On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:05:03 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news:3lbi251s1p4f30ft0e3q14v0haod3co6h3@4ax. com...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


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)

It should be based on Vehicle weight.


Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P.

A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used
since there have been motor Vehicles.

There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids
to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either.

There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves
completely negate your theory anyway.


I agree that there are few F1 cars registered on the road. I was
simply using the genus to illustrate that weight is not an indication
of emissions - which, if you'll remember WAS the point of this thread.


For passenger cars, weight is a very valid and practical method of
assesing tax. It's been done that way for a hundred years. I can even
remember Florida License plates with letters on them indicating weight
class. Bigger cars paid more. That was in the 1950's. I'm not sure if
they still do it.

The federal mileage standard are ludicrous. what are they now? 35
miles/gallon? Jesus! My diesel pickup does that now and it is six
years old.


That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger
vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your
imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair
across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get
better mileage is reduce weight.

Ther should also be a "Nuttle surcharge" for anyone with that name.

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:26:16 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 07 Jun 2009 07:05:03 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 10:56:56 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 20:28:10 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:10:52 -0400, wrote:

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 08:01:59 +0700, Bruce in Bangkok
wrote:

On Fri, 5 Jun 2009 10:47:36 -0500, "KLC Lewis"
wrote:


"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote in message
news:3lbi251s1p4f30ft0e3q14v0haod3co6h3@4ax .com...


I've always advocated an annual "road tax" based on engine size. Use a
base level, say 1,500 c.c., for a nominal tax. then as the
displacement goes up the tax goes up, but at, say multiples of 100
c.c..

Say you bought a 2.0 liter car. The first 1,500 c.c costs, say 10
dollars a year, the next 100 c.c = 2 X original tax; second 100 c.c. =
3 X O.T., and so on. You could do the same thing with horse power but
it is easier to get into arguments about horse power then it is about
displacement.

People will say, OH! But I need a big engine". I remember when a 100
HP engine was a BIG engine and most people got along perfectly well
with about 65 HP. You can certainly get 100 H.P. out of a 1.5 liter
engine these days.

This is not a new idea, by the way, it has been used in Europe for
many years.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

How would you calculate the horsepower on a car like my Impala, which shifts
into 3 cylinder mode whenever it doesn't need all six? Cruising down the
highway on long trips I get over 32mpg, but that drops down to around 28 for
mostly city driving (of which I do hardly any).

Fuel taxes take all that into consideration automatically.


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)

It should be based on Vehicle weight.


Right. a F-1 car weighs 1,334 lbs. gets 3 MPG with about 700 H.P.

A Honda Jazz weighs about 2,390 lbs. gets 51.4 MPG with about 77 H.P.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

It should be based on weight. That is a system that has been used
since there have been motor Vehicles.

There are very few F-1 cars used for commuting to work or taking kids
to soccer games. Probably not street legal, either.

There are already Federal mileage standards which by themselves
completely negate your theory anyway.


I agree that there are few F1 cars registered on the road. I was
simply using the genus to illustrate that weight is not an indication
of emissions - which, if you'll remember WAS the point of this thread.


For passenger cars, weight is a very valid and practical method of
assesing tax. It's been done that way for a hundred years. I can even
remember Florida License plates with letters on them indicating weight
class. Bigger cars paid more. That was in the 1950's. I'm not sure if
they still do it.

The federal mileage standard are ludicrous. what are they now? 35
miles/gallon? Jesus! My diesel pickup does that now and it is six
years old.


That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger
vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your
imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair
across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get
better mileage is reduce weight.

Ther should also be a "Nuttle surcharge" for anyone with that name.

The original post concerned giant polluting autos. It now appears to
have digressed to a discussion of tax philosophy.

The concept of taxing for vehicle weight seems to have originated with
the idea that total vehicle weight effected road costs, which it
doesn't, the real roadway costs, other then normal civil engineering
problems, are primarily a matter of pounds per square inch, i.e.,
gross vehicle weight divided by total tire contact area.

Thus, it would be logical to partially adjudge vehicle tax rates by
the weight of the owner - skinny people, weighing less, cause less
deterioration to roadways then fat folks.


Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

wrote:

SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology...


That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger
vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your
imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair
across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get
better mileage is reduce weight.


Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma
in accidents.

WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles?
It's not for the mileage!

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 21:29:16 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

wrote:

SNIPPED - to demonstrate the technology...


That was not the point, Bruce. The point was that all passenger
vehicles are going to fall within the guidelines, unlike your
imaginary street legal F-1. So, taxing by weight will be pretty fair
across the board. One of the most effective things you can do to get
better mileage is reduce weight.


Unfortunately, reducing weight goes hand in hand with increased trauma
in accidents.

WHY do you thing people have kept buying heavy vehicles?
It's not for the mileage!

Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard
the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better".

On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and
apparently hold the road much better.

The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous.
Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of
the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race
car is lighter then even "light" road cars.

Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an
efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that
the car buying public doesn't want one.

I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but
the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they
are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need*
that six liter auto.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard
the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better".

On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and
apparently hold the road much better.

The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous.
Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of
the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race
car is lighter then even "light" road cars.

Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an
efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that
the car buying public doesn't want one.

I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but
the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they
are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need*
that six liter auto.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

A friend wrecked her old beater Lincoln Town Car this week.

She lost it somehow going over a wet hill top and knocked down a 60
foot tall interstate highway light post(!)

She was lucky - no serious injuries. Seat belt and air bags worked as
advertised - even after 21 years. No broken ankles, no smashed knees,
some bruises on the shoulder and a sore breast bone.

The undamaged part of her car was two feet past the place where the
light pole _was_. It stopped in a hurry!
Speed was estimated by the cops at 40 or maybe a bit more.
Speed limit was 55 there.

I've been to a lot of car wrecks as a volunteer fireman and you never
know what to expect in a situation like that.

But if I had to do that stunt, I'd rather be in the Town Car than a
little plastic roller skate car.

I think we found her a pick up today. (It's Texas - girls drive trucks here)
2005 Ford F150 LS:
Short bed 3 L. V6, 4 speed stick, air conditioning, and not much else
For right at 6k.

It ought to run well for another five or ten years - if there is gas to feed it.

"cavelamb" wrote:

I think we found her a pick up today. (It's Texas - girls drive
trucks here)
2005 Ford F150 LS:
Short bed 3 L. V6, 4 speed stick, air conditioning, and not much
else
For right at 6k.

It ought to run well for another five or ten years - if there is gas
to feed it.

Find a 4 Cyl, 5 spd stick, Tonka Toy /w/ air.

Mine still gets 26+ GPM even after 120K and 10+ years.

Should get 300K+ with SoCal weather.

BTW, has a steel timing belt, not that rubber crap.

Lew

On Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:30:53 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

Bruce in Bangkok wrote:

Basically, probably misconceptions about autos. Have you ever heard
the phrase "a heavy car holds the road better".

On the other hand, racing cars are all lighter then "road" cars and
apparently hold the road much better.

The argument that heavy cars reduce trauma is also somewhat erroneous.
Just look at accidents on the race track. So traumatic that most of
the car disintegrates.... and the driver walks away. But yet the race
car is lighter then even "light" road cars.

Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an
efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that
the car buying public doesn't want one.

I have no special feeling for any particular sort of motor vehicle but
the car buying public is particularly hypocritical. On one hand they
are **so** concerned with the environment and on the other they *need*
that six liter auto.

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

A friend wrecked her old beater Lincoln Town Car this week.

She lost it somehow going over a wet hill top and knocked down a 60
foot tall interstate highway light post(!)

She was lucky - no serious injuries. Seat belt and air bags worked as
advertised - even after 21 years. No broken ankles, no smashed knees,
some bruises on the shoulder and a sore breast bone.

The undamaged part of her car was two feet past the place where the
light pole _was_. It stopped in a hurry!
Speed was estimated by the cops at 40 or maybe a bit more.
Speed limit was 55 there.

I've been to a lot of car wrecks as a volunteer fireman and you never
know what to expect in a situation like that.

But if I had to do that stunt, I'd rather be in the Town Car than a
little plastic roller skate car.

Sure, and had she been driving a NACAR vehicle she could have hit the
post at twice the speed and walked away. Or a F-1 car. either of which
weigh less then the Lincoln.

It isn't the weight, it is the amount of structure you have between
you and the post.

As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car
buying public wants to reduce emissions or not. I'm not advocating a
position on either side of the fence I'm simply saying that if you
want to do something about it the solution is simple.

If you want to rationalize that you need a high emission vehicle, for
whatever reason, then go right ahead and buy one, I'm not even sure
whether cars cause a problem, or not..

Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote:

As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car
buying public wants to reduce emissions or not.

That's a very simple process.

$10/gallon gasoline would get a whole lot of attention.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
"Bruce in Bangkok" wrote:

As I have said several times it all comes down to whether the car
buying public wants to reduce emissions or not.

That's a very simple process.

$10/gallon gasoline would get a whole lot of attention.

Lew



I suspect that's coming soon enough, Lew.

And the price of resin will go sky high too.

Basically it is fairly simple to design a safe vehicle, or an
efficient vehicle, or a non-contaminating vehicle. The problem is that
the car buying public doesn't want one.

I think most people (except for complete idiots) would prefer a more
efficient vehicle but the car companies aren't force by the Gov't to
increase efficiency so they don't.
I was at a neighbors BBQ right about the time gas had reached $3/gal. We
were talking about fuel mileage (of course) and another neighbor quipped
that the hybrid vehicles were something, getting 35 mpg. My thought was that
the car companies had the hybrid technology sitting on the shelf waiting for
the oil people to give us the shaft, which made the new cars pretty
attractive.
This guy is about 10 years younger than my 49 and so doesn't remember the
Datsun B210 or the similar model Toyota getting mid to high 30s in the 70s
fuel crunch.
What other reason could there be for fuel efficiency not to have improved?
After that time in the 70s it actually went backwards. I know emmision
controls rob some power but we have computer controlled fuel injection now.
Was this created just so that we would have to take our cars to the shop
instead of working on them ourselves?
When people scream conspiracy, I think they're at least half right. The rest
is just crap goverment.