Why C.A.F.E Standards are Dumb

[jtr1962]

You can't break the laws of physics, so there isn't a lot that can be done to make the Suburban more efficient without making it a lot less useful...

First off, read this. You're going on the incorrect assumption that car buying habits are going to remain the same as they were in the period from the early 1990s through about 2006. You're wrong. Trends come and go in any industry. The SUV was by and large a silly fad which is thankfully on its way out. Those who will continue to buy such vehicles will be mostly those who actually need them, as opposed to just want them. And with much smaller numbers being sold, they won't affect the CAFE as much as before.

Second, a lot can be done to make large vehicles more efficient without making them less useful. Vehicles use energy in two ways. One is the kinetic energy needed to accelerate up to speed. Usually this is wasted in heat in the brake pads when the vehicle must slow down. The second way is tire and aerodynamic losses. Let's start with number one. You can recover a good amount of kinetic energy via regenerative braking. Moreover, mass production means the components to do so don't add as much to the vehicle's cost. In fact, they save more money then they add in cost. As a bonus, an electric or hybrid electric drivetrain can offer fast acceleration without negatively affecting economy. The engine, if there is one, can be sized closer to average power demands, as opposed to peak power demands. That means less weight to lug around and fewer mechanical losses. You no longer have to choose between power or economy.

Now let's look at number two. SUVs are boxy and have high-rolling resistance tires. Neither of these things enhance their usefulness, yet both severely impact their fuel economy. Lower rolling resistance tires would help, especially at low speeds. Making the front ends more sloped and aerodynamic would help at high speeds, and wouldn't affect the vehicle's functionality a bit. You would still be able to load large cargo via the rear hatch, or pull a trailer if need be. Boxy is more a styling decision than a functional one. Besides making these vehicles IMO butt ugly, this decision also needlessly wastes tons of energy.

Finally, by making larger vehicles all electric, you can remove them from the CAFE numbers altogether. In fact, it's difficult to see how automakers can reach these goals without making a good part of the fleet straight electric. To me that's a good thing. With today's batteries gone are the days when electrics are glorified golf carts. My guess is once enough are out there, their advantages in terms of economy, acceleration, ease of use (i.e. home refueling), and reliability will be so great few will even want ICE cars any more. In 2020 someone may well be producing a movie called "Who Killed The Gas Car"! Moreover, future restrictions on auto use may well push manufacturers in that direction regardless. For example, it's easy to see large cities like New York passing laws prohibiting operation of non-zero emissions vehicles within their borders within ten years. IMO the future lies not with hybrids or even battery electrics, but rather with vehicles which get their power directly from the road, in a scheme like this. But it will take a while to put the needed infrastructure in place, so the aforementioned vehicles will be a stepping stone.

 

[Stereodude]

So your solution is to make cars significantly more expensive. Way to take care of the little guy who can barely afford a car now. :monky:

 

[jtr1962]

So your solution is to make cars significantly more expensive. Way to take care of the little guy who can barely afford a car now. :monky:

Having a car isn't a birthright. I'd like to live in a penthouse on Park Avenue but guess what? I can't afford it, so I don't. I can't afford a car, either, so I do without (wouldn't want one in their current incarnation anyway but that's another story). That's what good old capitalism is all about. Just because cars have been relatively affordable for a long time doesn't mean they will necessarily continue to be so. In fact, better if fewer actually own cars. It'll mean less congested roads for those who do. And hopefully it'll take more of the marginal drivers off the roads as well. Besides all that, if someone "can barely afford a car now", chances are they can't afford to properly maintain it. I'll be more than happy if higher costs for auto ownership mean fewer of these unsafe rent-a-wrecks on the road. IMHO the worst thing we ever did was to make driving more or less ubiquitous. Upwards of 50% are either mentally or physically incapable of safely operating a motor vehicle regardless of training, yet they think they're "good drivers". Half the remainder have a nonchalant attitude which makes them just as unsafe despite their capabilities. I'm sure Dave, among others, would be thrilled to get all these piss poor, marginal drivers the heck into buses or trains where they belong. And that's another thing. With fewer people able to afford cars, we'll finally be have a large enough voting block to demand and pay for halfway decent public transit instead of the joke which passes for such in most of the country. I've little doubt udaman's rants against public transit in LA are valid, but what do you expect when you have only the lowest income segment funding most public transit systems?

IMO the coming changes are a win-win sitution for both drivers and non-drivers alike. Drivers will get better cars and less traffic. Non-drivers will get cleaner air and better public transit. Instead of ranting, why not just let things play out and see if things are better or worse in ten years time? I'll bet good money they'll be a heck of a lot better.

 

[Stereodude]

Having a car isn't a birthright. I'd like to live in a penthouse on Park Avenue but guess what? I can't afford it, so I don't.

Way to apples and oranges it. I never said a car is a birthright, but I don't see why you think it's ok for the gov't to make arbitrary and sweeping decisions that cars will cost more.

A Penthouse on Park Ave. isn't expensive because the gov't decided to make the building code requirements so outlandish that a house has to be made from state of the art materials and employ every trick in the book to meet building code. It's expensive because the land it sits on it valuable.

If the gov't decides to puts some wacky requires on personal computers that causes them to cost more, making them unaffordable to some people who could afford them previously, is the correct response to say, "Having a PC isn't a birthright"?

Besides, if these CAFE standards are the answer, why are we waiting to implement them? Make them take effect now.

 

[jtr1962]

Besides, if these CAFE standards are the answer, why are we waiting to implement them? Make them take effect now.

Look, I really don't think CAFE standards are the best way to go about this but that's what the government chose. Had I been in charge, I might have went with a fuel tax instead. Even Clocker was on board for that. Or perhaps simply emissions regulations. But the end result would be the same-cars as they exist now (ICE cars that is) would like end up costing more to buy, certainly more to operate.

As I've said multiple times, electrics are the real answer if you want affordability. If mass-produced they'll actually cost less than similarly equipped ICE cars to buy. They'll cost way less to operate. Automakers have been resistant to electrics up to now for two reasons. One is that it would hurt their spare parts business, so over the car's life cycle they would make less. Two is that it would result in their idling engine production facilities before they were fully depreciated. And of course there was pressure from the oil companies to continue producing ICE cars. But it looks like the tide is finally starting to turn. If in the end auto makers can make as much or more profit by selling electrics, then that is what they'll choose. These new laws may do exactly that by making ICE more expensive. But I wouldn't say they'll definitely make car ownership more expensive. They'll only affect ICE cars. Even if it turns out an electric costs more to buy (which I highly doubt), the extra cost will be recouped during its lifetime via lower energy costs and practically zero repair costs for the drivetrain.

Now as to your comment that this is some sweeping, arbitrary decision, it isn't. The emissions from autos have a huge societal cost which up to now the end user largely hasn't had to pay. That's really what's being addressed here. Now if car exhaust were harmless, then I would be in full agreement with you opposing these new laws. But it isn't. Even if you're not a big believer in global warming, there's little doubt car exhaust causes cancers, asthma and structural damage via acid rain, and in general affects the quality of life negatively. If you doubt that go to any large city on a warm day and inhale deeply. I'll grant that autos aren't the only source of emissions, but they're as good a place to start as any because the ICE is readily replaced with any number of alternatives. Now in the end I've never been a fan of regulation or of government controlling people's lives. The one and only time the government ever has the right to do so is when the actions of one group or person clearly harm others. Such is the case here. I linked to a source a while back (don't have time to find it now) which stated that there are over 600,000 cancer deaths annually in the US attributed to pollution from transportation. This is a staggering cost to society by any measure, especially at a time when medical costs are increasing faster than inflation.

 

[Stereodude]

Even if you're not a big believer in global warming, there's little doubt car exhaust causes cancers, asthma and structural damage via acid rain, and in general affects the quality of life negatively.

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with you here. Cars are far better than their predecessors. I'll take a modern city over one with horses and buggies any day. They have improved the quality of life, not degraded it.

 

[jtr1962]

Sorry, but I have to disagree strongly with you here. Cars are far better than their predecessors. I'll take a modern city over one with horses and buggies any day. They have improved the quality of life, not degraded it.

I'm talking about car exhaust here, not the cars themselves. That's what's primarily degrading the quality of life, and what we now have the ability to get rid of. Large numbers of autos in one place can also cause problems regardless of whether or not they pollute, but that's a lesser issue only relevant in larger cities.

 

[udaman]

I'm talking about car exhaust here, not the cars themselves. That's what's primarily degrading the quality of life, and what we now have the ability to get rid of. Large numbers of autos in one place can also cause problems regardless of whether or not they pollute, but that's a lesser issue only relevant in larger cities.

We've had the 'ability' for a long time, even with inferior technology... just lack the will. Same will apply decades ahead, I'm afraid.

It's not large numbers of cars in one place that is at the root of the problem, it's too many people combined with short-sighted planning...the usual suspects> which will continue unabated for the foreseeable future I'm afraid.

 

[LunarMist]

You guys also argued and bashed on his company quite a lot. I couldn't blame him if he didn't want to be around. I miss him, he is a good guy, and a good value to the group.

I don't care for the GM brand, but surely that would not make someone leave? It is a huge company and not indicative of one person. I certainly wouldn't mind if you complained about my employer. It's not like I'm the CEO of a multi-billion euro company.

 

[Handruin]

It's not just specific about disliking the company but you can dislike his company but still show respect for the person. Maybe not you specifically, but I'm sure I could dig up many threads where people just seemed to hammer away.

 

[ddrueding]

I did give him a hard time for some astroturfing, hitting all the talking points without anything bad to say, it sounded like he had a homework assignment. But other than those he was a great asset to the community.

 

[Stereodude]

Here's a good one... http://www.cnbc.com/id/30850102

The key to better mileage is lighter-weight cars—in which people die more often in traffic accidents. Since CAFÉ passed in 1975, smaller cars have killed almost 50,000 more people than otherwise would have died on the roads, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration reported in 2002. CAFE kills up to 3,900 extra people each year, a study by Harvard and the Brookings Institition states. It finds that for every 100 pounds less that an auto weighs, up to 780 more people die in traffic accidents in a year.

 

[Handruin]

If all cars weighed less, the deaths might be lower in situations where heavier cars hit lighter cars. More money could be spent in educating drivers to avoid accidents which is the best solution.

 

[Stereodude]

If all cars weighed less, the deaths might be lower in situations where heavier cars hit lighter cars.

That maybe works if you can also take off all the heavy things on the roads like 18 wheelers.

 

[Handruin]

I didn't say the deaths would be completely gone, but in the case of an 18-wheeler vs almost any car, we're sure to lose. I imagine someone must have statistics that show what percentage of accidental deaths resulted from large trucks.

 

[Fushigi]

Here's a good one... http://www.cnbc.com/id/30850102

There you go. Definitive proof CAFE works. Killing other drivers takes cars off the road, reducing emissions. oke:

On a more serious note, I'd like to see the numbers that compare deaths per capita and also deaths per mile driven in small, light-weight cars pre-CAFE and post-CAFE with a year-on-year progression starting from, say, 1970. That will be hard, though, as there were relatively few pre-CAFE small, light-weight cars. Sure, there were a couple like the Dodge Dart & Chevy Vega, but IIRC those weren't as popular as the Impala and the like. And any comparison that can be found is still of little use as it simply cannot isolate differences in the death rate to any one change:

• Safety standards have improved dramatically.
• But driving skills have deteriorated.
• Vehicle sizes have crept up (today's Civic is larger than yesteryear's Accord).
• The change in consumer habits, namely adding millions of trucks (includes SUVs) for non-commercial use has made the roadways a more dangerous place.

That last one's important. Before the SUV craze, small trucks were mostly driven for commercial use and by farmers. Relatively few people used them for every day driving. SUVs changed that aspect and put more vehicles on the road with bumper heights that dodn't mesh with cars, not to mention vehicles with a higher average mass which potentially causes more damage in an accident. Oh, the higher center of gravity and less-strict truck safety standards meant SUVs were less safe overall than passenger cars.

And the article's author apparently thinks Honda, Toyota, and Hyundai already meet the new CAFE requirements. I'm not sure where that came from, but let's assume for a moment they do. The new requirements would then do nothing more than add governmental pressure to improve to complement the consumer pressure that already exists. Compete or die. Safety is a good example: Before the 90s, marketing safety as a feeature was only done by Volvo; no one else ever bothered. Now, if a car gets a 5 star rating they're shouting it from the treetops.

Re: "wimpy li’l cars" I think owners of some not-so-wimpy little cars would take issue. Looking at GM even, the Cobalt SS has 260HP and does 0-60 in 5.8 seconds and still returns 30MPG highway. Regular Cobalt's get 33 and the XFE (most efficient model) gets 37.

Also, "Automakers churn out loss-leader subcompacts purely to lower the average mileage for their entire fleet.." I think the author meant RAISE the average mileage. Are we to believe the writing of one who apparently doesn't care to proofread their own work? Or run it by an editor?

There's no evidence people truly want SUVs for any reason other than marketing. Minivans return better economy, have equal tor better visibility, are cheaper to maintain, offer better comfort, and have better space utilization. But the automaker's marketing told us minivans are for the weak, submissive types while SUVs demonstrate a man's virility. Just calling them "Sport" Utility Vehicles is nuts; there's nothing sporty about them at all. Anyway, it was a load of crap but people bought into it for some reason.

Look at how happy those same people were to not take reputational damage by ditching the SUVs for more economical vehicles when the higher gas prices gave them the option to change without sacrificing their "manhood". In short, people follow trends. They bought SUVs when they were told it was fashionable. Now, the Prius and other economical vehicles is fashionable so the pendulum is swining back to vehicles that more closely meet one's needs.

BTW, back in the day when having trucks that were jacked up & had (near) monster truck tires on them my sister had a saying: "The bigger the tires the smaller the penis." So what are all of these SUV buyers compensating for?

 

[LunarMist]

I did give him a hard time for some astroturfing, hitting all the talking points without anything bad to say, it sounded like he had a homework assignment. But other than those he was a great asset to the community.

I must have missed the thread about the astroturf. It's cold up there in Michigan though.

 

[Mercutio]

Clocker has a kid and, given how long he's been at GM he's probably had to take on some extra work responsibilities if his employment hasn't had issues already.

My guess is that the guy is probably too busy to keep up with computer hobbies.

 

[udaman]

Clocker has a kid and, given how long he's been at GM he's probably had to take on some extra work responsibilities if his employment hasn't had issues already.

My guess is that the guy is probably too busy to keep up with computer hobbies.

...or too stressed out trying to keep up with daily GM 'news' about going into bankruptcy, with possibility of even Volt dept people (non-essential) losing their jobs *next* month or in the near future(ie Clocker). That, and possibility of wage concessions which might not allow him to make mortgage payments, meaning stress of losing his home. Yah, little things like that can get in the way of computer hobbies and such, lol.

 

[LunarMist]

Clocker has a kid and, given how long he's been at GM he's probably had to take on some extra work responsibilities if his employment hasn't had issues already.

My guess is that the guy is probably too busy to keep up with computer hobbies.

In hope that is all, and there was not a serious illness or death.

 

[Tannin]

Excellent post, Fushigi. Large, heavy cars, apart from all the other problems they cause, are much, much more dangerous to other road users. For that reason alone they should be - not banned, because regulation of that kind rarely achieves much, but taxed into oblivion. The easiest way to do this is stop subsidising fuel prices, and start taxing it in a way that reflects the entire cost. (I.e., including global environmental damage, negative effect on foreign debt, the massive cost of road maintenence and accident repairs and increased medical costs, air pollution in cities, loss of valuable land, and so on. Read JTR's posts for more detail, many of them cover the basics here.)

 

[Fushigi]

Another point: Larger, heavier vehicles cause more wear and tear to road surfaces. This can be mitigated by way of the annual license plate fee. Some states, like Illinois, use a flat fee for all vehicles. Others, like Indiana, use an excise tax based on a supposed value of the vehicle (it's needlessly complicated, but the essence is plates on a new car cost hundred of dollars year 1 and slowly decrease over time as the vehicle's value decreases). I'm assuming the basis hasn't changed since I moved away, anyway.

I think a reasonable alternative would be to make the fee based on the gross vehicle weight. Light cars and motorcycles would have cheaper plates than heavier vehicles (full size sedans, trucks, SUVs, commercial vehicles). Unlike Indiana's excise tax system, this uses data that is known and doesn't vary over time so no assumptions are needed. Also, the fee doesn't depend on the current economy. The fee would go to the Dept. of Transportaion to help fund the road repair process.

 

[MaxBurn]

Heavier road damaging vehicles are already taxed for the wear they put on roads. Try registering a F350 or 3500 1 ton pickup in comparison to any sedan.