|
Home > Archive > Alternative Power sources > July 2007 > Re: 2008 Smart commuter car gets 40 mpg and will selling in USA for$12k.
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]
| Author |
Re: 2008 Smart commuter car gets 40 mpg and will selling in USA for$12k.
|
|
| Vaughn Simon 2007-07-02, 5:25 pm |
|
"Balanced View" <Nill@nill.net> wrote in message news:f6bpn4$kho$1@aioe.org...
> You smash ANY vehicle into a concrete wall at 70mph and it will not fair any
> better.
Nonsense. I remain impressed with the Smart crash test video, but the
above statement is simply not true. What makes you think that the Smart (rated
at 3 stars) would do as well as a vehicle rated at 4 or 5 stars?
If I had to crash into a Jersey barrier at 70 MPH, I would probably choose
something like a Peterbuilt. In any event, you can be sure that the Smart would
be well down on my list of choices.
Vaughn
| |
|
|
On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 18:27:52 GMT, "no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote:
>IOW, you want to force your idea world plan upon others by having someone
>force the price of gasoline up to $15/gal. Would you be upset if that
>someone was Exxon/Mobil and raised their profit even more than today?
No one, least of all me, paying just about the highest post tax fuel
price *in the world*, is forcing a price rise on the Americans.
Profligate consumption by Americans and fighting a war in the worlds
highest oil producing region is doing that without any outside
assistance. I have absolutely no problem *at all* with oil companies
making profit. Locating, and then getting oil out of the ground costs
a hell of a lot of money and carries huge risk of failure. Wasting
oil in huge vehicles, that only exist because of a dodge to avoid
corporate taxes (CAFE), to usually transport one or two lazy humans
being really bugs me though.
--
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-07-04, 5:25 pm |
|
"Mike" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BLmdnbbi___5fxbbRVnyhQA@pipex.net...
> Wasting
> oil in huge vehicles, that only exist because of a dodge to avoid
> corporate taxes (CAFE), to usually transport one or two lazy humans
> being really bugs me though.
I agree. I am not too sure that I would use the word "lazy" though.
"Uninformed" is better, "uncaring" might be another possibility, but the real
problem is lack of leadership and terrible regulation by our government. This
problem has existed long enough that both the Democrats and the Republicans can
share responsibility. The odd thing is, that even with the obvious warts, the
CAFE regulations stand out as one of the world's most amazing regulatory
successes. Imagine what the world would be without them. I remember when
anything over 10 MPG was considered great. I also remember when the first EPA
regulations actually reduced fleet gas mileage by the idiotic means of measuring
pollutant generation "per gallon" rather than "per mile".
As small cars go, a Civic is not really all that small, but when I drive mine to
work tomorrow morning, I will feel like I am in a kiddy car compared to the
other hulks on the road.
Vaughn
| |
| no spam 2007-07-05, 9:25 am |
| >>IOW, you want to force your idea world plan upon others by having someone
>
> No one, least of all me, paying just about the highest post tax fuel
> price *in the world*, is forcing a price rise on the Americans.
> Profligate consumption by Americans and fighting a war in the worlds
But what was edited out of the msg was the fact that someone wanted to make
gas $15/gal to stop people from driving.
> a hell of a lot of money and carries huge risk of failure. Wasting
> oil in huge vehicles, that only exist because of a dodge to avoid
> corporate taxes (CAFE), to usually transport one or two lazy humans
> being really bugs me though.
So you really think that big cars/trucks/suvs exist and are bought ONLY
because the auto companies build them? Are you naive, blind or just
ignorant? Big autos exist because that's what people want! Don't blame a
company because finds a way around a government dictate to provide a legal
product people want to buy. Blame the government for trying to micromanage
people's lives.
So it bugs you people are lazy. Fine, whine and moan all you want but don't
try to use the government to force your belief's upon others. How would you
feel if I said people living a vegetarian life style bugs me and I some how
managed to get the government to put a $5/pound tax on all veggie products
sold in the US?
IOW, its my life and unless you have some positively conclusive evidence
that my actions are causing major consequential harm to others then you and
especially the government should just stay out of it. FYI, someone using
'more than his fair share' of something does not meet my standard unless its
water in a lifeboat.
| |
| no spam 2007-07-05, 9:25 am |
| >> Wasting
>
> I agree. I am not too sure that I would use the word "lazy" though.
> "Uninformed" is better, "uncaring" might be another possibility, but the
> real problem is lack of leadership and terrible regulation by our
> government. This problem has existed long enough that both the Democrats
> and the Republicans can
And you think the government should 'take care' of you? PLEASE go back and
read some history of governments! More harm has come to people from their
OWN government than any other area.
For another thing, for the most part governments should not lead, they
should (in almost every case) follow what the people want.
> share responsibility. The odd thing is, that even with the obvious warts,
> the CAFE regulations stand out as one of the world's most amazing
> regulatory successes. Imagine what the world would be without them. I
> remember when anything over 10 MPG was considered great. I also remember
> when the first EPA regulations actually reduced fleet gas mileage by the
> idiotic means of measuring pollutant generation "per gallon" rather than
> "per mile".
We'd probably be better off today w/o it. The free market tends to produce
much better ideas than one where people are spending a lot of time trying to
work around government rules. Read about how much government rules have
'helped' the advancement of the electric car. There were all kinds of
people, from PhD's in labs to 'kooks' in their basements, working on all
kinds of electric cars in the mid 70's but because of all the 'help' the
government handed out nothing came of them. The government 'help' never
went to any of the basement expermenters only to people who would made their
money by researching. That's like telling someone you will keep them on the
payroll until all the leaves are off your yard. They will come in and pick
up one leaf a day until you are broke.
There are very few solutions out there which have came from the government
seeing a problem and throwing tax dollars at it until it was solved.
| |
| Balanced View 2007-07-05, 1:25 pm |
| no spam wrote:
>
> And you think the government should 'take care' of you? PLEASE go back and
> read some history of governments!
The Government is supposed to plan for the common good, planning ahead
to avoid disaster is what it's
supposed to do.
> More harm has come to people from their
> OWN government than any other area.
>
Tell that to all the people whose lives have been saved by government
intervention through seat belt and airbag regulation,
not to mention clean air/water regulations and a huge variety of labor laws.
> For another thing, for the most part governments should not lead, they
> should (in almost every case) follow what the people want.
>
>
>
Only within the guidelines of a countries Constitution, anything beyond
that requires a change to the Constitution
>
> We'd probably be better off today w/o it. The free market tends to produce
> much better ideas than one where people are spending a lot of time trying to
> work around government rules.
Only when there is actually competition. Before the Japanese entered the
market the big three were more than happy
sell us two ton war wagons based on buggy frames.
> Read about how much government rules have
> 'helped' the advancement of the electric car. There were all kinds of
> people, from PhD's in labs to 'kooks' in their basements, working on all
> kinds of electric cars in the mid 70's but because of all the 'help' the
> government handed out nothing came of them.
I was there and I don't recall much R&D in that department
> The government 'help' never
> went to any of the basement expermenters only to people who would made their
> money by researching.
Researchers who likely worked for the big three in dusty corner at the
back of the R&D labs
> That's like telling someone you will keep them on the
> payroll until all the leaves are off your yard. They will come in and pick
> up one leaf a day until you are broke.
>
The basic mechanics of EV's is well known, the research is needed for
new and better batteries, which thanks to
research we now have
> There are very few solutions out there which have came from the government
> seeing a problem and throwing tax dollars at it until it was solved.
>
>
There's hundreds of them, a few I mentioned above.
| |
| no spam 2007-07-05, 1:25 pm |
| >>>> oil in huge vehicles, that only exist because of a dodge to avoid
> The Government is supposed to plan for the common good, planning ahead
Ok. I think we can agree that reducing crime is something the government
should do for the common good. Given the fact it can be proven by studies
that people who attend a Christian church at least two times a month commit
very few crimes. Therefore I submit for your approval a law that, for the
common good of the nation, that all people be required to attend a
government approved Christian church. Would you support such a law?
My point here is: I can come up with a lot more examples of things the
government could do that would increase the common good but it would violate
the rights of the individual.
> to avoid disaster is what it's
> supposed to do.>
What disaster? The 'end of oil'? That's a problem but I don't think it
will become a disaster because we will be able to come up with something to
replace it long before it happens. Man made global warming? If you look at
the facts you can't even be sure that long term global warming is happening
much less prove that man can cause or stop it.
>
> Tell that to all the people whose lives have been saved by government
> intervention through seat belt and airbag regulation,
Hate to sound hard hearted but the number of people saved by those actions
are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people killed
by their own governemts. Did you know that Stalin killed more Russians
(citizens of the USSR if you want to be more correct) than Hitler did?
Closer to home ever heard of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? It ONLY
killed about 130 people but this was run by the US government. Again I
point out to you that allowing a government, any government, to have a lot
of power is a dangerous thing.
But given you logic should we not regulate that all cars be built to race
car standards and all drivers wear race drivers protective gear? After all
a NASCAR driver can hit a concrete wall at 150+mph and not only live through
it but climb out of the car under his own power.
> not to mention clean air/water regulations and a huge variety of labor
> laws.
Those have saved millions upon millons of people? They would have to have
before they even come close to the damage only two governments have done to
their own people, the USSR and Cambodia.
> Only within the guidelines of a countries Constitution, anything beyond
> that requires a change to the Constitution
Yeah right. Until the courts discover something new in the Constitution.
Tell me how a local government allowing a prayer to be said at its meetings
violating the 1st amendment's rule of the US Congress establishing a
religion. I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about a local or
state government being allowed to establish a religion ONLY the US Congress.
> Only when there is actually competition. Before the Japanese entered the
> market the big three were more than happy
> sell us two ton war wagons based on buggy frames.
Thank you for proving my point. If the government had left things alone
competition would have solved the problem. The odds it would have happened
faster and better as well. FYI, one reason it took so long was government
interference. In their attempt to stay in power the power's that be put in
all kinds of road blocks for all those Japanese cars.
>
> I was there and I don't recall much R&D in that department
There wasn't a lot but what there was went to big companies, who would kick
some of it back to the elected people who gave out the money to start with.
> Researchers who likely worked for the big three in dusty corner at the
> back of the R&D labs
But it got money for the big three who did very little with it but run PR
campaigns.
>
> The basic mechanics of EV's is well known, the research is needed for new
> and better batteries, which thanks to research we now have
Let's see. . .its been 25 years since the infamous OPEC oil embargo and we
are JUST NOW getting better batteries!?! But you missed the point. You
give a scientist government money to do research and he knows that as long
as he's 'researching' he's going to get money. Once he finds something the
money train gets derailed. You give a private money to a scientist and he
knows the faster he finds something the faster he starts raking in even more
money.
> There's hundreds of them, a few I mentioned above.
Where??? Have people stopped dieing in car wrecks? If not than the problem
is not solved. Have people stopped being sickened by bad water? If not
than the problem is not solved. Are no workers not hurt due to a company's
action? If not than the problem is not solved.
The ONLY problem I can think of that you could even start to use an example
would be the end of small pox. But that's only one illness out of who know
how many are out there.
| |
| Balanced View 2007-07-05, 5:25 pm |
| no spam wrote:
>
> Ok. I think we can agree that reducing crime is something the government
> should do for the common good. Given the fact it can be proven by studies
> that people who attend a Christian church at least two times a month commit
> very few crimes. Therefore I submit for your approval a law that, for the
> common good of the nation, that all people be required to attend a
> government approved Christian church. Would you support such a law?
>
LOL...If not attending church allows violent tendencies to run amok,
then why does Japan (the most atheistic
nation in the G-7) have its lowest murder rate while the United States
(the most Christian nation in the G-7)
has its highest?
> My point here is: I can come up with a lot more examples of things the
> government could do that would increase the common good but it would violate
> the rights of the individual.
>
That's why there is a Constitution.
>
>
> What disaster? The 'end of oil'? That's a problem but I don't think it
> will become a disaster because we will be able to come up with something to
> replace it long before it happens.
You mean you hope we will. That's what the government is supposed to do,
plan years down the pike.
> Man made global warming? If you look at
> the facts you can't even be sure that long term global warming is happening
> much less prove that man can cause or stop it.
>
I know shitting in my own cave and pissing in the well is a real dumb
idea, as is doing nothing to limit the damage
because " you can't even be sure".
>
>
> Hate to sound hard hearted but the number of people saved by those actions
> are statistically insignificant when compared to the number of people killed
> by their own governemts. Did you know that Stalin killed more Russians
> (citizens of the USSR if you want to be more correct) than Hitler did?
>
LOL...You are talking about a dictatorship, not a democratically elected
government.
> Closer to home ever heard of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment? It ONLY
> killed about 130 people but this was run by the US government. Again I
> point out to you that allowing a government, any government, to have a lot
> of power is a dangerous thing
>
Which is why one must always be vigilant
> But given you logic should we not regulate that all cars be built to race
> car standards and all drivers wear race drivers protective gear? After all
> a NASCAR driver can hit a concrete wall at 150+mph and not only live through
> it but climb out of the car under his own power.
>
Where did you think the idea of crush/crumple zones,airbags and seat
belts came from, or crash helmets for
motorcyclist's? Research was done and determined these things would save
thousands of lives if installed in
consumer cars. If not for government intervention the big three would
still have you in the modern equivalent
of a 64 Ford Galaxies
>
>
> Those have saved millions upon millons of people? They would have to have
> before they even come close to the damage only two governments have done to
> their own people, the USSR and Cambodia.
>
Over the years?Sure have. Before water testing water borne diseases ran
rampant throughout the country,
as did occupational diseases from exposure to toxic dusts and chemicals.
>
>
> Yeah right. Until the courts discover something new in the Constitution.
> Tell me how a local government allowing a prayer to be said at its meetings
> violating the 1st amendment's rule of the US Congress establishing a
> religion.
> I don't remember anything in the US Constitution about a local or
> state government being allowed to establish a religion ONLY the US Congress.
>
By forcing the doctrines of one faith on someone from another.
>
>
>
> Thank you for proving my point. If the government had left things alone
> competition would have solved the problem.
Wrong again
> The odds it would have happened
> faster and better as well. FYI, one reason it took so long was government
> interference. In their attempt to stay in power the power's that be put in
> all kinds of road blocks for all those Japanese cars.
>
>
>
>
> There wasn't a lot but what there was went to big companies, who would kick
> some of it back to the elected people who gave out the money to start with.
>
>
>
>
> But it got money for the big three who did very little with it but run PR
> campaigns.
>
>
>
>
> Let's see. . .its been 25 years since the infamous OPEC oil embargo and we
> are JUST NOW getting better batteries!?! But you missed the point. You
> give a scientist government money to do research and he knows that as long
> as he's 'researching' he's going to get money.
It put men on the moon, developed nuclear power, satellites in space and
developed the internet etc. etc. etc.
> Once he finds something the
> money train gets derailed. You give a private money to a scientist and he
> knows the faster he finds something the faster he starts raking in even more
> money.
>
What world do you live in ? No, the company that funds him gets the cash
and full rights to the product.
>
>
>
> Where??? Have people stopped dieing in car wrecks?
40% of them have.
http://policechiefmagazine.org/maga...issue_id=112003
"Sixty percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed in traffic crashes
were unrestrained."
> If not than the problem
> is not solved.
A damn silly statement, the equivalent of saying " If we can't save them
all we won't try and save any"
> Have people stopped being sickened by bad water? If not
> than the problem is not solved.
A damn silly statement, the equivalent of saying " If we can't save them
all we won't try and save any"
> Are no workers not hurt due to a company's
> action? If not than the problem is not solved.
>
A damn silly statement, the equivalent of saying " If we can't save them
all we won't try and save any"
> The ONLY problem I can think of that you could even start to use an example
> would be the end of small pox. But that's only one illness out of who know
> how many are out there.
Are you nuts? Cholera, Botulism, Typhoid, Salmonella, Dysentery,
Leptospirosis, Polio, TB have virtually
been eliminated due to government regulation.
>
| |
| no spam 2007-07-05, 8:25 pm |
| >>>>>> oil in huge vehicles, that only exist because of a dodge to avoid
>
> LOL...If not attending church allows violent tendencies to run amok, then
> why does Japan (the most atheistic
> nation in the G-7) have its lowest murder rate while the United States
> (the most Christian nation in the G-7)
> has its highest?
Take a course in logic and learn to answer questions put to you.
1) Just because an action has a consequence you can not say that not taking
that action would cause an opposite action to take place.
2) Would you support such a law for the common good?
>
> That's why there is a Constitution.
The Constitution only says what a judge want's it to say. Think of the
freedom of religion in the first amendment and how the courts have ruled
that a LOCAL government posting a religious symbol is some how equal the US
Congress establishing a religion. Care to tell just how someone makes that
leap?
>
> You mean you hope we will. That's what the government is supposed to do,
> plan years down the pike.
So in your opinion the government should do anything it thinks will be good
for the people? That's a scarry thought.
> I know shitting in my own cave and pissing in the well is a real dumb
> idea, as is doing nothing to limit the damage
> because " you can't even be sure".
In that case you can be sure. Its easily proven that typhoid, dysentery and
other bad bugs are spread by human waste. Care to point me to anything that
proves that man is causing global warming? If not can you at least tell me
what man did to warm up the earth to end the last ice age?
>
> LOL...You are talking about a dictatorship, not a democratically elected
> government.
FYI, Hilter was democratically elected. And you still have not answered the
question.
>
> Which is why one must always be vigilant
Again you didn't answer the question. Before I told you did you know about
it? How many other things are out there you might not know about? And yet
you want this same government to run people's lives?
>
> Where did you think the idea of crush/crumple zones,airbags and seat belts
> came from, or crash helmets for
> motorcyclist's? Research was done and determined these things would save
> thousands of lives if installed in
Again no answer to the question placed to you. Are you now or have you ever
been a politician?
If a car can be made to protect someone from a 150MPH crash should the
government force all cars to be made in such a fashion?
> consumer cars. If not for government intervention the big three would
> still have you in the modern equivalent
> of a 64 Ford Galaxies
Bull! As has been pointed out once the government got its hands off a
little and let cars from other countries into the US things changed.
>
> Over the years?Sure have. Before water testing water borne diseases ran
> rampant throughout the country,
> as did occupational diseases from exposure to toxic dusts and chemicals.
I guess if the answer can be turned to support you you'll answer. But there
is no way that these laws have yet came close to saving the number of lives
lost to governments.
>
> By forcing the doctrines of one faith on someone from another.
Huh? There is NOTHING in the US Constitution about the federal government
being able to control what a state or local government does about religion.
Read the the 1st and 10th amendments. The Constitution only forbids the US
Congress to establish a religion it says nothing about an individual state
from doing it. If you read the 10th you can see that it would be easy to
say that its a state's right to do so without interference from the federal
government.
> Wrong again
How so. You clearly imply that it was the competition from the Japanese
cars that started the change in cars, not the government.
> It put men on the moon, developed nuclear power, satellites in space and
> developed the internet etc. etc. etc.
Let's see, went to the moon in 1969, almost 40 years ago. Nuke power, 50
years ago. Satellites, 30 years ago. Internet well that one is tricky but
its at least 30 years old. As the saying goes, what has it done for me
lately? I can't think of any major discovery in the last 10 year. I'm sure
there are some but nothing jumps to mind.
> What world do you live in ? No, the company that funds him gets the cash
> and full rights to the product.
Depends on how smart he is. The suptid ones work under contracts which work
that way. The smarter ones make sure that they get a piece of the action.
>
> 40% of them have.
> "Sixty percent of passenger vehicle occupants killed in traffic crashes
> were unrestrained."
IOW, with all the government money thrown at the problem and with 30 years
of work we still have people dieing in car wrecks. 40% of them protected by
all the government mandated safety systems. Seems to me the problem is still
with us. Therefore doesn't fit the mold.
> A damn silly statement, the equivalent of saying " If we can't save them
> all we won't try and save any"
Nope, I clearly said name a problem SOLVED not a problem REDUCED.
>
> A damn silly statement, the equivalent of saying " If we can't save them
> all we won't try and save any"
IOW, the same answer billions of dollars thrown at a problem and its not
solved just reduced.
> A damn silly statement, the equivalent of saying " If we can't save them
> all we won't try and save any"
IOW, the same answer billions of dollars thrown at a problem and its not
solved just reduced.
Old cop joke. Guy rolls through a stop sigh and a cop pulls him over. Guy
is a loud mouth and is giving the cop a hard time whining and moaning about
how he slowed way down. The cop tells him the sign says stop not slow way
down. After a while the cop has had enough and tells the drive he'd like to
show him something. Driver steps out of the car and the cop starts beating
the living crap out of him with his baton. After a coupld dozen blows the
cop steps back and ask the driver if he'd like for the cop to stop hitting
him or just slow way down.
Reduced is now solved.
Now can you point out ONE AND ONLY ONE problem that the government has
solved throwing money at it?
> Are you nuts? Cholera, Botulism, Typhoid, Salmonella, Dysentery,
> Leptospirosis, Polio, TB have virtually
> been eliminated due to government regulation.
There's one of those pesky qualifiers in there, "virtually". Is it nice
that these thing have been "virtually" eliminated? Sure. But none of this
shows how the government has solved anything no matter how much money it has
spent.
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-07-05, 8:25 pm |
|
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:T27ji.36204$G23.14093@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>
> PLEASE go back and read some history of governments!
My Bachelor's degree is in Business but my Master's work is in Public
Administration. In the process, I have read plenty of history of governments
and I have thought and profusely plenty about governments, public
administration, public policy and its problems. As frustrating and as
inefficient and as wrong-headed as government often is, there is an
indispensable place for it in our society.
>
>
> We'd probably be better off today w/o it. [The CAFE regulations]
Without CAFE, we would NOT be driving around in honest 30+ MPG cars
today, the planet would be far worse off, and the oil producing countries would
own and control us to a far greater extent than they do today.
> There are very few solutions out there which have came from the government
> seeing a problem and throwing tax dollars at it until it was solved.
Driven on any highways lately?
Vaughn
| |
| Balanced View 2007-07-06, 3:25 am |
| no spam wrote:
>
> Take a course in logic and learn to answer questions put to you.
>
The question is based on faulty premise, it would not be logical to
answer it
> 1) Just because an action has a consequence you can not say that not taking
> that action would cause an opposite action to take place.
>
That's how the question was based, cause and effect
> 2) Would you support such a law for the common good?
>
No, because it's based on a faulty premise
>
>
> The Constitution only says what a judge want's it to say. Think of the
> freedom of religion in the first amendment and how the courts have ruled
> that a LOCAL government posting a religious symbol is some how equal the US
> Congress establishing a religion. Care to tell just how someone makes that
> leap?
>
>
>
Try checking the reasoning behind the decision. It was a government
building, there is no state religion in the
USA you worship who and how you choose.
>
> So in your opinion the government should do anything it thinks will be good
> for the people? That's a scarry thought.
>
That' s not what I said, planning ahead is what the government is
supposed to do. If there is a pending disaster
down the road they do what they can do according to what the
constitution allows
>
>
> In that case you can be sure. Its easily proven that typhoid, dysentery and
> other bad bugs are spread by human waste. Care to point me to anything that
> proves that man is causing global warming? If not can you at least tell me
> what man did to warm up the earth to end the last ice age?
>
Burned up all the easily available hydrocarbons that took several
hundred million years to produce in less than 200 years.
>
>
> FYI, Hilter was democratically elected. And you still have not answered the
> question.
>
>
No, he wasn't Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote
in the elections that occurred before he
became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him
was generally quite strong.
>
I knew that one was coming up, and you are wrong. In the first election,
held on March 13, 1932, Hitler
received 30 percent of the vote, losing badly to Hindenburg's 49.6
percent. But because Hindenburg had
just missed an absolute majority, a run-off election was scheduled a
month later. On April 10, 1932, Hitler
increased his share of the vote to 37 percent, but Hindenburg again won,
this time with a decisive 53 percent.
A clear majority of the voters had thus declared their preference for a
democratic republic. On July 31, 1932,
another election was held, the Nazis won 230 out of 608 seats in the
Reichstag, making them its largest party.
Still, they did not command the majority needed to elect Hitler
Chancellor. In another election on November
6, 1932, the Nazis lost 34 seats in the Reichstag, reducing their total
to 196. In all elections ever held in Germany
Hilter never won majority or was voted into power democratically.
>
>
> Again you didn't answer the question. Before I told you did you know about
> it? How many other things are out there you might not know about? And yet
> you want this same government to run people's lives?
>
"Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy
and not confidence which prescribes limited
constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In
questions of power, then, let no more be heard
of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of
the Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1799
"Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips,
(1811-1884)
>
>
> Again no answer to the question placed to you. Are you now or have you ever
> been a politician?
>
No, and when did you stop beating your wife?
I did, it's already been done. The seat belts, airbags crush and crumple
zones are the mass produced
equivalent of roll cages and protective clothing for the environment the
cars travel in.
> If a car can be made to protect someone from a 150MPH crash should the
> government force all cars to be made in such a fashion?
>
There you go with hypothetical questions again, "what if". 150 mph? It's
not likely it is possible for
a highway environment. Even in Nascar where all cars are roughly the
same weight, traveling the
same speed in the same direction, on a set course, not all drivers in
accidents survive
or simply walk away.
To answer your question would require qualifiers, if the technology that
allows the car could be made
at a price that people could afford and the companies could make a
profit, yes. If not ,do what they have
been doing, do the R&D and make gradual improvements.
>
>
> Bull! As has been pointed out once the government got its hands off a
> little and let cars from other countries into the US things changed.
>
Never heard the Phrase " What's good for general motors is good for the
country". That was the president
of GM telling the Government what to do.
>
>
> I guess if the answer can be turned to support you you'll answer. But there
> is no way that these laws have yet came close to saving the number of lives
> lost to governments.
>
To start off, this part of the thread we were talking about the
situation in the USA and not the former USSR.
The USSR is the straw man you set up
>
>
> Huh? There is NOTHING in the US Constitution about the federal government
> being able to control what a state or local government does about religion.
> Read the the 1st and 10th amendments. The Constitution only forbids the US
> Congress to establish a religion it says nothing about an individual state
> from doing it. If you read the 10th you can see that it would be easy to
> say that its a state's right to do so without interference from the federal
> government.
>
>
>
>
> How so. You clearly imply that it was the competition from the Japanese
> cars that started the change in cars, not the government.
>
No, I said there was no competition until the Japanese arrived on the
market. It was the big three blocking entry
into the market through their lobbyists, not the government.
>
>
> Let's see, went to the moon in 1969, almost 40 years ago. Nuke power, 50
> years ago. Satellites, 30 years ago. Internet well that one is tricky but
> its at least 30 years old. As the saying goes, what has it done for me
> lately? I can't think of any major discovery in the last 10 year. I'm sure
> there are some but nothing jumps to mind.
>
The internet as we now know it dates from about 1995. What researchers
are working on now ? I suggest
you read the Scientific American or other medical and science journals.
>
>
>
> Depends on how smart he is. The suptid ones work under contracts which work
> that way. The smarter ones make sure that they get a piece of the action.
>
>
>
It's standard policy in industry, what you develop on their dime is theirs.
>
>
>
> IOW, with all the government money thrown at the problem and with 30 years
> of work we still have people dieing in car wrecks. 40% of them protected by
> all the government mandated safety systems. Seems to me the problem is still
> with us. Therefore doesn't fit the mold.
>
>
>
>
> Nope, I clearly said name a problem SOLVED not a problem REDUCED.
>
>
>
>
> IOW, the same answer billions of dollars thrown at a problem and its not
> solved just reduced.
>
>
>
>
> IOW, the same answer billions of dollars thrown at a problem and its not
> solved just reduced.
>
> Old cop joke. Guy rolls through a stop sigh and a cop pulls him over. Guy
> is a loud mouth and is giving the cop a hard time whining and moaning about
> how he slowed way down. The cop tells him the sign says stop not slow way
> down. After a while the cop has had enough and tells the drive he'd like to
> show him something. Driver steps out of the car and the cop starts beating
> the living crap out of him with his baton. After a coupld dozen blows the
> cop steps back and ask the driver if he'd like for the cop to stop hitting
> him or just slow way down.
>
> Reduced is now solved.
>
> Now can you point out ONE AND ONLY ONE problem that the government has
> solved throwing money at it?
>
You are simply parsing words, the human condition is that there is no
way to totally solve anything.
The best you can do is make things better than they are and strive to
make further improvements,
most reasoning adults realize this. I've already shown you how
regulation has made huge changes in
bettering the human condition in this country. All it is is that you
cannot admit it without loosing your grip
on right wing dogma
>
>
> There's one of those pesky qualifiers in there, "virtually". Is it nice
> that these thing have been "virtually" eliminated? Sure. But none of this
> shows how the government has solved anything no matter how much money it has
> spent.
>
>
Government regulation in this country has turned diseases what were once
regular scourages of mankind
into very rare events. If you can't see that then you truly are in need
of education
| |
| no spam 2007-07-06, 8:25 pm |
| >> PLEASE go back and read some history of governments!
>
> My Bachelor's degree is in Business but my Master's work is in Public
> Administration. In the process, I have read plenty of history of
> governments and I have thought and profusely plenty about governments,
> public administration, public policy and its problems. As frustrating
> and as inefficient and as wrong-headed as government often is, there is an
> indispensable place for it in our society.
So you know that as governments get more and more power they get more and
more dangerous. And yet you want to give more and more power to the
government?
>
> Without CAFE, we would NOT be driving around in honest 30+ MPG cars
> today, the planet would be far worse off, and the oil producing countries
> would own and control us to a far greater extent than they do today.
And this wag is based on what? Seems to me that after 1973 a lot of small
foreign started appearing. Well before CAFE.
>
> Driven on any highways lately?
If you are suggesting that the highway system is a problem SOLVED by the
government you better get out of the sun for a while. Try driving through
Nashville or better yet Atlanta on the interstate. Atlanta is the only
place I know of that you can almost always count on doing on more than 35
(usually more like 15) at some point in your drive on an interstate highway
without an accident causing it.
| |
| no spam 2007-07-06, 8:25 pm |
| >>>>>>>> oil in huge vehicles, that only exist because of a dodge to avoid
>
> The question is based on faulty premise, it would not be logical to answer
> it
It was using an extreme example to make a point but the premise was not
faulty. You just don't want to admit that your 'common good' argument is a
bad thing when it is being used to do something YOU don't like.
>
> That's how the question was based, cause and effect
Sigh. . .let me see if I can make it simple enough for you to understand.
Hum. . .OK, say a rock is sitting on the edge of a cliff and you come up and
push it what happens? It falls. Now if you DON'T push it doesn't move
farther from the cliff edge.
> No, because it's based on a faulty premise
I'm shocked! An answer. The point I was trying to make with such a silly
question was that one person's good plan to change things for 'the common
good' looks silly to someone else. The plan to help the common good by
making gas cost $15/gallon is just as silly because of the damage it would
do the to US economy.
> Try checking the reasoning behind the decision. It was a government
> building, there is no state religion in the
> USA you worship who and how you choose.
It was a CITY building not a FEDERAL building. Now how can you make a leap
from a religious symbol in a local government building to the US Congress
establishing a religion?
>
> That' s not what I said, planning ahead is what the government is supposed
> to do. If there is a pending disaster
> down the road they do what they can do according to what the constitution
> allows
Hum. . .Seems to me that if there is a 'disaster' the government can do a
lot of things. Bringing in a little more history into it take a peek at what
the Lincoln, FDR and Truman administrations did. The big one was FDR packing
the US Supreme Court to get his pet laws ruled constitutional.
> Burned up all the easily available hydrocarbons that took several hundred
> million years to produce in less than 200 years.
FYI, there were very humans around when the last ice age ended. I don't
think the ones around were burning that much hydrocarbons.
> No, he wasn't Hitler never had more than 37 percent of the popular vote in
> the elections that occurred before he
> became Chancellor. And the opposition among the 63 percent against him was
> generally quite strong.
> Hilter never won majority or was voted into power democratically.
Ok, a bit of mis-speak (if that's a word) he came to power in a democratic
nation. He used system to gain power, he wasn't installed in a coup d'éétat.
I guess an extreme example would be if President Ford had managed to install
himself as President for life. He'd be a dictator, never elected but became
the legitimate President.
>
> "Free government is founded in jealousy, not confidence. It is jealousy
> and not confidence which prescribes limited
> constitutions, to bind those we are obliged to trust with power.... In
> questions of power, then, let no more be heard
> of confidence in men, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the
> Constitution." -- Thomas Jefferson, 1799
If you want to quote Jefferson;
"To preserve our independence... We must make our election between economy
and liberty, or profusion and servitude. "
"To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
> "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty." -- Wendell Phillips,
> (1811-1884)
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
But the quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the government has
slowly gained more and more power. Think back a few years ago, would you
have thought that the government would have the power to tell you that you
can not smoke in a public place, not be served a meal cooked the way you
want at a public restaurant or how you shower? What part of your life will
it be controlling a few years from now?
I haven't, she still can't count cards well enough to win in either cribbage
or bridge.
[color=darkred]
> I did, it's already been done. The seat belts, airbags crush and crumple
> zones are the mass produced
> equivalent of roll cages and protective clothing for the environment the
> cars travel in.
But people die each and every day because of government inaction. How many
more people must die due to the money hungry car companies and their bought
and paid for lackeys in Congress do what they know could save those lives?
> There you go with hypothetical questions again, "what if". 150 mph? It's
> not likely it is possible for
> a highway environment. Even in Nascar where all cars are roughly the same
> weight, traveling the
> same speed in the same direction, on a set course, not all drivers in
> accidents survive
> or simply walk away.
My point is simple. The government could save hundreds, in not thousands, of
lives every year by simply requiring all cars in the United States to meet
the 2007 NASCAR safety standards and all drivers wear the safety equipment
required by the 2007 NASCAR rules. Yet this has not been done. Using your
logic that the government should do what is in the common good, and I think
saving all those lives would be for the common good, then this law should be
passed immediately. It may not prevent all highway deaths but even you would
have to admit that it would reduce them significantly. How many deaths must
a law prevent before you would be willing to support it?
> To answer your question would require qualifiers, if the technology that
> allows the car could be made
> at a price that people could afford and the companies could make a profit,
> yes. If not ,do what they have
> been doing, do the R&D and make gradual improvements.
Good logic there but it doesn't follow the same line of thinking that
started all of this: forcing the price of gas to $15/gallon to reduce the
number of 'gas hogs' on the road because the reduced use of gas in the US is
for the common good.
> Never heard the Phrase " What's good for general motors is good for the
> country". That was the president
> of GM telling the Government what to do.
Thanks for making my point again. Letting the government run things screws
them up. The government did what was good for GM which came back and bit GM
and the American people in the backside. If the government had stayed out of
it GM would have most likely saw the light and started making some small
cars much sooner to compete with the little Jap cars and they would have not
been almost went under.
> To start off, this part of the thread we were talking about the situation
> in the USA and not the former USSR.
> The USSR is the straw man you set up
Yes and no. It all started about using the power of the government,
specifically the US government but all governments in general, to raise gas
prices to force people to stop driving because using less gas was in the
'common good'. It then morphed into a 'what else would support the
government doing for the common good' thread. It has moved into other areas
as well, such as governments are the single biggest killer of its citizens.
Miss this?
[color=darkred]
>
> No, I said there was no competition until the Japanese arrived on the
> market. It was the big three blocking entry
> into the market through their lobbyists, not the government.
Now that's deluded. It wasn't the power of the government keeping the small
cars out? What was it union workers employed by the big three standing on
the docks?
> The internet as we now know it dates from about 1995. What researchers are
> working on now ? I suggest
> you read the Scientific American or other medical and science journals.
Sort of but not quite. What happened was the net was releasing a government
program to the public.
BTW, what major discovery in the past 10 years can you think of? By major I
mean something along the lines of manned flight or nuke power.
> It's standard policy in industry, what you develop on their dime is
> theirs.
That it is but there are many non-standard contracts out there. If you show
you are good you'd be amazed what kind of non-standard things a company will
be willing to put into a contract. If you recall it used to be the industry
standard to pay a performer (singer, actor, etc.) for their 'work' then
everything else belonged to the company. It ain't that way now.
>
> You are simply parsing words, the human condition is that there is no way
> to totally solve anything.
Really? How many cases of small pox were there world wide last year? I would
call that problem solved. There are ways of solving many of the problems out
there but I would not like to seem them used. Mainly because they call for
total governmental control.
> The best you can do is make things better than they are and strive to make
> further improvements,
> most reasoning adults realize this. I've already shown you how regulation
> has made huge changes in
> bettering the human condition in this country. All it is is that you
> cannot admit it without loosing your grip
> on right wing dogma
If you really get to know me you would find out that I lean more toward the
liberian side. The live and let live way of thinking. If you want to live in
such a way to make sure that no one in your house gets food poisoning by
following operating room cleaning regiment, fine but don't try to force me
to do the same thing by using the force of the government.
Just because you believe something don't try to use the government to force
to pay for it.
> Government regulation in this country has turned diseases what were once
> regular scourages of mankind
> into very rare events. If you can't see that then you truly are in need of
> education
Actually education by itself would eliminate almost all of the diseases you
mentioned. BTW, if you read the Old Testament you will find that by
following all the kosher rules you can avoid almost all of them.
| |
| Balanced View 2007-07-07, 3:25 am |
| no spam wrote:
>
> It was using an extreme example to make a point but the premise was not
> faulty. You just don't want to admit that your 'common good' argument is a
> bad thing when it is being used to do something YOU don't like.
>
The common good as it pertains to protections provided by the
Constitution, NOT the former Soviet Union
>
>
> Sigh. . .let me see if I can make it simple enough for you to understand.
> Hum. . .OK, say a rock is sitting on the edge of a cliff and you come up and
> push it what happens? It falls. Now if you DON'T push it doesn't move
> farther from the cliff edge.
>
>
Using Gravity and inertia to discuss human nature is ridiculous
>
> I'm shocked! An answer. The point I was trying to make with such a silly
> question was that one person's good plan to change things for 'the common
> good' looks silly to someone else. The plan to help the common good by
> making gas cost $15/gallon is just as silly because of the damage it would
> do the to US economy.
>
That's why research is done before making any kind of change. According
to the research the Smart car
gets great gas mileage, has a three star crash test rating and like the
Prius they'll sell a pile of them to people
that read the writing on the wall.
>
>
>
> It was a CITY building not a FEDERAL building. Now how can you make a leap
> from a religious symbol in a local government building to the US Congress
> establishing a religion?
>
>
It was a court house where the rule of law is supposed to take place,
not promote religion.
>
>
> Hum. . .Seems to me that if there is a 'disaster' the government can do a
> lot of things. Bringing in a little more history into it take a peek at what
> the Lincoln, FDR and Truman administrations did. The big one was FDR packing
> the US Supreme Court to get his pet laws ruled constitutional.
>
>
>
Sure can, that's why you have to take responsibility as citizen and keep
an eye on what's going on.
>
> FYI, there were very humans around when the last ice age ended. I don't
> think the ones around were burning that much hydrocarbons.
>
>
>
There will always be cycles in temperature, but as I said before pissing
in the well and shitting in your own cave
just because you can doesn't mean it's smart.
>
>
>
> Ok, a bit of mis-speak (if that's a word) he came to power in a democratic
> nation. He used system to gain power, he wasn't installed in a coup d'éétat.
> I guess an extreme example would be if President Ford had managed to install
> himself as President for life. He'd be a dictator, never elected but became
> the legitimate President.
>
>
>
>
> If you want to quote Jefferson;
>
> "To preserve our independence... We must make our election between economy
> and liberty, or profusion and servitude. "
>
> "To compel a man to subsidize with his taxes the propagation of ideas which
> he disbelieves and abhors is sinful and tyrannical."
>
Which is why you exercise your rights as a citizen, get off you XXX and
do something about policy you don't like.
>
>
> "Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary
> safety deserve neither liberty nor safety" Benjamin Franklin
>
> But the quotes have nothing to do with the fact that the government has
> slowly gained more and more power. Think back a few years ago, would you
> have thought that the government would have the power to tell you that you
> can not smoke in a public place, not be served a meal cooked the way you
> want at a public restaurant or how you shower? What part of your life will
> it be controlling a few years from now?
>
What's strange about any of that? The majority wanted these things to
occur, I don't know what your
on about restaurant meals or how you shower.
>
>
> I haven't, she still can't count cards well enough to win in either cribbage
> or bridge.
>
>
>
>
> But people die each and every day because of government inaction. How many
> more people must die due to the money hungry car companies and their bought
> and paid for lackeys in Congress do what they know could save those lives?
>
>
>
> My point is simple. The government could save hundreds, in not thousands, of
> lives every year by simply requiring all cars in the United States to meet
> the 2007 NASCAR safety standards and all drivers wear the safety equipment
> required by the 2007 NASCAR rules. Yet this has not been done.
But then you would be screaming, or someone like you, about your rights
again
> Using your
> logic that the government should do what is in the common good, and I think
> saving all those lives would be for the common good, then this law should be
> passed immediately. It may not prevent all highway deaths but even you would
> have to admit that it would reduce them significantly. How many deaths must
> a law prevent before you would be willing to support it?
>
Since when did you come to this side of the argument? further up the
thread you claimed the government
couldn't do anything and that their regulations have little effect on
saving lives. I've been the one stating that
all along government regulation has saved lives not you.
>
>
> Good logic there but it doesn't follow the same line of thinking that
> started all of this: forcing the price of gas to $15/gallon to reduce the
> number of 'gas hogs' on the road because the reduced use of gas in the US is
> for the common good.
>
>
>
No, the thread was started about American naysayers to the Smart car
>
> Thanks for making my point again. Letting the government run things screws
> them up. The government did what was good for GM which came back and bit GM
> and the American people in the backside. If the government had stayed out of
> it GM would have most likely saw the light and started making some small
> cars much sooner to compete with the little Jap cars and they would have not
> been almost went under.
>
>
Do you alway contradict yourself in one paragraph?
>
>
> Yes and no. It all started about using the power of the government,
> specifically the US government but all governments in general, to raise gas
> prices to force people to stop driving because using less gas was in the
> 'common good'. It then morphed into a 'what else would support the
> government doing for the common good' thread. It has moved into other areas
> as well, such as governments are the single biggest killer of its citizens.
>
No, it started up about American naysayers to the Smart car and the idea
of driving small cars, you're the
one that insisted in putting in all the broad absolutist statements.
>
>
> Miss this?
>
>
>
> Now that's deluded. It wasn't the power of the government keeping the small
> cars out? What was it union workers employed by the big three standing on
> the docks
>
I don't know how much clearer the point can be made, the " Free Market"
was not free, it was tightly controlled
by the big three.
>
>
> Sort of but not quite. What happened was the net was releasing a government
> program to the public.
> BTW, what major discovery in the past 10 years can you think of? By major I
> mean something along the lines of manned flight or nuke power.
>
Oh come on , those are once every 100 years events. Modern break
throughs ? Tons. DNA mapping,
discovery of stem cells, digital cameras, satellite TV, cell phones,
Islet cell transplantation, digital visual
identification , pacemakers, Insulin pumps and blood sugar meters etc.
etc. etc........
>
>
>
> That it is but there are many non-standard contracts out there. If you show
> you are good you'd be amazed what kind of non-standard things a company will
> be willing to put into a contract. If you recall it used to be the industry
> standard to pay a performer (singer, actor, etc.) for their 'work' then
> everything else belonged to the company. It ain't that way now.
>
It still goes on in the music industry, it's only after your "big time"
in the music industry that you get any kind
of a sweetheart deal. In industry situations anything you produce on the
companies dime is their's, you piss them off
your access codes get shut down, you get a cardboard box and 10 minutes
to clear your desk, then are escorted
to the door by security.
>
>
>
> Really? How many cases of small pox were there world wide last year? I would
> call that problem solved. There are ways of solving many of the problems out
> there but I would not like to seem them used. Mainly because they call for
> total governmental control.
>
To this day, smallpox is the only human infectious disease to have been
completely eradicated from nature,
unless it morphed into something else we don't yet know about as a
result of vaccinations.
>
>
> If you really get to know me you would find out that I lean more toward the
> liberian side. The live and let live way of thinking. If you want to live in
> such a way to make sure that no one in your house gets food poisoning by
> following operating room cleaning regiment,
You can clean all you want, if the food is already tainted you are not
going to know until it's too late in many cases
> fine but don't try to force me
> to do the same thing by using the force of the government.
> Just because you believe something don't try to use the government to force
> to pay for it.
>
Then all I can say is if you don't want to pay for it, quit using all
the services you now enjoy from the sweat of others.
>
> Actually education by itself would eliminate almost all of the diseases you
> mentioned. BTW, if you read the Old Testament you will find that by
> following all the kosher rules you can avoid almost all of them.
>
Hardly, unless you can hold your breath, don't eat and go without water
for months. Viruses are something you
catch either directly or undirectly from infected people, it's in your
best interests if sanitation is a regulated affair
for everyone.
| |
| Vaughn Simon 2007-07-07, 1:25 pm |
|
"no spam" <no@spam.net> wrote in message
news:WFBji.36319$G23.13005@newsreading01.news.tds.net...
>
> So you know that as governments get more and more power they get more and more
> dangerous.
You seem to attempt to dominate both sides of the conversation. I will say
for myself what I think or what I "know"and I will thank you to not attempt to
put words in my mouth.
That said, I agree with the above statement to the extent that government
power must always be checked, and those governed (as a body) must remain
ultimately in charge.
>And yet you want to give more and more power to the government?
Yet again, you are attempting to put words in my mouth. No, I am not
advocating giving more power to the government, I am advocating that the
government should stop marching to orders from the auto industry and more
effectively use the powers that it already has.
>
>
>
> And this wag is based on what? Seems to me that after 1973 a lot of small
> foreign started appearing. Well before CAFE.
You must be confused. There are only two years between CAFE regulations
and 1973.
If you are saying that there were small cars before CAFE, then you are
correct, and some of them could get some pretty good gas mileage under certain
conditions, albeit not nearly as good as you would like to remember. Over my
lifespan, there has been a amazing leap in automotive technology, much of it
driven by CAFE even though the auto makers where whining that it was impossible
and too expensive. As examples; my 1965 600CC BMW motorcycle has never done
better than the low 30's, and the VW beetle I used to own did considerably
worse. This makes perfect sense since that Beetle was heavier than the bike,
was twice the displacement of the bike, and used similar technology to the bike.
Compared to my Honda Civic, those vehicles are simply crude, undependable,
inefficient junk. Like other old-timers, I will tell you that "they don't make
cars like they used to", but unlike some others who display more nostalga then
memory, I AM GLAD they don't.
>
> If you are suggesting that the highway system is a problem SOLVED by the
> government you better get out of the sun for a while. Try driving through
> Nashville or better yet Atlanta on the interstate.
I'm sorry, but the above is incredibly lame.
First, you are again trying to put words in my mouth. I made no
representation that our highway system was perfect or a "problem SOLVED" to your
satisfaction.
Second, without a government, there would be little incentive for anyone to
connect our towns and cities together with roads, or even to pave the area in
front of their homes and businesses. There would certainly be no overall
planning for roads, making travel an inefficient and dicey business. There is
much infrastructure that is 100% necessary for our civilization that simply
could never happen without some form of government.
(This conversation has drifted far from the subject line, so this will be
my last contribution to this subthread.)
Regards,
Vaughn
| |
| Johnny B Good 2007-07-07, 5:25 pm |
| The message <eqNji.153562$Sa4.138543@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
from "Vaughn Simon" <vaughnsimonHATESSPAM@att.FAKE.net> contains these words:
====snip====
> If you are saying that there were small cars before CAFE, then you are
> correct, and some of them could get some pretty good gas mileage under
> certain
> conditions, albeit not nearly as good as you would like to remember.
> Over my
> lifespan, there has been a amazing leap in automotive technology, much
> of it
> driven by CAFE even though the auto makers where whining that it was
> impossible
> and too expensive. As examples; my 1965 600CC BMW motorcycle has
> never done
> better than the low 30's, and the VW beetle I used to own did considerably
> worse. This makes perfect sense since that Beetle was heavier than
> the bike,
> was twice the displacement of the bike, and used similar technology to
> the bike.
> Compared to my Honda Civic, those vehicles are simply crude, undependable,
> inefficient junk. Like other old-timers, I will tell you that "they
> don't make
> cars like they used to", but unlike some others who display more
> nostalga then
> memory, I AM GLAD they don't.
I have to say, even allowing for the smaller american gallon, those
fuel consumption figures are a total disgrace for that vintage of ICE
powered vehicle.
I used to own a 1965 VW beetle (1300cc model) which, after adjusting
the autochoke to quit choking the air at a lower engine temperature
than normal, would give around 30MPG about town and, on the open road
(not motorway/freeway driving) gave 45mpg.
My 1972 650cc 5 speed Triumph Bonneville (1960's technology) in its
original state of tune, kept giving me a lousy 50mpg whatever the riding
conditions until I extended the idle jet air mixture setting process, as
described in the owner's handbook, by applying small but equal
adjustments to _both_ the idle air mixture and throttle stop screws on
_both_ carburetters with _both_ cylinders firing.
Following the procedure in the manual (tune each cylinder air mixture
seperately then adjust _only_ the throttle stops equally to set the
final idle speed with both cylinders firing) left the air mixture screws
unscrewed from fully closed by one and a half turns, repeating the
process with both cylinders firing added another whole turn and a 50%
boost in fuel economy resulting in a 75mpg figure for open road touring
up and down the welsh hills two up.
Later on, after fitting a homebuilt capacitor discharge ignition unit,
I was able to fine tune to an even less over rich idle to mid range revs
mixture setting and could get 100mpg on a 100mile run at speeds between
50 and 70 mph on the open road (literally, I brimmed the tank, set the
trip, and, exactly 100 miles later used 1 gallon to brim the tank
again!).
Of course, all this tuning would have very little impact on the 100mph
cruising economy of 40 to 45mpg (no race faring to get this up to the
70mpg mark!).
To add perspective to this, I also once owned a 250 cc single cylinder
Matchless which would only give me a lousy 90mpg on account the idle and
mid range carburreter settings were way too rich (on cold mornings, all
I had to do was turn on the ignition, gently prod the kickstart and
_after_ it sprang to life, turn the fuel tap on and open the throttle -
no need for the choke!).
In hindsight, I could probably have gotten the fuel economy up to the
140mpg mark (a figure only claimed for low powered 4 stroke based
mopeds) if I'd applied the same tuning techniques I'd used on that 650
twin. :-)
It's quite staggering how detrimental an over rich idle fuel mixture
can be to the overall fuel economy of a petrol engined vehicle. At least
with the 1960's technology, it wasn't too difficult to do such fine
tuning. Today's ICE technology is simply the 1960's (basically 1940's)
technology with electronic refinements and fuel injection replacing the
old carburretter setup, along with variable valve timing options on the
higher performance variants.
Your extremely poor mpg figures rather suggest excessively rich idle
mixture settings.
--
Regards, John.
Please remove the "ohggcyht" before replying.
The address has been munged to reject Spam-bots.
| |
| no spam 2007-07-10, 8:25 pm |
| I've edited out some stuff to save space.
>
> The common good as it pertains to protections provided by the
> Constitution, NOT the former Soviet Union
Seeing how much control the US, states and local governments have taken over
an individual's life with the 'common good' argument I don't see the
Constitution offering that much protection. Did you know in most states the
government can take your house and give it to a private business to develop?
All in the name of 'the common good' because a new condo or strip mall would
bring in more taxes. Ruled constitutional by the USSC.
> Using Gravity and inertia to discuss human nature is ridiculous
I didn't, I used to show a flaw in your line of thought.
> That's why research is done before making any kind of change. According
Sure. Two examples of the government doing research before taking action;
one general and one personal.
Ever hear of the luxury tax the government put on things like yachts? Well
not long after that tax went into effect the yacht industry went into a nose
dive. It seems that Congress's 'research' failed to note that people tend
to not buy an item when the price goes up significantly, even if the people
have lots of money.
Many years ago Al Gore was my senator and I wrote his office, several times,
asking for the data he was using to decide which way he was going to vote on
a bill. In time I received a small package from his office. Inside it were
page after page of photocopies of NEWSPAPER ARTICLES. There wasn't a single
reference to any kind of study, governmental or otherwise. A U.S. Senator
was using newspaper reports to make decisions that would effect the lives of
millions of people.
Needless to say I don't have much confidence in the government making the
right choice.
> to the research the Smart car
> gets great gas mileage, has a three star crash test rating and like the
> Prius they'll sell a pile of them to people
> that read the writing on the wall.
I'd be willing to bet you didnt' live through the 1970's? We were all
supposed to be driving either small fuel efficient or electric cars in just
a few year and NEVER again would you see the road full of huge gas guzzling
cars!
> It was a court house where the rule of law is supposed to take place, not
> promote religion.
1) I never said anything about a court house.
2) You failed to answer the question put to you. You mearly try to support
your own point by stating your point in another way.
BTW, there is NOTHING in the Contitution prohibiting a state from promoting
a religion,
only the US Congress. AAMOF, you could read the 10th amendment in such a
way to say that a state clearly has that right.
> Sure can, that's why you have to take responsibility as citizen and keep
> an eye on what's going on.
Like the citizens did when FDR was tossing other citizens in camps? And
what's a citizen to do when the government does or is doing something wrong
and the USSC gives the OK? Such as the above example or "separate but
equal" schools?
> There will always be cycles in temperature, but as I said before pissing
So you admit that global warming may have nothing to do with man's actions?
Hum . .
[color=darkred]
>
> Which is why you exercise your rights as a citizen, get off you XXX and do
> something about policy you don't like.
> What's strange about any of that? The majority wanted these things to
> occur, I don't know what your
Seems to me that not all that long ago a majority in some states the
majority wanted to have things "separate but equal". I thought the
Constitution was supposed to protect the rights of the individual from the
wants and will of the majority. I guess I was wrong.
> on about restaurant meals or how you shower.
In several areas a restaurant can not serve you a rare burger or hollandaise
sauce because the government feels the need to protect you from salmonella.
Its illegal to install high flow shower head in a new home. Same for
requiring low flush toilet.
Did you miss this question? How many people are you willing to see die
before you start demanding the Congress to do something?
[color=darkred]
>
> But then you would be screaming, or someone like you, about your rights
> again
My point exactly. I'm taking your point about the government protecting the
people and the common good to an extreme. At what point do you draw the
line of government interference? How do you stop that line from moving?
Unlike you I'll answer a question such as this. As long as the deaths are
caused by individual choices and freedom then the answer would be a very
large number.
Example, helment and seatbelt laws. If you want to take the chance of death
while on a bike or in a car by not using the safety devices that's your
right and its fine with me. Even if passing those laws would save a million
people a year I would NOT support them.
FYI, I was wearing both long before it was required. The only time I didn't
wear a seatbelt was when I was driving my '64 Ford and that was because it
didn't come with them and I couldn't afford to have them installed
aftermarket.
[color=darkred]
> Since when did you come to this side of the argument? further up the
> thread you claimed the government
> couldn't do anything and that their regulations have little effect on
> saving lives. I've been the one stating that
> all along government regulation has saved lives not you.
Not quite. 1) My point above was that having government throw money at a
problem has never solved anything. 2) I'm taking your points to the
extreme.
> No, the thread was started about American naysayers to the Smart car
My part in it started with the $15/gallon commit.
> Do you alway contradict yourself in one paragraph?
How so? By the government putting its nose in where it shouldn't have been
to 'help' things they screwed them up. My point above the 'good for GM' is
bull when it comes to protectionism.
> No, it started up about American naysayers to the Smart car and the idea
> of driving small cars, you're the
> one that insisted in putting in all the broad absolutist statements.
Again, my start was at the $15/gallon gas statement.
******
******
Still didn't answer the above question.
[color=darkred]
> I don't know how much clearer the point can be made, the " Free Market"
> was not free, it was tightly controlled
> by the big three.
Didn't you imply above that the citizens controled it with the majority
getting what it wanted.
> It still goes on in the music industry, it's only after your "big time" in
> the music industry that you get any kind
Really? The last time I checked even singers selling 100 records a year
still get their royalty check.
> of a sweetheart deal. In industry situations anything you produce on the
> companies dime is their's, you piss them off
> your access codes get shut down, you get a cardboard box and 10 minutes
> to clear your desk, then are escorted
> to the door by security.
Again, depends on your contract. I can't help it if someone signs a bad
contract.
>
> To this day, smallpox is the only human infectious disease to have been
> completely eradicated from nature,
> unless it morphed into something else we don't yet know about as a result
> of vaccinations.
Funny I'm the one who came up with the ONE example.
[color=darkred]
> You can clean all you want, if the food is already tainted you are not
> going to know until it's too late in many cases
Missed my point again. Its MY choice how -=I=- live in my own home. If I
want to eat hollandaise sauce using raw eggs then the government should have
no say in it.
> Then all I can say is if you don't want to pay for it, quit using all the
> services you now enjoy from the sweat of others.
There are a lot of services that I don't use but still pay for. But that's
not my point. I don't think the government should be used to force one
person's ideas on another.
> Hardly, unless you can hold your breath, don't eat and go without water
> for months. Viruses are something you
Nope. Two people build cabins in the woods, neither of which would pass
current building codes. The first follows simple sanitation rules; poop far
away from your water source, wash your hands before you eat, etc. The
second doesn't. Now without any government interference at all person #1
would live a nice health life.
> catch either directly or undirectly from infected people, it's in your
> best interests if sanitation is a regulated affair
> for everyone.
True but again how far do you take it?
|
|
|
|
|