New of from Iraq OR better MPG! by SignyM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"And when you've established an infrastructure such as stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, breeding facilities, plus all those invested in the horse industry, there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. Seen any horses on the interstate recently?'

Seen any multinational stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, or breeding facilities - ever ?

And you seem to think cars just 'came about' due to economic advantage. You forget the initial political push to outlaw horses, the later intentional destruction of mass transit across the country, and the big-money vested interests developing highways (with tax dollars).

Cars didn't 'just happen.'

************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 9:19 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"And when you've established an infrastructure such as stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, breeding facilities, plus all those invested in the horse industry, there is a huge incentive to keep things the same. Seen any horses on the interstate recently?'

Seen any multinational stables, farriers, harness makers, carriage makers, wheelrights, feed and grain stores, rendering plants, or breeding facilities - ever ?

Ah, we're getting closer, but still haven't gotten you, SignyM, or Fremd to come right out and say it.

You all do not accept my postulates that electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold, and because the infrastructure to support them is not available or economically feasible to develop at this time.

So you apparently think that the technologies for effective, profitable, large-scale electric car use and the infrastructure to support it are available and ready to implement after a relatively short run-up, but are being hidden and not used.

Why are they being hidden and not used?

C'mon, just say it. You'll feel better.

Here. I'll even get you started. Repeat after me.

"It's"
"An"
"International"
"Multi-decade"
"Industrial-"
"Governmental"
"Consp..."

You can take it from there, can't you?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 9:26 AM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold"

See - "Who Killed the Electric Car."

Mebee you'll get some education.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 9:42 AM

GINOBIFFARONI

I think it is alot like the Lincoln Highway link I posted. When they built that road, the main means of long distance travel was the railroads, and there was big money tied into that monopoly and they were not willing to invest into projects which worked against their interests. As was stated in the link.

I think the oil companys and car manufacturers are tied together so that being the case, the best way to go would be a third party, a smaller company steps in and puts a product on the market separate of the bigger companys. Unfortunately if the big guys buy out the little guys and shut the projects down it will never happen.....

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 10:36 AM

Quote:
You all do not accept my postulates that electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold, and because the infrastructure to support them is not available or economically feasible to develop at this time.

Incorrect in my case - in fact because I made this exact same argument concerning straight electric and hydrogen powered cars.

I don't feel we're "there yet" - but we COULD be, barring the problem of human nature and human greed, no one wants to give up the short term loss to make long term (but less overall) profit, you see ?

We *could* do it, but all manner of folk with a vested financial interest ain't willing to do so, given that it would indeed lose money in the short term, and in the long term make less money than what they have now because the Gov hasn't handed them total monopolies on that product.

One issue of Gov nitpicking crosses up with not-quite-there-yet technology to make a problem out of this, and that is safety standards, which add weight, to a car that's already gotta be stripped to the bones just to move on an underpowered engine, and overstressing a tiny engine as a matter of operation sucks, just ask any Miata owner - not to mention what's like to happen to your ass in that eggshell when some dimwit in an Excursion with the radio blaring, yapping merrily into his cellphone, doesn't even SEE your tiny little bug from his kingdom and runs it over.

Bear in mind that I am likely not as much effective in discussing this because I really really don't understand some of the tech involved in the electrics, and some of the info coming from these alt-fuel people does indeed have that bovine aroma about it, as I feel a bit of whitewash is going on (the issue of batteries is a big one, with several models I have looked at, one of whom will sell you the car, but tells you in the fine print that the batteries needed to operate it won't exist for 4-5 more years).

I don't see E-85 as a solution, nor corn-base ethanol, the latter would only work if we were willing to radically cut back consumption - vegetable oil/bio-diesel is a good solution but it doesn't help much on the emissions front.

Funny story relative to that, long time ago, I learned how to make bio-diesel and convert a straight diesel to vegetable oil (such a bitch of a conversion even now, that goin with Bio-D is prolly better) if I wanted to, and cussing the $1.19 a gallon I was payin for fuel, looked into it.... I almost bought a small Diesel Powered VW Rabbit for the conversion, and had all the other equipment lined up for purchase and install, and I get to this poor car, and it's so rusted out there's nothin I can do with it.. meh.

Seen some Volvos running veggie or Bio-D, but the folks that own them are *very* protective, not just of thier vehicles, but also thier secrets, they do NOT wanna discuss it with you, and the local farmers are a suspicious, slightly paranoid bunch, so I don't push em on it... I KNOW the red Volvo is runnin straight veggie tho, damn thing smells like a fry vat at McDonalds when it's runnin.

Another interesting bit of trivia - know what Gasoline was, when Henry Ford decided to run a car on it ?
Toxic Waste.
Gasoline was a waste product of Kerosene production, and not in any kind of demand at the time.

My opinion on it...

Electric - Needs R&D on batteries, not there yet.

Hydrogen - Six gallons of petrol energy to make one gallon of Hydrogen energy is not a savings.

Vegetable Oil - Maybe viable, but I can't get enough information to really tell you.

Bio-D - Renewable, and a handy interm solution, but it does not address the consumption or emissions issue.

Hybrid - Overcomplicated, not financially viable, needs simplification and refinement for true inexpensive mass production.

E-85 - Halfass joke as an excuse to say they're "doing something" just like Gasahol back in the opec crunch.

Two ideas I'd like to throw in... one is a secondary rail system powered by solar panels on top of the cars for non time-critical freight - you just load the cargo, set the destination and it gets there when it gets there - the US lacks an effective railway transportation system for passengers also, I know, but solar is sun-dependant, and this more suited to non time-critical shipping of freight.

The other is the Wren, an idea that's been floating around Detroit for almost 20 years now, a completely stripped down bare-bones bucket with a tiny 4stroke simplified high efficiency engine (mileage estimated at 35-42mpg) torque converter/transaxle (automatic transmission, of sort) and pretty much nothin else but a seat, headlights, turn signals, brake lights, etc.

In essence a simplified bare-minimum car that could be quickly churned out and sold for (then) $3600 to (now) under $5000 brand new, something you'd sell as a starter car, to college students, or as a runabout for in-town stuff.

It would come with a full manual patterned off military equipment breakdown manuals, a 1yr defect warranty, and that's IT.

Of course, the "Big Three" don't want it, as they wanna sell you $38,000 worth of SUV that gets 16mpg, and then have you buy it through some finance cretin who's gonna bend you over the desk to the tune of 18% compounded in whatever way sucks off the most principal and keeps you paying longer... or a lease as extortive as a loan sharks contract.

In the end, looking at the "Big Three", you'd have a better chance of pushing the great wall down singlehandedly than convincing them of anything, their corporate inertia defies all reality cause they can always count on the Gov for a bailout and subsidies if their pig-stupid, economically blind policies come back to bite em, which they usually do cause none of the three cares what customers want....

I would say it's time to make that "Big Three" a Big Four, Five, or even Eight... add some competition to that stagnant and monopolised market, especially with alt-fuel vehicles, just make sure to hire a damned good bodygaurd first, cause folks who try conclusions with the Big Three have a nasty habit of dropping dead around here, just so ya know.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 10:58 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
But come on. Tell me why we don't have electric cars. Surely some auto company in some country which doesn't have a big oil industry should be able to manufacture them. You reject the premise that it's a technological challenge, so someone should be able to make a go of it. Why aren't they out there?

No time for a long discussion at the moment. But the answer to your question is... they WERE out there. As I have said several times already! GM made a whole bunch of EV1s

Quote:
In late 2003, GM officially cancelled the EV1 program.[2][3] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 12:11 PM

LEADB

You can buy an electric car today...
http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyPage1.php

Well, soon. Base price 98K. Details.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 12:16 PM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
As I have said several times already! GM made a whole bunch of EV1s
Quote:
In late 2003, GM officially cancelled the EV1 program.[2][3] Despite unfulfilled waiting lists and positive feedback from the lessees, GM stated that it could not sell enough of the cars to make the EV1 profitable.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

The problem is that there is no contradiction in that statement. If you need to make 30,000 to break even and 60,000 to make a profit and you have orders for 10,000 then you can't afford to make them even though there is obviously demand. Look back 20 odd years to when home computers first came out. In the UK there were dozens of small computer companies making (largely uncompatable) machines. A lot of them went bankrupt not because there was no demand for what they made --- they had good sales, but the sales where less than expected and didn't cover their costs.

That's the problem. An EV1 made as a pilot project and operated at a loss by GM is not the model to take forward, it's a way of gathering data. On the other hand Toyota -- the world's biggest car company says that plug hybrids will be available in the future they just need the battery technology to improve.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 12:18 PM

SERGEANTX

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
...In essence a simplified bare-minimum car that could be quickly churned out and sold for (then) $3600 to (now) under $5000 brand new, something you'd sell as a starter car, to college students, or as a runabout for in-town stuff.

It would come with a full manual patterned off military equipment breakdown manuals, a 1yr defect warranty, and that's IT.

Cheap, efficient cars have sort of went the way of cheap, efficient health care - they've been outlawed. I can't ever seem to get this concept across to liberals, but regulation is the glue that keeps this kind of collusion in place. It's what prevents enterprising competitors from undercutting the fatcats.

Quote:
In the end, looking at the "Big Three", you'd have a better chance of pushing the great wall down singlehandedly than convincing them of anything, their corporate inertia defies all reality cause they can always count on the Gov for a bailout and subsidies if their pig-stupid, economically blind policies come back to bite em

Ayup... and as long as we're wildly off topic, I heard on NPR this morning that Democrats are demanding that we bail out all the nimrods who created the housing bubble. How's that again? They (the overly eager bankers handing out mortgages like candy, and the credit-leveraging, yuppies buying McMansions) thought their little scam could continue indefinitely. Or maybe they assumed their bought and paid for congress folks would bail them out. Either way, they deserve to crash and burn. Sure, it might mean a bit of a recession. But those of us who aren't caught up in their scam will be alright, and our nation desperately needs to learn a few lessons about debt.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 12:24 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"electric cars are not yet common because the technology is not sufficiently robust to mass produce them at a price at which they can profitably be sold"

See - "Who Killed the Electric Car."

Mebee you'll get some education.

Sure, when you watch "The Great Global Warming Swindle" and admit that manmade climate change is all just (excuse the expression) hot air.

Come on, Rue. Quit dancing around the point. Just come right out and say who You think has killed the electric car worldwide for the past couple of decades.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 12:49 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
You all do not accept my postulates that electric cars are not yet common....

Incorrect in my case - in fact because I made this exact same argument concerning straight electric and hydrogen powered cars.

Okay. Sorry.

Quote:
I don't feel we're "there yet" - but we COULD be, barring the problem of human nature and human greed, no one wants to give up the short term loss to make long term (but less overall) profit, you see ?

We *could* do it, but all manner of folk with a vested financial interest ain't willing to do so, given that it would indeed lose money in the short term, and in the long term make less money than what they have now because the Gov hasn't handed them total monopolies on that product.

So if they were just willing to lose their investors' money, their employees' pay, quite possibly their entire business, gambling that they could build a salable electric rigt now, rather than waiting a few years until it becomes less of a risk, you'd be willing to stand good for their losses?

Quote:
Two ideas I'd like to throw in... one is a secondary rail system powered by solar panels on top of the cars for non time-critical freight - you just load the cargo, set the destination and it gets there when it gets there - the US lacks an effective railway transportation system for passengers also, I know, but solar is sun-dependant, and this more suited to non time-critical shipping of freight.

When I try to consider the switching requirements needed to keep such a syatem moving, it makes my head ache. Consider a single lane highway that has to carry all the two way truck traffic of a major motorway, with no passing allowed. Consider this a nation-wide system. Shudder.

Quote:
The other is the Wren, an idea that's been floating around Detroit for almost 20 years now, a completely stripped down bare-bones bucket with a tiny 4stroke simplified high efficiency engine (mileage estimated at 35-42mpg) torque converter/transaxle (automatic transmission, of sort) and pretty much nothin else but a seat, headlights, turn signals, brake lights, etc.

And no one would buy it. You could get a two year old Hyundai for the same price, with pretty much the same mileage, plus a/c, a sound system, more comfort, better safety and a better warranty. Heck, you can get a brand new Accent for under $10,000.00 on sale.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 12:53 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
On the other hand Toyota -- the world's biggest car company says that plug hybrids will be available in the future they just need the battery technology to improve.

No, Fletch. It's not the batteries, it's the (shhh) c-o-n-s-p-i-r-a-c-y.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 1:19 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

All I can think of is that very cynical statement made to me years ago: you can live in your car but you can't drive your house.

Quote:
Originally posted by leadb:
You can buy an electric car today...
http://www.teslamotors.com/buy/buyPage1.php

Well, soon. Base price 98K. Details.

Anyway, I'm still holding out for my ideal car.
***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 1:41 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Anyway, I'm still holding out for my ideal car.

Now tell us why it's not being built.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 1:55 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

FremD

"I don't see E-85 as a solution, nor corn-base ethanol, the latter would only work if we were willing to radically cut back consumption - vegetable oil/bio-diesel is a good solution but it doesn't help much on the emissions front."

There are many solutions lab-proven for the various problems, but no investment to make them reality.

Ethanol

Of the several advantages of ethanol, it's renewable, it uses existing infrastructure (tankers, underground storage tanks and pumps), and, using the proper catalyst, you don't have to purify it much to use it.

There is a wonderful catalyst that makes H2 out of wet ethanol. It's self-heating and, unlike other catalysts you can't kill it with metals, sulfur, nitrogen or organic compounds that aren't ethanol. Best of all, whereas all other catalysts need the ethanol to be dry (distillation only gets you 95% ethanol, the rest of the water has to be extracted and kept out by expensive means), this catalyst not only uses wet ethanol, it also converts some of the water to hydrogen as well.
http://it.umn.edu/news/inventing//2004_Summer/harvestinghydrogen.html

I've written to the researchers for corn-based ethanol who've done energy production/ use calculations. I've asked all of them if they count the fertilizer, pesticides and irrigation in their energy equations, b/c while those are needed to mass-produce food-grade corn they're not needed for fuel-grade corn. I've also asked if they're counting the energy used to dry the ethanol rather than using the crude 95% straight distilled ethanol. I haven't gotten an answer from any of them, so I suspect it's something they didn't think of. So while they all calculate that corn-based ethanol is sustainable, they say they want higher margins. But, they're using faulty assumptions as the basis for their calculations. IOW: GIGO.

There's also a move in the works to make cellulose (rather than sugar or starch) based ethanol. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/11/061108102052.htm Cellulose-based ethanol would be a boon, since even waste paper could be used to make ethanol.

Fuel cells

Now that you have an abundant, renewable and cheap fuel and the converter, you need a fuel cell - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070116131346.htm - that's simple and works at the human end just like a gas engine. You push on the pedal and you go faster. And then there's some really nice catalysts out there - http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/01/070125122857.htm - this one looks like it'll do the trick.

Almost there

As hybrid cars have demonstrated, there are other necessary and nifty things you can do - regenerative braking, battery mediation etc. And it's be nice to have an overall car redesign for things like center of gravity, maneuverability, and my favorite, the break-away titanium safety cage.

As you can see, this is an issue near and dear to my heart. I've been following it for quite some time. There is NOTHING impossible here - it's all been invented, studied, and worked out. All that's missing is the will to put it together, and get the show on the road ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 2:29 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Oh, yeah, Geezer, my post above addresses yours too. Any time you feel ready to reply ...

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 2:40 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Quote:
Originally posted by SergeantX:
Either way, they deserve to crash and burn.

yep.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 2:48 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Oh, yeah, Geezer, my post above addresses yours too. Any time you feel ready to reply ...

Reply to what? Most of the things you note (aside from E-85, which is pretty much homemade hydrocarbon fuel) are still lab experiments and still years away from any possible commercial application, assuming they ever become commercially viable.

You still haven't explained why we aren't all driving around in electric cars.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 2:59 PM

Geeze, such Gambling is done all the time - it's called free enterprise, only the established fatcats get to play it win-win all the time, as the Gov bails em out when they lose.

And yep, all those regs are a nightmare Sarge, and a primary brick wall which keeps the Wren a concept rather than a reality.

Mass produced without regard to them, I would lay good odds we could get the price down to $1999.99, and some folks would surrender all those creature comforts quite willingly in exchange for a car they could, you know, AFFORD.
Try tellin the Big Three that, however.

As for the rail system, I said a SECONDARY system, something independant of our current one, which is hangin on the ragged edge like the rest of our tattered infrastructure.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 3:05 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"are still lab experiments and still years away from any possible commercial application"

Not really. They're ready for prototyping and beta-testing. With funding, that could happen in under a year.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 4:37 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Geeze, such Gambling is done all the time - it's called free enterprise, only the established fatcats get to play it win-win all the time, as the Gov bails em out when they lose.

And it's petty easy for you to gamble with other people's money, isn't it?

Quote:
As for the rail system, I said a SECONDARY system, something independant of our current one, which is hangin on the ragged edge like the rest of our tattered infrastructure.

Oh, so it requires an entire new rail infrastructure, massive right-of-way acquisition (requiring major application of eminent domain), all-new rolling stock, new bridges, etc. And you'll still need trucks to move stuff from the railheads to comsumers. This assumes that there is enough stuff out there that people want to buy, but don't particularly care when they receive it.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 4:47 PM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Not really. They're ready for prototyping and beta-testing. With funding, that could happen in under a year.

Prototyping and beta-testing lab-sized systems is far from developing large scale, economical systems to produce such fuels in mass. Oh, are all the raw materials needed to produce both the fuel and support the refining process available and cheap enough to be cost-effective? Then can you develop vehicles which can run on those fuels and which also have to be economical to produce? Then that damn infrastructure bugaboo comes up again. Then a sufficient number of people actually have to want to buy them. Don't expect to be driving this type of car any time soon.

And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 5:00 PM

LEADB

'cause they cost $98,000?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 5:22 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Geezer, I really wish you'd read my posts. It's frustrating to have to repeat the same things three, four, five or more times.

"developing large scale, economical ... all the raw materials needed to produce both the fuel and support the refining process available and cheap enough to be cost-effective"
As I mentioned above, there have been several studies on the feasibility of corn-ethanol, and they all come out positive, looking at ALL inputs from growing to transport to refining. (BTW these processes are not out of mainstream and bulk capability.) They would be MORE positive if the analysts didn't account for growing the corn as if it was food, and drying it from 190 proof to 200 proof.
The economics are favorable for corn-based ethanol.

"develop vehicles which can run on those fuels and which also have to be economical to produce"
Yes. That's the thrust of the development work - efficient, rugged and SMALL catalysts (about the size of a thimble and flow-through porous), small, rugged easy to modulate fuel cells, rugged fuel cell catalysts ... and so on. The other parts - regenerative brakes for example - have already been developed for hybrid systems.
The vehicles are already in production, the powertrain is the only change and it's been made to be small, cheap and rugged.

"Then that damn infrastructure bugaboo comes up again."
Well, as I (ahem) already mentioned, the beauty of 95% crude ethanol is that it uses the exact same type of infrastructure as gasoline.

"Then a sufficient number of people actually have to want to buy them."
Quiet, great pickup, long-range, cheap to run - what's not to like ?

"And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?" (And BTW, you switched the question from why MY ideal car - the ethanol-fuel-cell vehicle isn't being made, to the 'electric car' question. I'm answering the first question, as it's pertinent to my original post.)
I believe I already answered this one as well - "There is NOTHING impossible here - it's all been invented, studied, and worked out. All that's missing is the will to put it together, and get the show on the road ..."

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 5:38 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

LeadB

I'm surprized you didn't read the website, it costs what it costs 'cause it's not being made to be a cheap family car:

How fast is it?

Zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds with a top speed of over 130 mph. But this is not the whole story. Because it has no clutch pedal and a very wide, flat torque curve, the acceleration of the Tesla Roadster is much more available to enjoy: just step on the accelerator and go. No matter what speed you are driving, no matter what gear you are in, the acceleration is instantaneous. (Rue - a Corvette does 0 -60 in 4.2 seconds.)

Why does the Tesla Roadster have a two-speed transmission?

The Tesla Roadster has a two-speed transmission to maximize acceleration, while also allowing a reasonably high top speed. First gear gets you from zero to 60 mph in about 4 seconds, while second gear takes you to above 130 mph.

How did you come up with the idea for Tesla Motors?

Tesla Motors co-founder Martin Eberhard had always been interested in fast, fun cars, but wanted something that was very energy efficient.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 6:26 PM

Gamble with who's money ?

I suggested two *concepts* - and you'll note that I mentioned free enterprise and not one word about Gov't funding, and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.

Of the two concepts, I think the Wren is a bit more real world viable, and it would be something I might invest in if someone capable of producing the damned thing could run the gauntlet of stumbling blocks in the way, primary amongst them just how much the Big Three have locked up the market on that kind of infrastructure around here - they'd buy a factory and scrap it at a multimillion loss (written off on taxes, of course) just to keep a potentive competitor from having it, and would buy off any of your personnel they could rather quick - it would require someone pretty damn ruthless to get it done, and that brings it's own problems.

On the other, the question of scale versus need is also to be raised, but I do see it as a possibility, a concept, that someone with more tech knowhow and vision than me could quite possibly make viable.

For someone who claims to believe in a free market, Geeze, yer awfully hardheaded when it comes to the concept end of one.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, August 24, 2007 8:56 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.

Oh, Geezer is a master of that.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:07 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Geezer, I really wish you'd read my posts. It's frustrating to have to repeat the same things three, four, five or more times.

And I wish you'd read mine.

"Most of the things you note (aside from E-85, which is pretty much homemade hydrocarbon fuel) are still lab experiments and still years away from any possible commercial application, assuming they ever become commercially viable."

As to making hydrogen from ethanol, in the article you cite, Dr. Schmidt himself is quoted as saying "This is fundamental research, and a lot of steps are still required to turn it into a viable technology." So maybe you should read what you cite as well.

Also noted in your other cites are the fact that the first paper describing the new fuel cell has just been published, so it's probably not even completed peer-review. " They will publish their findings in the February {2007} issue of the journal Chemical Engineering Science." BTW, fuel cells produce water vapor, the leading greenhouse gas.

None of this stuff is ready to go into production, and probably won't be for a while. Also, consider that there are other technologies out there which also show promise. Should we just go into full-scale production of five or ten different, unproven, competing systems, or take the time to find out what's going to be the most effective.

"There is NOTHING impossible here - it's all been invented, studied, and worked out. All that's missing is the will to put it together, and get the show on the road ..."

In your opinion. Dr. Schmidt thinks of his work that "...a lot of steps are still required to turn it into a viable technology." You've got the Veruca Salt thing down pretty good. "I want it now!" Then go spend your money on developing it, since all it takes is will.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:26 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
I suggested two *concepts* - and you'll note that I mentioned free enterprise and not one word about Gov't funding, and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.

"We *could* do it, but all manner of folk with a vested financial interest ain't willing to do so, given that it would indeed lose money in the short term, and in the long term make less money than what they have now..."
Well, that would pretty much explain why free enterprise wouldn't want to do it.

Quote:
Of the two concepts, I think the Wren is a bit more real world viable, and it would be something I might invest in if someone capable of producing the damned thing could run the gauntlet of stumbling blocks in the way...

Government regulation isn't going away any time soon, since the poeple, however mistakenly in your view, seem to want cars that provide a reasonable level of safety. I'm still not seeing nuch of a market for a dangerous, uncomfortable, noisy, bare bones vehicle when I can get a good used car for the same price.

Quote:
For someone who claims to believe in a free market, Geeze, yer awfully hardheaded when it comes to the concept end of one.

I know enough about the free market to realize that a lot of concepts get fed into one end for one product to come out the other. And even then many products fail to make it. Free enterprise doesn't (or shouldn't) just say "Ohh, that's neat. Let's make that". They say (and here I'm massively simplifying a very complex analysis of all possible factors) "Can I make that at a cost less than I'll be able to sell it for, and will enough people actually want it to pay my up-front costs."

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 3:28 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
and yet you persistently try very hard to misrepresent my position and it's pissin me off, Geeze.
Oh, Geezer is a master of that.

Why aren't you out on this fine day driving your electric car around?

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 4:26 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?

Because GM pulled the plug on the program. I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but apparently it's a necessity.

First, let me get back to the original premise: We don't need Iraqi oil. Despite the fact that Geezer has done a marvelous job of leading the discussion down the bunny-trail (away from Iraq AND oil conservation) my original statement remains true. The USA has the worst fuel economies of the entire industrialized world. Greencarcongresss.com (the site that Geezer dismissed out of hand because of its name) cites Pew research (Geezer may have heard of them?) which shows that as of 2002 (two years before the report was written so likely to be reliable) fuel economy standards were as follows:

Japan............46 mpg
EU..................40 mpg
China............30 mpg
Australia........30 mpg
Canada...........26 mpg
Beetlebong (USA)....24 mpg
www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_0
10605_110719.pdf

Their projections only widen the figures, with the USA remaining stagnant while the other nations aggressively increase fuel economy. It doesn't take a genius to see that the United States could cut its gasoline consumption nearly in half by adopting technology that is already sold in mass today, irrespective of electric cars, fuel cells or other advanced technology. Why hasn't this happened? In large part its because American car and oil companies have lobbied heavily to keep things as they are: SUVs are hugely profitable as well as hugely hungry. We're not talking advanced technology here, we're just talking re-tooling. And for those of you NOT trying to "make a point", here is the website that Geezer dissed: www.greencarcongress.com It's full of world-class research.

So what impact would this have on imports? According to http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_cons_psup_dc_nus_mbbl_m.htm the USA used a total of approximately 630 Mbbl/month of crude oil to produce approx 410 Mbbl/month of finished motor gasoline (that does NOT include diesel and aviation fuel). Of that crude oil usage, we imported approx 390 Mbbl/mo. That means that we imported approximately 62% of our crude oil, and used more than half to make gasoline.

In other words, if we cut our gasoline usage by a third with existing technology to standards that are mandated everywhere except here we could stop importing 220 Mbbl/month of crude oil. That is more than ALL the imports from ALL of the OPEC countries combined. So let me re-state the original premise: WE DON"T NEED IRAQI OIL.
http://tonto.eia.doe.gov/dnav/pet/pet_move_impcus_a2_nus_ep00_im0_mbbl
_m.htm
We could easily adopt EXISTING technology... we SHOULD have mandated higher standards, adopted existing technology YEARS ago... to reduce our gasoline consumption by at least a third and if we were as aggressive as the Japanese we could reduce our gasoline consumption by ONE HALF. Simply adopting existing technology would have ELIMINATED our need for OPEC oil. If you think I'm repeating myself, it's because Geezer has the annoying habit of making people repeat themselves several times and still not "getting" the point, so I thought I'd get that painful process out of the way up-front. I hope it works!

When I have more time, I'll get to some of Geezer's other misleading arguments.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 5:53 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
And by the way, why aren't we driving electric cars?
Because GM pulled the plug on the program. I hate to have to keep repeating myself, but apparently it's a necessity.

And why did GM pull the plug (chortle) on the electric car? Because they couldn't make a profit on it. Oh, the horror! A business expecting to make a profit! How could they?

And how could you, Rue, and Fremd have lived in capitalist society all your lives and not figured out the first thing about how free enterprise works? Business is in business to make money, not to go in the hole throwing it at any idea that comes along.

Develop a reasonable cost-benefit analysis, maybe some actual market research to support demand, some sort of business plan, and, see if any of this stuff is actually practical - that's what the people who actually have to invest in development and risk their capital do.

You're talking about making multi-billion dollar investments, risking tens of thousands of jobs, not to mention the pension funds invested in stock, on ideas that either aren't out of the lab yet or have already proven to be uneconomic at their current level of development. Easy for you to do when it's not your money.

You people need to wake up and realize that crying "I want it!" until your face turns blue may work in the nursery, but not in the grown-up world.

I'm done with this thread, so you can go back to your playground.

Look for a new thread on "Causes". in a few days.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 6:27 AM

Oh profit could indeed be made, for crying out loud the demand is there - the elephant in the room you are dancing around is artificial stumbling blocks placed by folks attempting to protect their investment in petrol based technologies who have enough financial influance to buy politicians, something the Sherman and Clayton anti-trust acts were intended to prevent, but were subverted by the false concept of corporate personhood.

When there is a heavy demand for something and established enterprises can not or will not fill it, that is where new enterprises come in, but that does not happen when established enterprises can manipulate factors to prevent it, that's neither competition nor Free Market.

You completely contradict yourself saying there's no demand, and then mock those who are showing said demand for the product, that's somewhat ridiculous Geeze, and you know it.

My current in-town vehicle is actually a hand built trike with cargo box constructed from the front end of a Tomos Sprint connected to a Pryer Trike rear end, running a 2-stroke 64cc overbored A5 Motor with dual centrifugal clutches, can move 900lbs of cargo at up to 35mph and gets well over 100mpg easy - but i'm gettin a bit old for open air riding, and wouldn't mind a replacing it with an alt-fuel vehicle, or high efficiency econobox.

And for all your gripe about such things, tell me then, why are all the econoboxes you mention foreign imports ? because american automakers have such a market lock that they do not give a shit what their customers want, that isn't a sign of a Free Market buddy, rather the opposite, but yer so busy cheering on an utterly failed business construct that depends on being propped up by the Gov (kinda like the current airline industry) rather than customer demand and cost-efficiency.

Every decent invention or innovation in history has at one time or another been mocked as a useless, unprofitable pipedream, from the steam engine to the telephone, and yet, here they are.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 6:40 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, by your logic NOTHING new can be introduced. Because a new product of any sort calls for investment ahead of profit (unless you're manufacturing hula hoops which require no new investment at all). That requires... Umm what is that word that capitalists always like to point to? Oh yeah: RISK. So are you saying that capitalists in general or GM specifically are gutless wonders? Or are you saying that the technology isn't there because real RESEARCH advances are not driven by profit because it costs too much money? Or are you saying that the only way to move froward is by government mandate?

I don't know, Geezer, you leave me so confused!

In any case, I'd be happy to discuss the introduction of new technologies under capitalism in another thread. But for now, my position- which have have not chosen to address- is the complete geopolitical NON-necessity of us being in the Mideast at all, based on CURRENT technology. So why are we there?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 6:57 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
The USA has the worst fuel economies of the entire industrialized world. Greencarcongresss.com (the site that Geezer dismissed out of hand because of its name) cites Pew research (Geezer may have heard of them?) which shows that as of 2002 (two years before the report was written so likely to be reliable) fuel economy standards were as follows:

Japan............46 mpg
EU..................40 mpg
China............30 mpg
Australia........30 mpg
Canada...........26 mpg
Beetlebong (USA)....24 mpg
www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/Fuel%20Economy%20and%20GHG%20Standards_0
10605_110719.pdf

I gave that some thought when I first hired a car in the US and the "compact car" was larger than the car we had in England. Americans like bigger (heavier) cars and we aren't just talking SUV's and trucks. I've asked people why and the consensus seems to be that comfort/utility for long distance road trips is the deciding factor.

When you cram the 2.4 kids into a vehicle and intend to drive for more than 3 hours you really want a more comfortable vehicle. It's a question of distance. From the bottom of Texas to the Okie border is London to Glasgow kinds of distances and that represents the longest run we've ever driven in the UK in a single trip. If I wanted to go to Paris I would TGV my way there. In fact I would probably take the train to Glasgow if time allowed. So I think that could be the problem. European cars are made for running shorter distances. In the US people buy the car that can service the twice yearly road trip even though that means they pay to push around metal they dont need when commuting every day.

Perhaps the answer is to make economic people pushers like Frem suggests for the weekly commute and have low cost hire vehicles for long distance trips (or build a TGV network.)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:09 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
And for all your gripe about such things, tell me then, why are all the econoboxes you mention foreign imports ?

Hardly all. Every American manufacturer has a 35+ mpg econobox in the $10,000 - $13,000.00 range. Some share platforms with Japanese or european cars, but that's just logical considering that the foreign cars are required to get much better gas mileage due to the dreaded GOVERNMENT REGULATION (see Sigy's post above)

Companies build what the people will buy, consistent with profitability and government regulation. I can hardly help it if Americans still want big cars and trucks. Until the government tells them they can't have their gas-guzzlers, or the cost of gas goes much higher than it is now, most folks will opt for comfort, room, and performance over economy.

Quote:
Every decent invention or innovation in history has at one time or another been mocked as a useless, unprofitable pipedream, from the steam engine to the telephone, and yet, here they are.

Yep. And so have the flying car, and the passenger blimp, and the Gyrojet pistol, and the V/STOL airliner, and the Beta video cartridge, and wind-powered mega-cargo ships, and canal excavation using nuclear bombs, and other things that did turn out to be "...useless, unprofitable pipedream(s)..."

Go look at old patent models and applications sometime, and then find out how many were actually produced in volume.

But I'm out'a here. Have fun with the pipedreams.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:15 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Geezer, I could pick apart your last post until there was nothing left but the hot air from which it came. But I'm going to stick with this question: why are we in the Middle East? Why are we still importing oil from OPEC?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 7:57 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well I guess that's Geezer's MO in a nutshell... when you can't distract the discussion or answer the question your throw a hissy fit and leave.

Buh bye! *waves* Don't let the door hit your backside on the way out!

--------------

So now that Geezer's gone, we might actually HAVE a discussion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 8:48 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Geezer, I could pick apart your last post until there was nothing left but the hot air from which it came. But I'm going to stick with this question: why are we in the Middle East? Why are we still importing oil from OPEC?

That's actually two questions, so I guess I get to pick one, since you ask so nice.

We're still importing oil from OPEC because we use more than we can domestically produce, and there's not enough public demand to make a 40 or 50 mpg requirement a life-or-death issue for politicians. If everyone drove one of the sub-compacts currently offered by US and foreign carmakers (or even just US carmakers), we could probably do without OPEC. But, as Fletch noted above, folks who drive longer distances want bigger more comfortable cars. Damn that market-driven economy anyway.

So pick this one apart.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:18 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Ah yes... Market-driven economies. As Fletch (your fellow capitalist) will point out, people can be persuaded to spend $100 for a $5 sneaker. So how much demand is driven by advertising? Are gas-guzzlers what people really want, or are they what people are persuaded to want? Where is the advertising in the other direction? Seen any multi-million-dollar ad campaigns pushing for more responsible auto purchases? Eh, no.

Also, higher fuel economy does NOT mean "small and uncomfortable". The Lexus gets 24-31 mpg, the Sonata (a full size car) gets 24-32, and the Toyota RAV4 (an SUV) gets 24-30. www.cars.com/go/advice/Story.jsp?section=top&story=mpgClass&subject=be
st_mpg All are above the USA average. Now, if you look at US models you'll see the Hummer (10-16 mpg), Chevy Suburban (14 mpg), Cadillac Escalade (12 mpg), Ford Expedition (12 mpg), Chevy Avalanche (10 mpg) and GMC Yukon (12 mpg). Cadillac, GMC, and Buick do not offer a single fuel-economic car in their entire line.
www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/bymodel/bymakemodelNF.shtml

So, what you're saying is that although it is clearly possible to produce fuel-efficient comfortable/ luxury vehicles, because USA auto manufacturers are greedy and risk-averse they will stick with high-profit, gas guzzling models, preferring to use their spare dollars on advertising and lobbying efforts rather than on retooling and research?

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 9:59 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Ah yes... Market-driven economies. As Fletch (your fellow capitalist) will point out, people can be persuaded to spend $100 for a $5 sneaker. So how much demand is driven by advertising? Are gas-guzzlers what people really want, or are they what people are persuaded to want? Where is the advertising in the other direction? Seen any multi-million-dollar ad campaigns pushing for more responsible auto purchases? Eh, no.

Don't watch much TV, do you (or read magazines, newspapers or billboards, or listen to radio). There are commercials for fuel-efficient cars all over the place, along with commercials for luxury cars and trucks. The customer base is not monolithic, and there are ads for all segments.

Quote:
Also, higher fuel economy does NOT mean "small and uncomfortable". The Lexus gets 24-31 mpg, the Sonata (a full size car) gets 24-32, and the Toyota RAV4 (an SUV) gets 24-30. All are above the USA average.

Then why don't they rule the market? I see plenty of Lexus, Sonata, and RAV4 ads, so folk must know they're out there. They buy other stuff anyway.

Quote:
Now, if you look at US models you'll see the Hummer (10-16 mpg), Chevy Suburban (14 mpg), Cadillac Escalade (12 mpg), Ford Expedition (12 mpg), Chevy Avalanche (10 mpg) and GMC Yukon (12 mpg).

And they sell every one they make. Some really need that power for load carrying or towing, some just like the bigger vehicles. If they wanted gas mileage they could buy a RAV4, or the bigger Chevy Equinox at 19/26mpg. Darn that freedom of choice.

Quote:
Cadillac, GMC, and Buick do not offer a single fuel-economic car in their entire line.

Caddy tried offering an economy car, the Cimmaron, a few years ago. It sold like putrid meat on a hot day. GMC makes only big trucks, that's their niche, so don't expect GMC sub-compacts. Buick has cars that get 30mpg highway. Besides, if you want a fuel efficient GM car, (Caddy, GMC, and Buick areall GM cars, you know) GM subsidarary Chevrolet will be glad to sell you one.

Quote:
So, what you're saying is that because USA auto manufacturers are lazy and risk-averse they will stick with high-profit, gas guzzling models, preferring to use their spare dollars on advertising and lobbying efforts rather than on retooling and research?

Not really. I'm saying that US manufacturers sell all kinds of cars to all kinds of people. They sell sub-compacts and luxury cars, and advertise all of them. If you want a fuel-efficient car, you can get one. If you want a gas-guzzler, you can get one. If people are willing to pay more for the bigger cars, it's their choice, not yours.

But that's what gripes you, isn't it. That people choose to buy things you know they don't 'really' need. That they won't take your advice, since you know exactly what's best for them.

Wait for the upcoming thread on "Causes" coming soon to a forum near you.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

No. What I'm saying is that American manufacturers COULD offer comfortable fuel efficient vehicles and they won't. Not can't- won't. Americans were induced to buy gas guzzlers over a decades-long advertising campaign to steer people AWAY from fuel efficient cars. Most American auto manufacturers (with the exception of Ford) decided - after getting their asses handed to them on a platter by Honda and Toyota- to avoid that market because it would require too much engineering and retooling. I'll see if I can find the links to that advert campaign. And Americans, unfortunately for them, show far more loyalty to American companies than the reverse.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 10:55 AM

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Quote:
Originally posted by Fletch2:
I gave that some thought when I first hired a car in the US and the "compact car" was larger than the car we had in England. Americans like bigger (heavier) cars and we aren't just talking SUV's and trucks. I've asked people why and the consensus seems to be that comfort/utility for long distance road trips is the deciding factor.

When you cram the 2.4 kids into a vehicle and intend to drive for more than 3 hours you really want a more comfortable vehicle. It's a question of distance. From the bottom of Texas to the Okie border is London to Glasgow kinds of distances and that represents the longest run we've ever driven in the UK in a single trip. If I wanted to go to Paris I would TGV my way there. In fact I would probably take the train to Glasgow if time allowed. So I think that could be the problem. European cars are made for running shorter distances. In the US people buy the car that can service the twice yearly road trip even though that means they pay to push around metal they dont need when commuting every day.

I drive 25 miles to work every day. I drive 135 miles to visit my family every week. And trips to Nashville, Memphis, and Eglin AFB by car are not uncommon. I suppose I could drive a smaller car, like a European kind, but it would be hell to spend that much time in it.

My guess is that the majority of Americans really can’t afford to buy a Lexus. If you have a family, it doesn’t make sense. It makes more sense to buy one big car to drive the family around and not several small ones.

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
But that's what gripes you, isn't it. That people choose to buy things you know they don't 'really' need. That they won't take your advice, since you know exactly what's best for them.

That sounds possible. I’ve never driven anything but an American car, and I’ve never driven anything that didn’t get at least 30 miles to the gallon. To say that the American auto manufacturers don’t provide fuel efficient cars is just nonsense.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 11:54 AM

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No. What I'm saying is that American manufacturers COULD offer comfortable fuel efficient vehicles and they won't. Not can't- won't.

Chevrolet alone offers 8 vehicles which get 30+mpg highway, as you'd know if you cared to check rather than just parrot stuff you heard. Some are full-sized sedans. People do buy them, but other people buy other, less fuel-efficient cars.

http://www.chevrolet.com/fueleconomy/

So you're wrong there.

Quote:
Americans were induced to buy gas guzzlers over a decades-long advertising campaign to steer people AWAY from fuel efficient cars.

Prove it. Ford and Chevy had economy cars such as the Falcon and Nova in the early 60's, when gas was a quarter a gallon, then Pinto and Vega, then Fiesta and Chevette. There's always been econoboxes out there. They've always been advertised.

Quote:
Most American auto manufacturers (with the exception of Ford) decided - after getting their asses handed to them on a platter by Honda and Toyota- to avoid that market because it would require too much engineering and retooling.

See my link to the Chevy site above.

You make your claims (no advertising of economy cars, no American economy cars) I refute them, and you just make them again. Try something else.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 1:03 PM

Hmm, no one else has mentioned it, so why not...

Problem with many american-built econoboxes is that they suck from worse quality control and poor manufacturer issues than a damn Yugo - this I know all too well since my girl works in the Big Three supply chains and we live fairly close to the plant that built the Focus, a disaster of an overpriced piece o shit if there ever was one.

Why buy an american made car that's gonna be in the shop twice a month, when you can buy a honda that won't ? QC seems to be real problematic for american made cars on the low end, as does some awfully piss poor engineering.

I dunno a lot about car engines, but I learned some respect for Honda, who I originally disliked, because many folk brought me Honda Spree NQ-50 scoots for servicing, and THOSE engines are second to none, simple, efficient, and damn near indestructible... if they make car engines the same way, I don't even see how american companies compete at all.

All that being said, american automakers CAN bang it over the fence if they try, the hunk of junk Alero we have, everything else on the car is total crap, including a disaster of a braking system that chews up the rotors every 3000 miles or less, but the engine itself is the most solid and reliable machine I have ever seen in a US car.

As for Chevy, we rented a four door Geo Metro when we were out in Reno on vacation, and I don't remember the exact model, but I rather liked it, it was quite efficient, but try finding a product line like that now - hell, try finding anything but a used rustbucket for under 10k.

Gonna come a day soon enough when no one can afford to buy a car, prices bein what they are, and wages not keepin up - there's intense market demand for an affordable car, and I mean affordable by folks who actually work for a livin.

To say that demand isn't there is ridiculous.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 2:06 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Well, yeah, there is that QC problem. The last American we bought was a Dodge Caravan. It ran rough within the first 10 miles... cracked valve springs... and spent the first 29 days of its working life in the shop. The tranny burned up at 30,000 miles, and again at 60,000 miles. At 80,000 it developed a persistent overheating problem that no amount of radiator flushing could fix. And that's not counting the A/C which blew at 40,000 mi, struts that broke, and a host of minor problems that made me want to drive the damn thing off a cliff. When it was in accident we crossed our fingers and hoped for a total loss, and took the money to buy a used Honda Odyssey.

Generally, the offerings from the Big Two Point Five have been either big cushy vehicles that get 10 mpg, or pieces of shit.

But Geezer, I DO watch TV and I haven't seen a single ad for a Focus or any of the other American fuel-efficient cars. Not a one. Not in YEARS. Interestingly, in looking for the links to the articles that I saw describing the strategy of American automakers, I found this:
Automakers create radio and print ads in an attempt to stall fuel economy regulations
Quote:
May 26th 2007 Jeremy Korzeniewski

In an effort to sway consumer's minds when it comes to the types of vehicles they purchase and the regulations concerning fuel mileage of those vehicles, a consortium of automakers is running radio and print advertising in some states. The group, Auto Alliance, consists of General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co., DaimlerChrysler AG, Toyota, BMW, Volkswagen, Mazda, Mitsubishi and Porsche, and is known officially as The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.... According to this article, "the alliance said it would spend "way north" of $1 million on ads to be run in ... all states with high percentages of truck and SUV owners.... The idea is that fuel mileage regulations would make it more difficult for consumers to purchase heavy duty, work capable pickups and for mothers to find safe vehicles.
Grassroots efforts are also said to be in effect to contact retirees from the large automakers with similar information. At this time, automakers are under regulations that were created in 1975 to regulate fuel economy. Source: Detroit News
Nothing like spreading FUD, huh?

Also
Dealers and auto executives take their lobbying efforts to Washington Posted Jun 21st 2007 This is about the CAFE standards.

I found this assessment from the head of Chrysler in 1985, which is when Ford and GM decided they would rather exert their lobbying effort rather than their engineering know-how:

Quote:

Sperlich added that his company {Chrsyler} had invested $5 billion in meeting CAFE standards, then ascribed a simple motive to GM and Ford’s foot-dragging: “...[It is] not about saving jobs or saving factories. It’s about maximizing profits, pure and simple. Those who want the standard dialed back have forgone the investments necessary to move their CAFE to the statutory level of 27.5 mpg; now they want an administrative ruling to forgo paying the fines that Congress intended as the penalty for noncompliance ...
GM and Ford eventually won their rollback in 1986, and Chrysler Chairman Lee Iacocca angrily noted, “I’m a little more than unhappy about it..... GM and Ford said if they couldn’t sell big cars in order to meet CAFE they would have to shut their plants and lay off people. Would GM shut a plant because instead of making $5,000 profit on a car they had to pay a CAFE fine and only make $4,500? That’s mad; that’s crazy.”

www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/cars_pickups_suvs/life-in-the-slow-lane.
html
You should read the entire paper; it describes years and years of intense lobbying by Ford and GM to keep rolling back the CAFE standards and threats to move production overseas instead of just rolling up their sleeves and getting to work.

Meanwhile, I'll keep looking for that strategy paper that I read. It's from the mid-80's so it's going to be hard to find.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, August 25, 2007 4:13 PM