oil consumption is to raise the price of oil. Not only will that cause people to be more efficient in their use of it but it will also encourage the development of alternative energy sources. Just trying to reduce consumption doesn't do anything to encourage energy diversity. We should not be so heavily dependant on any one source of energy.

Alternative energy sources are nice, but I'm not a big fan of running my car on food. Ethanol from corn is not a workable large scale solution. It's not even a workable small scale solution. Look at what has happened to the price of basic groceries already and we've hardly begun to use it. It's a shame that the people in gov't are too clueless to realize it's a bad idea.

Lets look at it this way... Would you rather be dependent on foreign oil, or foreign food? Given the recent things in the news do you want to import a lot of your food from China? I sure don't.

I would rather pay $6 a gallon for gas and be able afford my groceries than pay $5 a gallon for ethanol and pay 3 times as much for my groceries.

 

[fb]

Really, where did I say that?

You didn't actually say it, but it sounds like it would be a big sacrifice to consume less oil. But it won't affect the quality of life in a negative way at all if we make a slow transition. It will probably be more negative if we wait until we run out of easily accessible oil.

 

[Fushigi]

While we're limiting choices for people ...

How does CAFE limit choices? In the 70's people had a wide range of sedans that got what, 7MPG? In the 90s people had a wide range of sedans that got 22-25MPG. It seems reasonable that in 2020 we'll still have a wide range of sedans but they'll offer 35+MPG.

CAFE is an average. There will be 40+MPG vehicles and 25MPG vehicles; as long as the sales average meets the standard we're fine. Achieving 40+MPG was possible 2 decades ago; my father's 80's Renault Alliance (1.7L 4cyl) got 50MPG when he kept to 50MPH on rural highways. I maintained 40MPG in straight city driving after he sold it to me. I'll grant the cars of today are heavier, in general larger, and by far safer. But powertrains are also a fair bit more efficient with fuel injection, variable valve timing, 4/5/and now 6-speed transmissions, and other refinements.

My beef with CAFE is the way it has been abused by the automakers. The PT Cruiser is a truck according to CAFE, which let Chrysler market actual trucks with abysmal mileage while not breaking the truck CAFE.

And there's nothing that says that CAFE is the only way to reduce consumption. It can work in concert with higher gas prices to help encourage people to buy newer, more efficient vehicles. As gas prices rise I give more thought to replacing my vehicle. But current replacements don't get that much better mileage so I'm holding off. If gas gets much more expensive _and_ the available cars are that much more efficient then I'll buy something new.

Which, BTW, will be how the car companies will make fresh profit from me. Right now they don't make any money from me except for the rare times my car needs parts. So if an automaker wants my money they'd better offer a car that is more efficient than what I currently drive. Sufficiently more efficient for me to justify the purchase.

 

[fb]

Those two are almost comparable...

Why doesn't the gov't rework our roads so people don't spend time stopped at traffic lights or in stop and go traffic wasting gas?

Easy, it's been tried and it always generates more traffic. It would be better to build more efficient public transport systems.

 

[Stereodude]

How does CAFE limit choices? In the 70's people had a wide range of sedans that got what, 7MPG? In the 90s people had a wide range of sedans that got 22-25MPG. It seems reasonable that in 2020 we'll still have a wide range of sedans but they'll offer 35+MPG.

CAFE is an average. There will be 40+MPG vehicles and 25MPG vehicles; as long as the sales average meets the standard we're fine. Achieving 40+MPG was possible 2 decades ago; my father's 80's Renault Alliance (1.7L 4cyl) got 50MPG when he kept to 50MPH on rural highways. I maintained 40MPG in straight city driving after he sold it to me. I'll grant the cars of today are heavier, in general larger, and by far safer. But powertrains are also a fair bit more efficient with fuel injection, variable valve timing, 4/5/and now 6-speed transmissions, and other refinements.

You can have a car that is any two of the following. Your choice... 1) very safe 2) very fuel efficient 3) very low emissions

Right now US auto makers are forced by regulations to do 1 and 3. Which two do you want?

 

[Stereodude]

Easy, it's been tried and it always generates more traffic. It would be better to build more efficient public transport systems.

I don't follow you... So, if we widened the freeways, and surface streets and optimized the traffic lights (or changed the intersections to eliminate a lot of them) more people would magically have to drive themselves to work and make traffic worse?

Come take a look at an average US city and you tell me how we're going to deploy an "efficient public transport systems"?

 

[P5-133XL]

Why is trying to use less oil the only solution? If we really wanted to be less dependent on foreign oil shouldn't we also get our own supply of oil? The US has tons of oil... There's a bunch in Alaska, off the coast of California, off the coast of Florida, in the Gulf of Mexico, etc, etc... But the EPA and the the environmentalists won't let us drill for it.

But yet, it's ok for Castro to drill for oil off the coast of Florida, but not the US. I'm sure the Cubans will be far more environmentally responsible than the US.

Using less oil is the only solution, because the untapped oil that we we have access to, is only a drop in the bucket compared with our actual usage. I don't think you comprehend how much oil we actually use:20+ million barrels per day. The proven reserves off all of the contental shelf of the US (that includes California, Florida, and the Gulf of Mexico) is 700,000+ barrels or aprox 20 days supply. The Artic Wildlife Refuge has an estimated between 3.5-10.5 billion barrels of recoverable oil, or 525 days supply at most.

The point I'm making is that the supply side of the equation isn't a long-term solution. We, as a nation, don't have the supply of oil we need to become signifigently less dependant on oil. It is enough to effect price, but that is not what is needed as a nation...

As far as Castro, we have no rights to prevent him from doing what is within his international borders. So our rules don't apply to him and his country any more than they do for Argentinia, Iran, China or any other country that wants to drill for oil

 

[fb]

I don't follow you... So, if we widened the freeways, and surface streets and optimized the traffic lights (or changed the intersections to eliminate a lot of them) more people would magically have to drive themselves to work and make traffic worse?

The traffic and need for transportation will increase regardless... If you make it easier to take the car -> more people will take their car until the new and improved roads are congested. But if you have an attractive and efficient public transport system as an alternative, people will hopefully use it instead.

Come take a look at an average US city and you tell me how we're going to deploy an "efficient public transport systems"?

I didn't say it was going to be easy, it's a problem everywhere.

 

[Stereodude]

The traffic and need for transportation will increase regardless... If you make it easier to take the car -> more people will take their car until the new and improved roads are congested. But if you have an attractive and efficient public transport system as an alternative, people will hopefully use it instead.

There's a flaw in your assumption. Basically everyone already takes their car and uses the roads. Improving them would not bring more cars or people to the roads because there basically aren't cars or people left to put on the road.

 

[jtr1962]

There's a flaw in your assumption. Basically everyone already takes their car and uses the roads. Improving them would not bring more cars or people to the roads because there basically aren't cars or people left to put on the road.

They'll drive more. It's been proven time and again in studies. Also, the population will eventually increase enough to bring congestion to what it was before. There's not much difference in traffic density between a free-flowing highway and a congested one. You might have free flow for a while by expanding, but once traffic increases a few percent you're back to square one. Besides that, in many places in the USA widening highways means using eminent domain. That means less real estate taxes for whichever city is forced to do so. Often the same city turns out to not benefit on bit from the widening so it'll be politically impossible. They tried to put HOV lanes on the parts of the LIE going through Queens about ten years ago. It would have saved Long Island commuters a big 30 seconds on average. The community fought it and won. People would have lost their front lawns while gaining zero benefit.

Now what you propose can be done, but it involves making all cars autonomous. You can run cars much closer together and much faster, effectively increasing highway capacity, by getting the driver out of the equation. Right now I don't think we can do this but we're getting close. By intelligenting selecting a route and keeping fixed spacings, we can probably accomodate up to three or four times as much traffic on the same roads. It may even be possible to remove a lane while not impacting capacity. Besides the technical hurdles though will car owners accept that they'll simply be passengers? I don't know. I'd love a car I didn't have to drive. It might make me even want to buy one since I don't want to jump through the hoops of licensing, insurance, following low speed limits, etc.

And I'm a big proponent to segregating motor vehicles from pedestrians/cyclists so as to eliminate the need for stop lights. Putting all roads underground, at least in populated areas, would be a good thing. Other benefits include freedom from the weather. The downside of course is cost. Perhaps in 20 years when we have the equivalent of slave labor with androids this will be feasible. It isn't nowadays when you have to use $40 an hour union labor for construction. That's one reason new subways cost so much to build now. NYC is about the only place in the country that can afford to do so right now.

 

[fb]

There's a flaw in your assumption. Basically everyone already takes their car and uses the roads. Improving them would not bring more cars or people to the roads because there basically aren't cars or people left to put on the road.

Oh I'm sorry, I just took for granted that USA had a growing population and that some people are drawn to large cities... Maybe that's not the case.

 

[jtr1962]

I think it makes a little more sense for a bicycle to run into a pedestrian on the sidewalk than to run into a vehicle on the road. At least for the cyclist. Unless there's a dedicated lane for cyclists, they have no place on the road where they create a high likelyhood for a deadly accident.

I think they should have a choice. I ride in traffic most of the time, but when traffic gets too heavy I sometimes take to the sidewalk, even though it's against the law here. Better to get a summons than to be dead although here again is another example of a law which effectively removes a choice. I can coexist just fine with pedestrians. The fact that a few idiots can't means I'm denied a choice. Sadly, that seems to be why most new laws are made nowadays.

I love the idea of a dedicated lane for cyclists if it is separated from road traffic by a physical barrier. Europe has those in places but here they don't exist for the most part. The fact is cyclists are too small and slow to effectively coexist with cars and too fast to ride with pedestrians. When I take to the sidewalk I pretty much have to limit my speed to 15 mph or less unless it's an empty sidewalk. This means I don't get much of a workout. Bring on the dedicated bike lanes!