|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > May 2007 > 317 mpg vw
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Neon John 2007-05-16, 8:25 pm |
| On Wed, 16 May 2007 21:15:12 GMT, Gregg Holmes <greggholmes@gmail.com> wrote:
>Comments? other then cost:
>
>http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
I'm envisioning that thing stuck between the R and B in "Peterbilt"..
Am also wondering what sort of creature shat that thing.
John
---
John De Armond
See my website for my current email address
http://www.neon-john.com
Cleveland, Occupied TN
Multitasking: Reading in the bathroom!
| |
|
| On 2007-05-16, Gregg Holmes <greggholmes@gmail.com> wrote:
> Comments? other then cost:
>
> http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
Very kewl. Reminds me of a customized/modernized Messerschmitt.
I would've gone with a 3 wheel design myself (two in front,
one trailing), but then I'm not the CEO of VW. Additionally, in
my experience, my projects end up more like this:
http://utterpower.com/10hp_chevy.htm
except uglier.
--
Slackware 11.0, 2.6.20, K8M800 s754Sempron3100+, GF6200
RLU #272755
| |
|
|
| William Wixon 2007-05-17, 1:25 pm |
|
"Gregg Holmes" <greggholmes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:464B7460.783F76F3@gmail.com...
> Comments? other then cost:
>
> http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
that's what you (and everyone else) will be driving in the future (50 years
or less).
lightweight, fuel efficient, low horsepower, "slow". speed will be reserved
for emergency services and time critical shipments, etc.
i think it's pretty cool.
my first thought was "ugh, what an ugly color" but i like the color in the
side view of the car, makes it look it's somehow associated with some
military service. maybe if they made the color matte instead of gloss (with
indecipherable military insignia) :-)
the more i look at it the more i like it. there's lots of styling
possibilities, would be neat to see a "retro" design borrowing from the 30's
and 40's and/or even 30's and 40's sci-fi imagery.
| |
|
|
| Eeyore 2007-05-18, 9:25 am |
|
"Richard P." wrote:
> Cool..! I'd drive one of those to work everyday if I could.
Did you see the film 'Brazil' ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-18, 9:25 am |
|
William Wixon wrote:
> "Gregg Holmes" wrote
>
>
> that's what you (and everyone else) will be driving in the future (50 years
> or less).
Bwahahahahahahaha !
NOOO !
Graham
| |
| Gregg Holmes 2007-05-18, 5:25 pm |
| We all know it costs to much. Its very suitable for most commuters. If
you look at the cars on the freeway you will see a majority of them are
driving solo and probably average 20 miles or less each way. Every day
I watch the commuters driving there 1 ton pickups to work every day that
have never had a speck of anything in the bed or towed a trailer for
that matter. They can drive what they want but don't complain about fuel
prices as they fill there hummer.
my .02
Eeyore wrote:
>
> Gregg Holmes wrote:
>
>
> It's not a suitable method of transport for most people.
>
> It costs too much.
>
> That's it !
>
> Graham
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-18, 5:25 pm |
|
"Gregg Holmes" <greggholmes.@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:464DFFF8.F191BD58@gmail.com...
> We all know it costs to much. Its very suitable for most commuters. If
> you look at the cars on the freeway you will see a majority of them are
> driving solo and probably average 20 miles or less each way. Every day
> I watch the commuters driving there 1 ton pickups to work every day that
> have never had a speck of anything in the bed or towed a trailer for
> that matter. They can drive what they want but don't complain about fuel
> prices as they fill there hummer.
They can also get that fuel economy at a cheaper vehicle (well maybe not
300mpg,but as high or higher than a hybrid)
With a Harley,Hay Diversified Tech "Bulldog"(civiian version of the military
diesel motorcycle), or Indian for the fresh air guys
or for the fully enclosed riding guys Ecomobile( two wheeled BMW
turbocharged gasoline engine version of VW car, well maybe strike cheap at
$60000)......Or a three wheeler like the UK company Carver produces(Maybe
strike cheap also at about 60000USD).[color=darkred]
>
> my .02
>
> Eeyore wrote:
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-18, 5:25 pm |
|
Gregg Holmes wrote:
> We all know it costs to much. Its very suitable for most commuters. If
> you look at the cars on the freeway you will see a majority of them are
> driving solo and probably average 20 miles or less each way.
But they're also often required to transport a family when not commuting.
Graham
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-18, 8:25 pm |
|
"Gregg Holmes" <greggholmes.@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:464DFFF8.F191BD58@gmail.com...
> They can drive what they want but don't complain about fuel
> prices as they fill there hummer.
I really wish that the owners of gas hogs actually paid for their impact,
but the fact is that everybody on the planet is forced to subsidize them. The
most obvious way that we feel their presence is at the gas pumps, where we pay
higher prices because they are raising demand far higher that it could be, thus
raising prices for all of us. Less obvious, but probably far more expensive is
their impact on the environment.
Vaughn
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-18, 9:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Gregg Holmes" wrote
>
>
> I really wish that the owners of gas hogs actually paid for their impact,
What part of their impact ?
> but the fact is that everybody on the planet is forced to subsidize them.
Nonsense.
Graham
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-18, 9:25 pm |
| -> Gregg Holmes wrote:
-> > We all know it costs to much. Its very suitable for most commuters. If
-> > you look at the cars on the freeway you will see a majority of them are
-> > driving solo and probably average 20 miles or less each way.
-> But they're also often required to transport a family when not commuting.
-> Graham
I saw a show on TV recently. A man called the "expert" to ask which
large SUV he would recommend. "For what kind of driving?", the expert
asked. "Mostly I commute, on my own," the caller replied, "but I have a
large boat, and every spring I have to tow it to the water, and in the
fall I tow it back again. I need a large vehicle to do the towing."
"Why not buy a small car, and rent a truck a couple of times a year to
tow your boat?", said the expert. "Oh! I never thought of that!", said
the caller.
My girlfriend has two vehicles, a small one that she drives to work,
and a minivan that she uses on the relatively rare occasions when she
wants to carry a lot of passengers or goods. This works for her, and
undoubtedly would work for a lot of other people.
dow
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-18, 9:25 pm |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464E562F.BE8C287C@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Nonsense.
You can't get away with just saying "nonsense". To be taken seriously, you
need to offer some cogent reasoning for your opinion. What is it?
All motor vehicles leave an ecological footprint that negatively impacts
every human on the planet. Like it or not, gas hogs leave an unnecessarily
large footprint. What part of that is "nonsense"?
Vaughn
| |
| Tony Wesley 2007-05-19, 3:25 am |
| On May 18, 10:43 pm, david.willi...@bayman.org (David XXXXXXXX) wrote:
[snip]
> My girlfriend has two vehicles, a small one that she drives to work,
> and a minivan that she uses on the relatively rare occasions when she
> wants to carry a lot of passengers or goods. This works for her, and
> undoubtedly would work for a lot of other people.
Works for me. I have a 2001 Focus as my daily driver. When I want to
pull the pop-up camper or 8 foot sheets of plywood, I use my 1991 Olds
Custom Cruiser.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 3:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Gregg Holmes wrote:
>
> -> > We all know it costs to much. Its very suitable for most commuters. If
> -> > you look at the cars on the freeway you will see a majority of them are
> -> > driving solo and probably average 20 miles or less each way.
>
> -> But they're also often required to transport a family when not commuting.
>
> -> Graham
>
> I saw a show on TV recently. A man called the "expert" to ask which
> large SUV he would recommend. "For what kind of driving?", the expert
> asked. "Mostly I commute, on my own," the caller replied, "but I have a
> large boat, and every spring I have to tow it to the water, and in the
> fall I tow it back again. I need a large vehicle to do the towing."
>
> "Why not buy a small car, and rent a truck a couple of times a year to
> tow your boat?", said the expert. "Oh! I never thought of that!", said
> the caller.
>
> My girlfriend has two vehicles, a small one that she drives to work,
> and a minivan that she uses on the relatively rare occasions when she
> wants to carry a lot of passengers or goods. This works for her, and
> undoubtedly would work for a lot of other people.
I'd quite like to run a Smart car as my town vehicle.
Graham
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-19, 3:25 am |
|
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> wrote in message
news:a2t3i.9213$p47.883@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:464E562F.BE8C287C@hotmail.com...
>
>
>
> You can't get away with just saying "nonsense". To be taken seriously,
> you need to offer some cogent reasoning for your opinion. What is it?
>
> All motor vehicles leave an ecological footprint that negatively impacts
> every human on the planet. Like it or not, gas hogs leave an
> unnecessarily large footprint. What part of that is "nonsense"?
>
> Vaughn
So we need to outlaw 18wheelers,trains ,ships,airliners ,and other gashogs.
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-19, 9:25 am |
|
"Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1179562385_10021@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
> So we need to outlaw 18wheelers,trains ,ships,airliners ,and other gashogs.
Who said anything about "outlawing" anything?
Vaughn
| |
| Balanced View 2007-05-19, 9:25 am |
| Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> news:1179562385_10021@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
>
> Who said anything about "outlawing" anything?
>
> Vaughn
>
>
>
>
Because that's the way these discussions go. You bring up a perfectly
logical point, and eventually in reply you'll
get a screed about his Constitutional rights to crap on your lawn and
piss in your well. Then you'll be told to
"Go Back To Cuba" ;~)
Seriously though, some people use these "Them Vs Us" or "All or Nothing"
statements to avoid the truth by refusing
to talk about it or change the subject. The idea they may be misinformed
shakes their whole belief structure.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 9:25 am |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> You can't get away with just saying "nonsense". To be taken seriously, you
> need to offer some cogent reasoning for your opinion. What is it?
>
> All motor vehicles leave an ecological footprint that negatively impacts
> every human on the planet. Like it or not, gas hogs leave an unnecessarily
> large footprint. What part of that is "nonsense"?
It depends how they're used
If an SUV even carries just 2 people normally, it has a less negative impact than
most compact cars that are driven only ever by one person.
The vehicle itself isn't explicitly the problem, not that I'm any fan of SUVs as
it happens.
Graham
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-19, 9:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464EFBC8.1D4E56BC@hotmail.com...
> It depends how they're used
> If an SUV even carries just 2 people normally, it has a less negative impact
> than
> most compact cars that are driven only ever by one person.
That is a terrible example: There are far better ways of carrying 2 (or 3
or 4) people than virtually any SUV made.
>
> The vehicle itself isn't explicitly the problem
Here, we agree; it is not the vehicle itself, it is the terrible choices we
make in selecting vehicles.
I invite you to take a ride with me on my daily commute on one of USA's
interstates. Take note of the huge vehicles that will be surrrounding our Honda
Civic. Especially notice that most of them are private vehicles (SUV's &
pickups) that contain only one human. Do the math; the entire area's commute
could be happening with a fraction of the fuel usage and environmental
footprint. It could be just as safe, just as convenient, just as comfortable,
and we could still avoid using public transportation. I am not talking about
some futuristic stuff, I am talking about educating the public to make a proper
selection among vehicles that are available today.
You still haven't explained your "nonsense" comment.
Vaughn
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 1:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
>
>
>
> That is a terrible example:
But it's perfectly true.
Graham
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-19, 1:25 pm |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464F12DF.A6DAD9CE@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>
> But it's perfectly true.
You have not offered any proof that it is true, and it is beside the point
anyhow. My Civic is not a terribly small car and not even a hybrid, but it more
than doubles the EPA gas mileage of many SUV's.
Vaughn
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 1:25 pm |
| -> I'd quite like to run a Smart car as my town vehicle.
Yes. I test-drove one a year or so ago. It was fun, if a bit strange,
with the centrifugal clutch etc.. But, out in the traffic with all the
trucks, I felt terribly vulnerable. I'm not convinced about the Smart's
safety.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 1:25 pm |
| -> So we need to outlaw 18wheelers,trains ,ships,airliners ,and other
-> gashogs.
If they're carrying only one person, and no goods, then sure, we should
outlaw them.
dow
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2007-05-19, 1:25 pm |
| David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> I'd quite like to run a Smart car as my town vehicle.
>
> Yes. I test-drove one a year or so ago. It was fun, if a bit strange,
> with the centrifugal clutch etc.. But, out in the traffic with all the
> trucks, I felt terribly vulnerable. I'm not convinced about the Smart's
> safety.
Here in the United States, I'm not convinced about the Smart's
availability. One can't buy the car unless someone sells it.
Anthony
| |
| Harbin Osteen 2007-05-19, 1:25 pm |
| Here is a U-Tube of a Smartcar being tested hitting a cement wall at 70 mph.
The car comes out fairly good, but doubt that you would survive such an impact.
I would feel safe running around town in this car, and would love to have a diesel
version.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ju6t-yyoU8s
--
SeeYaa Harbin Osteen KG6URO
When American Citizens with dual citizenship pledges allegiance
to the flag, to which flag do they pledge allegiance too?
-
"David XXXXXXXX" <david.XXXXXXXX@bayman.org> wrote in message news:1179587765.912.1179562051@bayman.org...
>-> I'd quite like to run a Smart car as my town vehicle.
>
> Yes. I test-drove one a year or so ago. It was fun, if a bit strange,
> with the centrifugal clutch etc.. But, out in the traffic with all the
> trucks, I felt terribly vulnerable. I'm not convinced about the Smart's
> safety.
>
> dow
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
"Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> wrote in message
news:yIE3i.12258$p47.8498@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
>
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:464F12DF.A6DAD9CE@hotmail.com...
>
> You have not offered any proof that it is true, and it is beside the
> point anyhow. My Civic is not a terribly small car and not even a hybrid,
> but it more than doubles the EPA gas mileage of many SUV's.
>
> Vaughn
You made his point Civic with 35mpg and 1person =SUV with 2persons and 17+
mpg
>
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
"Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
news:1179602350_10165@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
> You made his point Civic with 35mpg and 1person =SUV with 2persons and 17+ mpg
First of all, he has no point because both vehicles are perfectly capable
of carrying 2 passengers, so the comparison is illogical, and also had nothing
to do with the subject at hand. Why don't we compare 4 SUV's with one
passenger each to my Civic with 4 passengers aboard? That would be equally
illogical.
Second, check your math again. I can't give you an average for SUV's but your
17 sounds high. (Some of the new "mini SUVs may skew things downward a bit,
depending on what you want to call an SUV) Anyhow, my Civic manual is listed
at 36/44. The last time I went to school 2 X 17 was 34, which is less than my
Civic's EPA rating.
Vaughn
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> Here, we agree; it is not the vehicle itself, it is the terrible choices we
> make in selecting vehicles.
Indeed.
> I invite you to take a ride with me on my daily commute on one of USA's
> interstates. Take note of the huge vehicles that will be surrrounding our Honda
> Civic. Especially notice that most of them are private vehicles (SUV's &
> pickups) that contain only one human. Do the math; the entire area's commute
> could be happening with a fraction of the fuel usage and environmental
> footprint. It could be just as safe, just as convenient, just as comfortable,
> and we could still avoid using public transportation. I am not talking about
> some futuristic stuff, I am talking about educating the public to make a proper
> selection among vehicles that are available today.
Exactly. You can't fix human nature by banning SUVs. Ppl wil drive equally thirsty
pickup trucks or whatever instead.
> You still haven't explained your "nonsense" comment.
The thing about subsidies. No-one is *subsidising* SUV drivers. Do SUV drivers pay
less per gallon ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> I'd quite like to run a Smart car as my town vehicle.
>
> Yes. I test-drove one a year or so ago. It was fun, if a bit strange,
> with the centrifugal clutch etc.. But, out in the traffic with all the
> trucks, I felt terribly vulnerable.
That's why I'd use it as a 'town car' and for other shorter range jouneys
mainly.
> I'm not convinced about the Smart's safety.
They're surprisingly strong actually.
There's some videos of crash tests with them on google video / you tube.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> So we need to outlaw 18wheelers,trains ,ships,airliners ,and other
> -> gashogs.
>
> If they're carrying only one person, and no goods, then sure, we should
> outlaw them.
Trucks with trailers do sometimes have to run empty.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
>
> You have not offered any proof that it is true, and it is beside the point
> anyhow. My Civic is not a terribly small car and not even a hybrid, but it more
> than doubles the EPA gas mileage of many SUV's.
More than doubles ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> David XXXXXXXX wrote:
>
> Here in the United States, I'm not convinced about the Smart's
> availability. One can't buy the car unless someone sells it.
MB are introducing it next year IIRC. It's a slightly larger model btw ( about 4
inches longer) and reputedly has better stability.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
Harbin Osteen wrote:
> Here is a U-Tube of a Smartcar being tested hitting a cement wall at 70 mph.
> The car comes out fairly good, but doubt that you would survive such an impact.
> I would feel safe running around town in this car, and would love to have a diesel
> version.
The diesel version is sold in Canada AIUI>
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Arnold Walker" wrote
>
> First of all, he has no point because both vehicles are perfectly capable
> of carrying 2 passengers, so the comparison is illogical,
That wasn't my point at all.
Graham
| |
| Larry L [in Honolulu] 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:464F5761.E96A44C2@hotmail.com:
>
>
> Anthony Matonak wrote:
>
>
> MB are introducing it next year IIRC. It's a slightly larger model btw
> ( about 4 inches longer) and reputedly has better stability.
>
Actually available as of Jan 01, '08 at a proposed $12,000 for the base
model. I personally think they'll sell all they can import! See
www.smartusa.com for the details.
Larry L [in Honolulu]
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| -> > > If an SUV even carries just 2 people normally, it has a less negative im
-> > > than most compact cars that are driven only ever by one person.
-> >
-> > That is a terrible example:
-> But it's perfectly true.
-> Graham
It's also true that almost all small cars can carry at least two adults
comfortably. A compact car with two people in it does a lot less
environmental damage than an SUV with two people.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| -> Here in the United States, I'm not convinced about the Smart's
-> availability. One can't buy the car unless someone sells it.
-> Anthony
Here's in Canada, it's sold through Mercedes dealerships. Try checking
your local Merc dealer. Not all of them carry it. You might have to
call around.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| -> > If they're carrying only one person, and no goods, then sure, we should
-> > outlaw them.
-> Trucks with trailers do sometimes have to run empty.
-> Graham
Okay. Don't ban them. But do charge them some sort of levy for running
empty when there's bound to be *something* they could usefully carry.
dow
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > > If an SUV even carries just 2 people normally, it has a less negative im
> -> > > than most compact cars that are driven only ever by one person.
> -> >
> -> > That is a terrible example:
>
> -> But it's perfectly true.
>
> -> Graham
>
> It's also true that almost all small cars can carry at least two adults
> comfortably. A compact car with two people in it does a lot less
> environmental damage than an SUV with two people.
That wasn't what I was saying.
Will a compact car take 5 200 lb adults comfortably ?
Graham
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:464F55EC.AEC7E7E2@hotmail.com...
>
>
> The thing about subsidies. No-one is *subsidising* SUV drivers. Do SUV drivers
> pay
> less per gallon ?
Wrong! Have you ever studied Economics?
First, they are bidding up the price of gas, but it is not just their gas
price that they are driving up, we all are paying more at the pump because of
their extra consumption. Second, they (like rest of us) are not directly paying
for their impact on the environment, except that their footprint is so much
larger than that of the rest of us, so we all share part of their burden.
I could go on, but by now you either got the idea or you don't . Either
way, I am done with this thread.
Have a nice day
Vaughn
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Here in the United States, I'm not convinced about the Smart's
> -> availability. One can't buy the car unless someone sells it.
>
> -> Anthony
>
> Here's in Canada, it's sold through Mercedes dealerships. Try checking
> your local Merc dealer. Not all of them carry it. You might have to
> call around.
MB was supposed to be concerned about the Smart adversely affecting its image in
the USA.
I'd have thought the A-class might be more interesting actually but it doesn't
have the Smart's cute factor.
http://www2.mercedes-benz.co.uk/con...ck/gallery.html
Graham
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> It's also true that almost all small cars can carry at least two adults
> comfortably. A compact car with two people in it does a lot less
> environmental damage than an SUV with two people.
A bus with 40 people does even better. Why not outlaw private
vehicles entirely? If not that, perhaps something like what
they did in London where you have to pay a lot of money to
drive in the city.
Of course, it helps when there is public transit available.
Anthony
| |
| Anthony Matonak 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
| David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > If they're carrying only one person, and no goods, then sure, we should
> -> > outlaw them.
>
> Okay. Don't ban them. But do charge them some sort of levy for running
> empty when there's bound to be *something* they could usefully carry.
Sure, they could carry raw meat or vegetables one way and garbage
or horse manure the other.
Anthony
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 5:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > If they're carrying only one person, and no goods, then sure, we should
> -> > outlaw them.
>
> -> Trucks with trailers do sometimes have to run empty.
>
> -> Graham
>
> Okay. Don't ban them. But do charge them some sort of levy for running
> empty when there's bound to be *something* they could usefully carry.
If they have to wait for a load they'll be late wherever they're going.
It simply doesn't work like that. There's a simple economic incentive called
profit that mitigates against running with no load for no good reason.n
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 8:25 pm |
|
Vaughn Simon wrote:
> "Eeyore" wrote
>
> Wrong! Have you ever studied Economics?
>
> First, they are bidding up the price of gas,
By using more fuel than compact cars ? That's not unique to SUVs.
Your argument falls at the first hurdle.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-19, 8:25 pm |
|
Anthony Matonak wrote:
> David XXXXXXXX wrote:
>
> A bus with 40 people does even better.
In Hong Kong they have buses that take over 100.
Graham
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 8:25 pm |
| -> Actually available as of Jan 01, '08 at a proposed $12,000 for the base
-> model. I personally think they'll sell all they can import! See
-> www.smartusa.com for the details.
They'll undoubtedly sell some, but probably fewer than you're guessing.
The Smart isn't a very pleasant car to drive, or to ride in, even
compared with other small cars such as the Honda Civic. Really, the
only thing going for it is its very low fuel consumption. The price of
gas next year will determine how many Smarts sell.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 9:25 pm |
| -> That wasn't what I was saying.
-> Will a compact car take 5 200 lb adults comfortably ?
-> Graham
So what you're saying is that an SUV *loaded to capacity* is as (or
more) economical than a compact car loaded to capacity.
And that's true. A bus loaded to capacity is even more economical, a
train more still, and a large ship even more. But what does this have
to do with choosing a vehicle in which one person can commute to work?
For this purpose, the smaller the better. Choose a vehicle that suits
the purpose, i.e. one that will be more or less fully loaded when it is
used. Choosing an SUV for commuting is wasteful.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 9:25 pm |
| -> > Okay. Don't ban them. But do charge them some sort of levy for running
-> > empty when there's bound to be *something* they could usefully carry.
-> If they have to wait for a load they'll be late wherever they're going.
-> It simply doesn't work like that. There's a simple economic incentive called
-> profit that mitigates against running with no load for no good reason.n
-> Graham
The profit motive would be affected by the levy. A *very* good reason
would be required to justify running empty.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-19, 9:25 pm |
| -> > A bus with 40 people does even better.
-> In Hong Kong they have buses that take over 100.
-> Graham
In Cuba they have buses that can carry 500.
dow
| |
|
|
"Gregg Holmes" <greggholmes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:464B7460.783F76F3@gmail.com...
> Comments? other then cost:
>
> http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm
In this 2-seater, one person sits behind the other. I find it difficult to
have a good discussion with someone in the back seat.
The person in the back seat rests his feet to each side of the driver. This
sounds uncomfortable.
It's a diesel. Don't they pollute more than gas ICEs? (Though the
phenomenal mileage will more than make up for this)
Hybrids are all the rage these days. Why isn't it one?
I liked the idea of replacing the side mirrors with cameras.
Overall, I'm glad high-mileage cars are being researched, and I wish them
well. But if you ignore that which cannot be commented upon, there are
probably lots of options.
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Actually available as of Jan 01, '08 at a proposed $12,000 for the base
> -> model. I personally think they'll sell all they can import! See
> -> www.smartusa.com for the details.
>
> They'll undoubtedly sell some, but probably fewer than you're guessing.
> The Smart isn't a very pleasant car to drive, or to ride in, even
> compared with other small cars such as the Honda Civic. Really, the
> only thing going for it is its very low fuel consumption. The price of
> gas next year will determine how many Smarts sell.
I think it's a lot more than that. It has the 'cute' factor and is suprisingly
spacious for its 2 occupants. Additionally, you get an excelllent view of the
road since the seats are actually placed quite high.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> That wasn't what I was saying.
>
> -> Will a compact car take 5 200 lb adults comfortably ?
>
> -> Graham
>
> So what you're saying is that an SUV *loaded to capacity* is as (or
> more) economical than a compact car loaded to capacity.
What I'm saying is that it's horses for courses. The SUV need not always be a
bad choice of vehicle.
> And that's true. A bus loaded to capacity is even more economical, a
> train more still, and a large ship even more. But what does this have
> to do with choosing a vehicle in which one person can commute to work?
For *commuting* especially with a single person, an SUV is plain daft.
> For this purpose, the smaller the better. Choose a vehicle that suits
> the purpose, i.e. one that will be more or less fully loaded when it is
> used. Choosing an SUV for commuting is wasteful.
That much is true but it's not all they're used for although I accept that many
are (mis)used in that role.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > A bus with 40 people does even better.
>
> -> In Hong Kong they have buses that take over 100.
>
> -> Graham
>
> In Cuba they have buses that can carry 500.
A *bus* ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > Okay. Don't ban them. But do charge them some sort of levy for running
> -> > empty when there's bound to be *something* they could usefully carry.
>
> -> If they have to wait for a load they'll be late wherever they're going.
>
> -> It simply doesn't work like that. There's a simple economic incentive called
> -> profit that mitigates against running with no load for no good reason.n
>
> -> Graham
>
> The profit motive would be affected by the levy. A *very* good reason
> would be required to justify running empty.
Levies require ppl (employed unproductively) to administer them which creates the
very wastefulness you're trying to eliminate. No - absolutely not.
Graahm
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
|
"David XXXXXXXX" <david.XXXXXXXX@bayman.org> wrote in message
news:1179621176.912.1179617369@bayman.org...
>-> Actually available as of Jan 01, '08 at a proposed $12,000 for the base
> -> model. I personally think they'll sell all they can import! See
> -> www.smartusa.com for the details.
>
> They'll undoubtedly sell some, but probably fewer than you're guessing.
> The Smart isn't a very pleasant car to drive, or to ride in, even
> compared with other small cars such as the Honda Civic. Really, the
> only thing going for it is its very low fuel consumption. The price of
> gas next year will determine how many Smarts sell.
>
> dow
Actually ,Harley's have a better chance....you looked at sales number since
the gas prices started rising.
There are motorcycles everywhere compared to just five years ago.And best of
all you can ride two motorcycle in the lane footprint
of one them gas guzzling civics.
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-20, 3:25 am |
|
"David XXXXXXXX" <david.XXXXXXXX@bayman.org> wrote in message
news:1179632315.912.1179623965@bayman.org...
>-> > Okay. Don't ban them. But do charge them some sort of levy for running
> -> > empty when there's bound to be *something* they could usefully carry.
>
> -> If they have to wait for a load they'll be late wherever they're going.
>
> -> It simply doesn't work like that. There's a simple economic incentive
> called
> -> profit that mitigates against running with no load for no good reason.n
>
> -> Graham
>
> The profit motive would be affected by the levy. A *very* good reason
> would be required to justify running empty.
>
> dow
Yes ,we need to levy levy a tax on Civics for not having as small of a
footprint as a motorcycle.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| Arnold Walker wrote:
>
> "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> wrote in message
> news:a2t3i.9213$p47.883@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> So we need to outlaw 18wheelers,trains ,ships,airliners ,and other
> gashogs.
Obviously he didn't say that. Why can't you just answer the question?
I'll take a run at your specious rebuttal, though.
18-wheelers should pay sufficient tax to at least keep up the roads they
travel on. Perhaps 4 wheelers should, too, but the wear and tear on
highways is vastly greater from trucks than cars.
That would make trains a much more feasible alternative for cargo in N.
America. Trains are _not_ gas hogs compared to most other forms of
transportation.
Airliners should _also_ be highly discouraged. I can get flights to many
major cities for about the same price as a bus ticket for a 3 hour ride.
That's nuts.
Why isn't anybody seriously promoting cargo blimps?
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
>
> But it's perfectly true.
I have some trouble believing you can prove it - but it depends on your
definition of "most". You have to remember that the negative impact comes
not only from the gas consumption, but the resources that went into making
the vehicle - and the great intangible: how often the vehicle needs to be
replaced, either through wear or accident.
But even accepting that your statement _might_ be true, it's a bad example
because the counter to saying that an SUV carrying two people is more
efficient than a compact carrying one is that a compact carrying two or
three is even better.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| Eeyore wrote:
> Vaughn Simon wrote:
>
> The thing about subsidies. No-one is *subsidising* SUV drivers. Do SUV
> drivers pay less per gallon ?
Ah. In that case I will argue that SUV drivers certainly pay less than
their share of taxes for road maintenance, in every place where I have
lived. If gas taxes or license fees actually paid for the highways, that
wouldn't be true, but they don't.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| Kitep wrote:
>
> "Gregg Holmes" <greggholmes@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:464B7460.783F76F3@gmail.com...
>
> In this 2-seater, one person sits behind the other. I find it difficult
> to have a good discussion with someone in the back seat.
This is a good thing - conversing gets you into accidents :-)
>
> It's a diesel. Don't they pollute more than gas ICEs? (Though the
> phenomenal mileage will more than make up for this)
Yes & no. They produce less CO2. They can be cleaned up to make no more
pollution than an ICE, but I think that makes it compete evenly on the
mileage front.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Actually available as of Jan 01, '08 at a proposed $12,000 for the base
> -> model. I personally think they'll sell all they can import! See
> -> www.smartusa.com for the details.
>
> They'll undoubtedly sell some, but probably fewer than you're guessing.
> The Smart isn't a very pleasant car to drive, or to ride in, even
> compared with other small cars such as the Honda Civic.
Clearly a matter of opinion. The only person I know driving one loves it
and finds it very pleasant.
I drove a Smart ForFour in Europe and it wasn't much different from the
Honda I had in Canada. otoh, it wasn't any better on fuel consumption,
either :-)
--
derek
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| -> It's a diesel. Don't they pollute more than gas ICEs? (Though the
-> phenomenal mileage will more than make up for this)
I read recently that diesels have been developed that hardly pollute at
all - apart from the inevitable CO2, of course.
Incidentally, diesel fuel has a higher carbon : hydrogen ratio than
gasoline, so, compared with the energy produced, burning diesel oil
produces more CO2 than burning gasoline.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| -> > They'll undoubtedly sell some, but probably fewer than you're guessing.
-> > The Smart isn't a very pleasant car to drive, or to ride in, even
-> > compared with other small cars such as the Honda Civic. Really, the
-> > only thing going for it is its very low fuel consumption. The price of
-> > gas next year will determine how many Smarts sell.
-> I think it's a lot more than that. It has the 'cute' factor and is suprising
-> spacious for its 2 occupants. Additionally, you get an excelllent view of th
-> road since the seats are actually placed quite high.
-> Graham
The Smart has been on the market here in Canada for a couple of years,
but they're still quite rare in traffic. I see one or two of them a day
in Toronto, no more. And even those I do see often have advertising for
Smart dealerships painted on them. Nobody I know (except for one person
who works at a Smart dealership) has bought one. Yes, it's cute. Yes,
it's adequately spacious. Yes, it gives the driver a good view of the
road. But when it comes to the test of actually being sold, it doesn't
do too well.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| -> > For this purpose, the smaller the better. Choose a vehicle that suits
-> > the purpose, i.e. one that will be more or less fully loaded when it is
-> > used. Choosing an SUV for commuting is wasteful.
-> That much is true but it's not all they're used for although I accept that m
-> are (mis)used in that role.
-> Graham
I agree that there are situations in which SUVs are excellent
vehicles. But few of them are often - or ever - used in those situations.
Most of them are bought by idiots who want to look tough, but never
drive except in cities or on highways.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 1:25 pm |
| -> > In Cuba they have buses that can carry 500.
-> A *bus* ?
-> Graham
They're like tractor-trailers, with huge, long, double-deck trailers.
They were invented to carry large numbers of commuters from the apartment
complexes in which they live to the factories, etc., in response to the
acute fuel shortage caused by the Yankee embargo.
dow
| |
| Gordon Richmond 2007-05-20, 5:25 pm |
| >-> > In Cuba they have buses that can carry 500.
>
>-> A *bus* ?
>
>-> Graham
>
>They're like tractor-trailers, with huge, long, double-deck trailers.
>They were invented to carry large numbers of commuters from the apartment
>complexes in which they live to the factories, etc., in response to the
>acute fuel shortage caused by the Yankee embargo.
>
> dow
Uh, no. It's not the Yankee embargo. People in Socialist Workers' Paradises *LOVE*
travelling to their jobs like cattle stuffed into a cattleliner. It's part of the charm of
Socialism. Didn't you get the memo?
Gordon Richmond
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-20, 5:25 pm |
|
"Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
news:o956i4-hoc.ln1@pointerstop.ca...
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
>
> Ah. In that case I will argue that SUV drivers certainly pay less than
> their share of taxes for road maintenance, in every place where I have
> lived. If gas taxes or license fees actually paid for the highways, that
> wouldn't be true, but they don't.
> --
> derek
Actually ,you would be wrong... on all counts.
Because,register fees already do that..
But in order to increase the tax base we could start registering roller
blades ,push scooter ,and bicycles...
Which exactly is what you where wanting in the first place....to justify
increasing the tax base.
And since they do have a smaller footprint than a civic we might need
increase that registion fee fee on your Civicand the
other vehicles.Hell ,make it match the income tax increase that the
Democrats are working to slip thru for 2008/9 double the taxes..
To cover all them operating expenses ,that they have.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 5:25 pm |
| -> Why isn't anybody seriously promoting cargo blimps?
They are, but not in the States.
In Germany, the Zeppelin company is now back in business, with the main
objective of making cargo-carrying airships.
dow
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 5:25 pm |
| David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> The Smart has been on the market here in Canada for a couple of years,
> but they're still quite rare in traffic. I see one or two of them a day
> in Toronto, no more. And even those I do see often have advertising for
> Smart dealerships painted on them. Nobody I know (except for one person
> who works at a Smart dealership) has bought one. Yes, it's cute. Yes,
> it's adequately spacious. Yes, it gives the driver a good view of the
> road. But when it comes to the test of actually being sold, it doesn't
> do too well.
I don't know how you can make such an odd assumption. Call your local smart
dealer and ask whether they have one on the lot that you could buy today
(or Tuesday, assuming they're closed for the long weekend). Even in
Toronto, I think you'd be hard-pressed. More significantly, I actually
started looking when I had to junk my last car a few weeks ago - I could
find exactly _one_ used Smart for sale in Canada. And despite quite a few
kilometers (12,000 iirc) the asking price was about the same as new!
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 5:25 pm |
| Arnold Walker wrote:
>
> "Derek Broughton" <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote in message
> news:o956i4-hoc.ln1@pointerstop.ca...
[color=darkred]
> Actually ,you would be wrong... on all counts.
> Because,register fees already do that..
Dream on. Our road taxes _fail_ to pay for roads. This explains why our
roads are in such shitty condition.
--
derek
| |
| Derek Broughton 2007-05-20, 5:25 pm |
| David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Why isn't anybody seriously promoting cargo blimps?
>
> They are, but not in the States.
>
> In Germany, the Zeppelin company is now back in business, with the main
> objective of making cargo-carrying airships.
Alright! I hadn't heard that, but it's very good news.
--
derek
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
> I have some trouble believing you can prove it
It simply requires the mpg of the average SUV not be better than 50% of the mpg
of the average compact car. How simple is that ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> But even accepting that your statement _might_ be true, it's a bad example
> because the counter to saying that an SUV carrying two people is more
> efficient than a compact carrying one is that a compact carrying two or
> three is even better.
Not my point at all.
In any case cannot the SUV possibly carry 6 ppl ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Eeyore wrote:
>
>
> Ah. In that case I will argue that SUV drivers certainly pay less than
> their share of taxes for road maintenance
On what basis ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Kitep wrote:
>
>
> This is a good thing - conversing gets you into accidents :-)
I'm sure that'll make a great selling point.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > They'll undoubtedly sell some, but probably fewer than you're guessing.
> -> > The Smart isn't a very pleasant car to drive, or to ride in, even
> -> > compared with other small cars such as the Honda Civic. Really, the
> -> > only thing going for it is its very low fuel consumption. The price of
> -> > gas next year will determine how many Smarts sell.
>
> -> I think it's a lot more than that. It has the 'cute' factor and is suprising
> -> spacious for its 2 occupants. Additionally, you get an excelllent view of th
> -> road since the seats are actually placed quite high.
>
> -> Graham
>
> The Smart has been on the market here in Canada for a couple of years,
> but they're still quite rare in traffic. I see one or two of them a day
> in Toronto, no more. And even those I do see often have advertising for
> Smart dealerships painted on them. Nobody I know (except for one person
> who works at a Smart dealership) has bought one. Yes, it's cute. Yes,
> it's adequately spacious. Yes, it gives the driver a good view of the
> road. But when it comes to the test of actually being sold, it doesn't
> do too well.
There are 3 in my block. And that's a very small 'Euro size' block ! 2 Smart for
twos and one roadster.
Graahm
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > For this purpose, the smaller the better. Choose a vehicle that suits
> -> > the purpose, i.e. one that will be more or less fully loaded when it is
> -> > used. Choosing an SUV for commuting is wasteful.
>
> -> That much is true but it's not all they're used for although I accept that m
> -> are (mis)used in that role.
>
> -> Graham
>
> I agree that there are situations in which SUVs are excellent
> vehicles. But few of them are often - or ever - used in those situations.
> Most of them are bought by idiots who want to look tough, but never
> drive except in cities or on highways.
How do you propose to legislate aginst idiots ? Remove the SUV and they'll likely
find something even more polluting.
What would make sense is to remove the SUV's exclusion from the CAFE standard. It's
*not* a truck !
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > In Cuba they have buses that can carry 500.
>
> -> A *bus* ?
>
> -> Graham
>
> They're like tractor-trailers, with huge, long, double-deck trailers.
> They were invented to carry large numbers of commuters from the apartment
> complexes in which they live to the factories, etc., in response to the
> acute fuel shortage caused by the Yankee embargo.
Any pics anywhere ?
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Why isn't anybody seriously promoting cargo blimps?
>
> They are, but not in the States.
>
> In Germany, the Zeppelin company is now back in business, with the main
> objective of making cargo-carrying airships.
No. Tourist blimps.
A dirigible will *never* be a realistic cargo carrier. They're marginally
economic even for ppl.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> Arnold Walker wrote:
>
>
> Dream on. Our road taxes _fail_ to pay for roads. This explains why our
> roads are in such shitty condition.
Sounds like time to increase them in that case !
You could charge for road wear by axle weight for example. That'll bugger the
cost of running an SUV !
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-20, 8:25 pm |
|
Derek Broughton wrote:
> David XXXXXXXX wrote:
>
>
> Alright! I hadn't heard that, but it's very good news.
No, it's pointless and stupid. A good wind and off they go somewhere you didn't
want.
You might as well start replacing bulk carriers with sailing yachts.
Graham
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 9:25 pm |
| -> Uh, no. It's not the Yankee embargo. People in Socialist Workers' Paradises
-> travelling to their jobs like cattle stuffed into a cattleliner. It's part o
-> Socialism. Didn't you get the memo?
I take it you have never been to Cuba.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-20, 9:25 pm |
| -> I don't know how you can make such an odd assumption. Call your local smart
-> dealer and ask whether they have one on the lot that you could buy today
-> (or Tuesday, assuming they're closed for the long weekend). Even in
-> Toronto, I think you'd be hard-pressed. More significantly, I actually
-> started looking when I had to junk my last car a few weeks ago - I could
-> find exactly _one_ used Smart for sale in Canada. And despite quite a few
-> kilometers (12,000 iirc) the asking price was about the same as new!
-> --
-> derek
I have test-driven one, and at the dealership there were at least half
a dozen that could have been driven away that day by anyone who had the
cash and the inclination.
Cars become "used" only after someone has initially bought them and
driven them. You won't find any used Smarts if nobody is buying new
ones.
12,000 km is only a few weeks' driving, even on a Smart. I wonder why
someone wants to sell the car so quickly.
dow
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> 12,000 km is only a few weeks' driving
Pardon ?
What's your yearly mileage ?
Graham
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
| -> > They're like tractor-trailers, with huge, long, double-deck trailers.
-> > They were invented to carry large numbers of commuters from the apartment
-> > complexes in which they live to the factories, etc., in response to the
-> > acute fuel shortage caused by the Yankee embargo.
-> Any pics anywhere ?
-> Graham
I may have taken one or two, but locating them would be a problem.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
| -> > > In Germany, the Zeppelin company is now back in business, with the main
-> > > objective of making cargo-carrying airships.
-> >
-> > Alright! I hadn't heard that, but it's very good news.
-> No, it's pointless and stupid. A good wind and off they go somewhere you did
-> want.
-> You might as well start replacing bulk carriers with sailing yachts.
-> Graham
Big airships like the Hindenberg and the Graf Zeppelin could cruise at
airspeeds of around 100 km/h. They didn't go up to altitudes where
the jet-streams blow. At low altitudes, and by taking care to avoid
major storms, they could handle any winds that were likely to be
encountered.
Airships are like sea-ships. The bigger they are, the faster they can
go, unless some radically different technology, such as hydrofoils,
changes the equations. That's why, until quite recently, the "Blue
Riband" prize for the fastest Atlantic crossing was held by very large
liners. (Now, it's held by a hydrofoil craft.) Small blimps, such as
the ones we see cruising over sporting events, cannot go fast, and are
very vulnerable to the wind. But large airships, such as the ones that
were around in the 1930s, and that may fairly soon be around again, can
go much faster, and are much less vulnerable.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
| -> > 12,000 km is only a few weeks' driving
-> Pardon ?
-> What's your yearly mileage ?
-> Graham
I drive only about 20,000 km per year. Many people do 50,000, or more.
dow
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4650E3EC.ED4291D3@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> Not my point at all.
>
> In any case cannot the SUV possibly carry 6 ppl ?
>
> Graham
Some like the suburban carry 9.....
>
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4650E64C.991CD22A@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> Sounds like time to increase them in that case !
>
> You could charge for road wear by axle weight for example. That'll bugger
> the
> cost of running an SUV !
>
> Graham
Actually they already do charge by vehicle weight and heavy vehicles burn
more fuel ,so the fuel tax paid is heavier as well.
Now if we can include shoes and bicycles imagine how much more the burden of
road wear would be covered.
Many states like La. are corrupt as hell......the roads don't get fixed even
if you charged $5.00 tax for a gallon of the fuel.
Like the levee money, half of it will disappear in the government machinery.
One of the good aspects of Kitrina was showing up, some of the crooks.
Few will get prosecuted ,but that 's government.
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4650E43C.E4666B6@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> I'm sure that'll make a great selling point.
>
> Graham
Motorcycles and aircraft operaters learned how to use intercomms.
Car drivers may be different.....
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4650E6A0.EDCF811C@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Derek Broughton wrote:
>
>
> No, it's pointless and stupid. A good wind and off they go somewhere you
> didn't
> want.
>
> You might as well start replacing bulk carriers with sailing yachts.
>
> Graham
The wind and solar stance against fossil fuel ....that may be more likely
than you think.
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 3:25 am |
|
"David XXXXXXXX" <david.XXXXXXXX@bayman.org> wrote in message
news:1179732732.912.1179717535@bayman.org...
>-> > > In Germany, the Zeppelin company is now back in business, with the
>main
> -> > > objective of making cargo-carrying airships.
> -> >
> -> > Alright! I hadn't heard that, but it's very good news.
>
> -> No, it's pointless and stupid. A good wind and off they go somewhere
> you did
> -> want.
>
> -> You might as well start replacing bulk carriers with sailing yachts.
>
> -> Graham
>
> Big airships like the Hindenberg and the Graf Zeppelin could cruise at
> airspeeds of around 100 km/h. They didn't go up to altitudes where
> the jet-streams blow. At low altitudes, and by taking care to avoid
> major storms, they could handle any winds that were likely to be
> encountered.
>
> Airships are like sea-ships. The bigger they are, the faster they can
> go, unless some radically different technology, such as hydrofoils,
> changes the equations. That's why, until quite recently, the "Blue
> Riband" prize for the fastest Atlantic crossing was held by very large
> liners. (Now, it's held by a hydrofoil craft.) Small blimps, such as
> the ones we see cruising over sporting events, cannot go fast, and are
> very vulnerable to the wind. But large airships, such as the ones that
> were around in the 1930s, and that may fairly soon be around again, can
> go much faster, and are much less vulnerable.
>
> dow
Some of the blimp designs are a cross between a blimp and an airplane.
A US company has one that looks like a cartoon airplane with "fat figure"
....like Areocraft or Skycat 220 (500 ton cap. "flying wing" blimp) and
Walrus HULA
(cartoon airplane shape also 500- 1000 ton cap.)
it does not hover like a conventional blimp but flys with the wings giving
almost as much lift as the helium.
Another airfoil shape is like a "flying sauce".......though I can't seem to
it at the moment also 500+tons cap.
Both are beyond heavy lift airplane capacties.
There also Helistats a blimp-helicopter cross.....
The military worldwide is looking for blimps to replace heavy lift airplanes
and helicopters.
You can almost name any major country and they have military contracts
pursuing, that option over the last 20 years.
The reason all the blimp "just happen" to have military spec. load capacties
of 200ton,500 ton and 1000ton.
And a average speed of 100kts+.
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Nick Hull 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
| In article <464f788c$0$12440$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> A bus with 40 people does even better. Why not outlaw private
> vehicles entirely? If not that, perhaps something like what
> they did in London where you have to pay a lot of money to
> drive in the city.
Most city busses I see on ly have one or 2 passengers, even less
efficient than a SUV ;)
| |
| Nick Hull 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
| In article <9q46i4-hoc.ln1@pointerstop.ca>,
Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
> Airliners should _also_ be highly discouraged.
They are, homeland security makes it such a hassle to fly that I
drive everywhere ;)
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> > > In Germany, the Zeppelin company is now back in business, with the main
> -> > > objective of making cargo-carrying airships.
> -> >
> -> > Alright! I hadn't heard that, but it's very good news.
>
> -> No, it's pointless and stupid. A good wind and off they go somewhere you did
> -> want.
>
> -> You might as well start replacing bulk carriers with sailing yachts.
>
> -> Graham
>
> Big airships like the Hindenberg and the Graf Zeppelin could cruise at
> airspeeds of around 100 km/h. They didn't go up to altitudes where
> the jet-streams blow. At low altitudes, and by taking care to avoid
> major storms, they could handle any winds that were likely to be
> encountered.
Haven't you heard of the R101 accident ? It crashed due to bad weather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101
After that, airship research in the UK came to an abrupt halt.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> Airships are like sea-ships. The bigger they are, the faster they can
> go,
No. Absolutely WRONG !
> unless some radically different technology, such as hydrofoils,
> changes the equations. That's why, until quite recently, the "Blue
> Riband" prize for the fastest Atlantic crossing was held by very large
> liners.
The speed of crossing was due to the larger engine size !
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
|
Arnold Walker wrote:
> "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> The wind and solar stance against fossil fuel ....that may be more likely
> than you think.
I rather think not. Big Marine diesels are already 50% efficient btw. When you can make
a sailing ship that carries say 100,000 tons of cargo without foundering under an
adverse wind I'll be impressed.
Bear in mind these things have to go through hurricanes and typhoons.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
|
Arnold Walker wrote:
> Some of the blimp designs are a cross between a blimp and an airplane.
> A US company has one that looks like a cartoon airplane with "fat figure"
> ...like Areocraft or Skycat 220 (500 ton cap. "flying wing" blimp) and
> Walrus HULA
> (cartoon airplane shape also 500- 1000 ton cap.)
The Skycat 220 doesn't even exist yet.
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 9:25 am |
|
Nick Hull wrote:
> Derek Broughton <news@pointerstop.ca> wrote:
>
>
> They are, homeland security makes it such a hassle to fly that I
> drive everywhere ;)
Which in fact uses more fuel !
Modern airliner fuel efficiency is much better than using a car for a single
person travelling long distances, never mind reducing the strain on the person.
Graham
| |
| RW Salnick 2007-05-21, 1:25 pm |
| Vaughn Simon brought forth on stone tablets:
> "Arnold Walker" <arnoldwalker@consolidated.net> wrote in message
> news:1179602350_10165@sp6iad.superfeed.net...
>
>
>
> First of all, he has no point because both vehicles are perfectly capable
> of carrying 2 passengers, so the comparison is illogical, and also had nothing
> to do with the subject at hand. Why don't we compare 4 SUV's with one
> passenger each to my Civic with 4 passengers aboard? That would be equally
> illogical.
>
> Second, check your math again. I can't give you an average for SUV's but your
> 17 sounds high. (Some of the new "mini SUVs may skew things downward a bit,
>
It is high... a little.
There seems to be a lot of FUD out there about SUVs. My 1988 3/4T
Suburban (8 passengers
+ luggage, + ski gear - that's what we use it for) gets 16 mpg, loaded
up with 5-6 skiers and their gear.
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-21, 1:25 pm |
| -> Haven't you heard of the R101 accident ? It crashed due to bad weather.
-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101
-> After that, airship research in the UK came to an abrupt halt.
I'm pretty sure it was the R-100 that crashed. The R-101, which had
been flying safely for a while, was dismantled soon afterwards. The
R-100 accident, and the burning of the Hindenberg which happened at
about the same time, led people to lose their nerve where airships were
concerned.
But sheer stupidity led to the R-100 crash. It was on its maiden
flight, I think, to India. A lot of celebrities were on board, and huge
amounts of opulent furnishings (several pianos, etc.) had been loaded
onto the ship. Basically, it was grossly overloaded. When it started
the journey, it was unable to gain proper altitude, but hubris
prevented the captain from ordering it to turn back. It got as far as
France where, in moderately bad weather, it crashed into a hillside.
I've seen the site.
The R-100 and the R-101 were built by rival concerns. When the R-101 wa
finished first and was flying successfully, the R-100 people decided to
make a huge event out of the maiden voyage. They paid the price.
dow
| |
| David Williams 2007-05-21, 1:25 pm |
| -> > unless some radically different technology, such as hydrofoils,
-> > changes the equations. That's why, until quite recently, the "Blue
-> > Riband" prize for the fastest Atlantic crossing was held by very large
-> > liners.
-> The speed of crossing was due to the larger engine size !
-> Graham
Sure. Big ships have larger engines than small ones. But, for a given
power-to-weight ratio, big ships go faster than small ones. If each
passenger effectively pays X dollars for fuel, and if the number of
passengers on a ship is proportional to its weight - which is more or
less true - then the passengers on a large ship will get more speed for
their X dollars than the passengers on a smaller ship.
dow
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46518BDE.DEDA507C@hotmail.com...
>
>
> Arnold Walker wrote:
>
>
> I rather think not. Big Marine diesels are already 50% efficient btw. When
> you can make
> a sailing ship that carries say 100,000 tons of cargo without foundering
> under an
> adverse wind I'll be impressed.
>
> Bear in mind these things have to go through hurricanes and typhoons.
>
> Graham
They usually have a backup diesel for the storms and adverse weather.
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Arnold Walker 2007-05-21, 1:25 pm |
|
"David XXXXXXXX" <david.XXXXXXXX@bayman.org> wrote in message
news:1179761011.912.1179760397@bayman.org...
>-> > unless some radically different technology, such as hydrofoils,
> -> > changes the equations. That's why, until quite recently, the "Blue
> -> > Riband" prize for the fastest Atlantic crossing was held by very
> large
> -> > liners.
>
> -> The speed of crossing was due to the larger engine size !
>
> -> Graham
>
> Sure. Big ships have larger engines than small ones. But, for a given
> power-to-weight ratio, big ships go faster than small ones. If each
> passenger effectively pays X dollars for fuel, and if the number of
> passengers on a ship is proportional to its weight - which is more or
> less true - then the passengers on a large ship will get more speed for
> their X dollars than the passengers on a smaller ship.
>
> dow
In the short term ,cargo and military fast attack(compared to seacargo ship)
will hve more value.
For non cargo, advertizing blimps are a hot item with gaint screen led
monitors and spy blimps like
the Lockheed Martin solar powered blimps.
>
----== Posted via droptable.com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.droptable.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 5:25 pm |
|
RW Salnick wrote:
> There seems to be a lot of FUD out there about SUVs. My 1988 3/4T
> Suburban (8 passengers + luggage, + ski gear - that's what we use it for) gets 16
> mpg, loaded up with 5-6 skiers and their gear.
That sounds like a sensible use for an SUV.
You might even actually need the 4WD in snowy places too !
Graham
| |
| Eeyore 2007-05-21, 5:25 pm |
|
David XXXXXXXX wrote:
> -> Haven't you heard of the R101 accident ? It crashed due to bad weather.
> -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R101
>
> -> After that, airship research in the UK came to an abrupt halt.
>
> I'm pretty sure it was the R-100 that crashed.
No. Read the article.
> The R-101, which had been flying safely for a while, was dismantled soon
> afterwards.
You mean the R100.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R100
" When the R101 crashed and burned, the Air Ministry ordered all R100 flights to
be stopped. Three options were considered: a complete refit of R100 and
continuation of tests for the eventual construction of R102; static testing of
R100 and retention of about 300 staff to keep the programme 'ticking over'; or
retention of staff and the scrapping of the airship. Eventually it was decided
to sell the R100 for scrap in November 1931. The entire framework of the ship
was flattened by machinery and sold for less than £600. "
> The R-100 accident,
R101 accident.
> and the burning of the Hindenberg which happened at about the same time, led
> people to lose their nerve where airships were concerned.
With **GOOD REASON** !!!!
> But sheer stupidity led to the R-100 crash.
R101 crash. And it wasn | | |