|
General » rec.autos.driving » Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again..
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794402] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 17:16 |
|
On Feb 14, 11:12=A0am, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati... [at] hotmail.com>
wrote:
> N8N wrote:
> > I'm reminded of Charles Stross' fictional (yet entirely believable and
> > hilarious) description of driving a Smart in Germany in The Jennifer
> > Morgue...
>
> Have you ever been in one ?
Obviously not, as I live in the US.
> They're quite pleasant.
I can't imagine something that tall, narrow and short being "pleasant"
- at least not enough to make me want to give up my current vehicle.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794423 ] |
Fri, 15 February 2008 19:51 |
|
"N8N" <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> I can't imagine something that tall, narrow and short being "pleasant"
> at least not enough to make me want to give up my current vehicle.
I suppose that's because you are use to AmeriKKKan made pieces of garbage.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794643 ] |
Sun, 17 February 2008 09:15 |
|
N8N <njnagel [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> Have you ever been in one ?
>
>Obviously not, as I live in the US.
>
>> They're quite pleasant.
>
>I can't imagine something that tall, narrow and short being "pleasant"
>- at least not enough to make me want to give up my current vehicle.
Such a vehicle makes perfect sense in a European urban setting given
smaller street and a completely different transportation
infrastructure. But certainly Smart is ill suited to the open road
style of transportation in America.
Swill
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794726 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 18:47 |
|
"Governor Swill" <governor.swill [at] gmail.com> wrote
> But certainly Smart is ill suited to the open road
> style of transportation in America.
AmeriKKKans concepts of "style" might not be compatible with smart, but
then it hardly matters with $150 a barrel oil.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794779 ] |
Mon, 18 February 2008 22:34 |
|
On Feb 18, 4:06=A0pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
> N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> >> =A0 Capable of wastefully consuming fuel and sucking money out of the o=
wners
> >> pockets and into the car companies pockets.
>
> >Mmm-hmm.
>
> >Please explain which car company sucked the money out of my pocket.
> >Please also explain why I should waste more energy by buying a new car
> >that will need to be built by someone when there's a perfectly good
> >car that's already built that I just have to maintain. =A0(you do know
> >that a quite significant amount of fuel that is "used" by a motor
> >vehicle over its life is used in production, not operation, yes?)
>
> Not as much as would be saved by purchasing a state of the art
> vehicle. =A0Don't get me wrong, there's nothing more green than the fine
> art of recycling and those who maintain and use older classics make a
> special contribution to history, but unless that '58 Desoto has a
> modern high efficiency, low emissions powertrain, the fuel consumption
> difference in using older, less efficient power way offsets any
> petroleum used to create a new car which, btw, also creates jobs.
Well, it might be more significant than you think. A quick google
turned this up:
http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
manufacture is 10% of the energy used over the life cycle of the car
(according to that study) and that is assuming a life of 14 years
which may be optimistic in many markets.
Or in other words, the manufacture of a car has the same cost in
energy of 1.4 years of daily use...
or handwaving here, since their baseline car averaged appx. 21.8 MPG,
let's say 20 MPG to make it nice and round, it would take (1.4)(4) or
5.6 years of daily use to even break even energy wise, assuming that
the car I'm driving now got 15 MPG (or 3/4 of the "new" car.) None of
my vehicles actually see daily use, so the break even would be
significantly longer...
Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
reasons...
> Btw, got any pics of that machine. =A0Imo, Studebaker was one of the
> most innovative car companies in American history. =A0Avanti's are still
> sleek, modern and in production and that's a half century old design
> job!
I used to have lots of "in progress" pics up on my web site, but these
are the only ones online now:
http://www.hemmings.com/users/163516/ride/2469.html
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794786 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 00:10 |
|
On Feb 18, 4:34 pm, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 18, 4:06 pm, Governor Swill <governor.sw... [at] gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>
> > >> Capable of wastefully consuming fuel and sucking money out of the owners
> > >> pockets and into the car companies pockets.
>
> > >Mmm-hmm.
>
> > >Please explain which car company sucked the money out of my pocket.
> > >Please also explain why I should waste more energy by buying a new car
> > >that will need to be built by someone when there's a perfectly good
> > >car that's already built that I just have to maintain. (you do know
> > >that a quite significant amount of fuel that is "used" by a motor
> > >vehicle over its life is used in production, not operation, yes?)
>
> > Not as much as would be saved by purchasing a state of the art
> > vehicle. Don't get me wrong, there's nothing more green than the fine
> > art of recycling and those who maintain and use older classics make a
> > special contribution to history, but unless that '58 Desoto has a
> > modern high efficiency, low emissions powertrain, the fuel consumption
> > difference in using older, less efficient power way offsets any
> > petroleum used to create a new car which, btw, also creates jobs.
>
> Well, it might be more significant than you think. A quick google
> turned this up:
>
> http://www.ilea.org/lcas/macleanlave1998.html
>
> manufacture is 10% of the energy used over the life cycle of the car
> (according to that study) and that is assuming a life of 14 years
> which may be optimistic in many markets.
>
> Or in other words, the manufacture of a car has the same cost in
> energy of 1.4 years of daily use...
>
> or handwaving here, since their baseline car averaged appx. 21.8 MPG,
> let's say 20 MPG to make it nice and round, it would take (1.4)(4) or
> 5.6 years of daily use to even break even energy wise, assuming that
> the car I'm driving now got 15 MPG (or 3/4 of the "new" car.) None of
> my vehicles actually see daily use, so the break even would be
> significantly longer...
>
> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
> moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
> reasons...
It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
|
|
|
| Re: Coping With The New CAFE Standards, leotard78sp whines again.. [message #794793 ] |
Tue, 19 February 2008 01:36 |
|
bill <ford_prefect42 [at] hotmail.com> used a stick in the sand to babble
>> Those numbers actually sound low to me; I've heard far higher than the
>> 10% presented in that study, but I'm too lazy to dig deeper at the
>> moment. The study that I found (which was, honestly, simply the first
>> one that seemed pertinent with a quick google. It seems somewhat
>> biased towards the purchase of a new vehicle for environmental
>> reasons...
>
>It is also neglecting the vehicle "class" For example, if you replace
>a 1985 nissan sentra with a 2008 nissan sentra, there is virtually no
>savings in fuel economy. It is only if you drop down a consumption
>class that there is any real savings to be had. For example if you
>trade out a 1985 nissan sentra for a 2008 toyota prius (a far more
>expensive vehicle) THEN you may see the 2 year energy payback you are
>talking about. Really, there has been shockingly little progress made
>in fuel economy since the mid 70's.
What about the energy to manufacture replacement parts? What about
the polluting waste products at shops?
I'm not buying it. Fuel consumption hasn't been stable over time and
neither have miles driven.
And who wants to drive an '85 Sentra? I get 27mpg highway in a '98
Bonneville that blows that Sentra away for comfort, power and handling
and I'm no slowpoke on the freeway.
Swill
--
THIS is how we have to win the Iraq War
http://www.wheelchairsforiraqikids.com/
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 14:56:06 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.13729 Sekunden |
