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.

On Sun, 7 Jun 2009 09:41:34 -0400, "mmc" wrote:



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.


But they do manufacture cars that will get decent fuel economy.

My wife has a Honda Jazz, maybe called a Fit, or something similar, in
America. It has a 1.4 Ltr. engine (the non VTEC engine), carries three
adults and two kids, or four adults with ease, and gets 45 miles per
gallon. Rock, stock, right off the showroom floor.

Honda also makes a 1.2 Ltr version. It isn't sold in Thailand, but I
believe it gets over 50 miles per gallon.

My Isuzu pickup, 6 years old, still gets about 30 miles/gallon and the
more recent electronic injected models get better. 2.5 Ltr engine.

Nope. the vehicles are there, in common use, if you want them, and
they aren't some kind of one off either. I believe that there have
been more Honda Jazz sold in Thailand then any other car. and they
have been available for some time, - my wife's Honda is three years
old.



Cheers,

Bruce in Bangkok
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)