"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news

I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active
displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is
half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me
based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its
full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which
*doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel.

But I do agree about the "lip service" bit.

--
KLC Lewis

Irrefutable photographic proof of alien visitations!
www.KLCLewisStudios.com

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 20:18:40 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:




"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news

I wouldn't even begin to base any plan on horse power. As I said, it
is too easy to get into an argument about horse power and impossible
to argue about displacement.

The point is, if you want to decrease the numbers of giant motor cars
with the idea that you will decrease global warming, or whatever
reason you have, then this is a method of doing it.

The nut of the matter is, of course, does the population of the U.S.
(the group that the original poster addressed) really WANT to decrease
emissions, or simply give lip service to the idea.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Okay, but horsepower is related to displacement and vice-versa. The active
displacement of my Impala's engine when it's only running on 3 cylinders is
half that of when it's running on all six. It would seem unfair to tax me
based on the maximum displacment volume of my engine when it doesn't use its
full displacment all the time, and taxing it the same as an engine which
*doesn't* turn off half its cylinders to conserve fuel.

But I do agree about the "lip service" bit.


The point is that you don't know what horsepower your auto is capable
of producing. While "Horse Power" is usually thought of as a simple
formula based on torque and RPM when it comes time to measure an
automobile engine there are variables - should the generator be
included? What about the water pump?

First of all there are several standards for horse power

Mechanical Horse Power = 745.6999 Watts
Metric = 735.49875
Electrical = 746.00
hydraulic = 745.6999
even Boiler = 9809.5 Watts

Secondly there are many, many methods of arriving at a horse power
figure, certainly more then I care to list here (see the Wikipedia
explanation for details).

Certainly there are many methods of indirectly controlling emissions
and a tax on engine size is only one of them. However, it is an easy
system to implement and readily understandable by most, and I suggest,
as equitable as possible, considering the entire vehicle using public.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)