Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

[Tom Keats]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> writes:
>
> gooserider wrote:
>>
>> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does, and doesn't
>> need to do what a Suburban is supposedly designed to do. I see that GM is
>> designing V8 engines which will run on 4 cylinders when cruising. That's
>> great. The vehicle will need horsepower to pull trailers and boats and such.
>> There is a place for them, it's just not to shuttle soccer kids around.
>
> Why are the kids being shuttled around, instead of riding their
> bicycle, walking or taking a bus?

I guess the name: "Suburban" gives a hint.

> When did parents start thinking that
> every minute of a child's life needs to be structured and supervised
> anyhow?

At least back when parents were scared of their kids contracting
polio by being in crowded places or public swimming pools.


cheers,
Tom

--
-- Nothing is safe from me.
Above address is just a spam midden.
I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca

 

[The Wogster]

Johnny Sunset wrote:
> gooserider wrote:
>
>>That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does, and doesn't
>>need to do what a Suburban is supposedly designed to do. I see that GM is
>>designing V8 engines which will run on 4 cylinders when cruising. That's
>>great. The vehicle will need horsepower to pull trailers and boats and such.
>>There is a place for them, it's just not to shuttle soccer kids around.
>
>
> Why are the kids being shuttled around, instead of riding their
> bicycle, walking or taking a bus? When did parents start thinking that
> every minute of a child's life needs to be structured and supervised
> anyhow? Now the little creeps want to move back home after college to
> be taken care of. Sheesh!
>

How else do you think the average American can pass 200lbs by the time
they are 14? When I was a kid, you had 3 ways to get to school, if you
were less then a mile from school, you walked, over a mile, you kept an
old beater bike in service, and rode to school. If you were from
outside the town or city, they used rural school buses. The only time
we got driven to school or picked up, was when it was raining very, very
hard, I think maybe a dozen times in a dozen grades......

Of course there were other safety techniques, you often had 4-5 kids
that walked or rode home together, we also had more schools, there was
the local mini-school, grades K-3, then a larger school further away
that was K-8, and then still fewer and larger high schools. So little
kids in small grades often had maybe a 6 block walk. As to the schools
I went to, the mini-school is gone, the K-8 school was torn down and a
new school built on the site ( cheaper then all the upgrades the old one
needed). The highschool is still there though.....

That may be part of the reasoning behind being driven to school, a city
with 65,000 people and 30,000 of those in school, had maybe 300 schools,
now there are less then 50 schools to service a school population of
maybe 20,000, so they are larger and further apart.

W

 

[Rich]

n5hsr wrote:

> One of the things that I don't get is most of the SUV drivers have 1 or 2
> childeren. Why do they need such a bus to haul them in? What happened to
> mini-vans, anyway?

There's really no difference between a mini-van and medium sized 2wd
SUV. I'm not sure why you're for one and against the other.

 

[Peter Cole]

Rich wrote:
> gooserider wrote:

>
>> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does
>
>
> The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.

The real point is that most vehicles are too heavy.

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>
>>Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be a
>>lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of course.
>
>
> I know "me too" responses are considered bad form. But when I
> agree this thoroughly with Mark, I think I've got a moral obligation to
> say so!
>
> Good post, Mark.

How many rear-engined cars do you see on the road today? The only other
rear-engined car that was made in large numbers was the beetle --
another truly awful design that was obsolete long before it became
popular. The idea that a more popular Corvair could have helped the US
auto business is absurd.

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> di wrote:
>> It's not a matter of greed, but of
>> personal choice, if a person has reason or even desire to drive a SUV,
>> they
>> should have that right. I certainly would not want some bureaucrat that
>> doesn't even know a thing about my lifestyle to make that decision for
>> me.
>
> I believe a person should be free to buy a large, obnoxious vehicle if
> they want to. But I also believe price of such a vehicle should
> reflect its effect on others.
>
> One of the reasons people buy SUVs is so a collision with another car
> will cause them to be less injured - consequently, causing the other
> person to be more injured. The cost of excess injuries to those in
> smaller vehicles should be assessed and added to the SUV's cost.

Why not a tax on the smaller vehicles to defray the additional cost of
medical injuries for their occupants in a collision with a SUV, makes just
as much sense, depending on your point of view. Anyone here old enough
to remember those evil stationwagons of the 50's & 60's, the vehicle the now
evil SUV replaced, all driven by housewives taking the kids to school,
shopping, etc. What's a housewife you ask, that's the person a soccer mom
replaced when PC came onto the scene.

 

[max]

"di" <[email protected]> wrote:

> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > di wrote:

> > One of the reasons people buy SUVs is so a collision with another car
> > will cause them to be less injured - consequently, causing the other
> > person to be more injured. The cost of excess injuries to those in
> > smaller vehicles should be assessed and added to the SUV's cost.
>
> Why not a tax on the smaller vehicles to defray the additional cost of
> medical injuries for their occupants in a collision with a SUV, makes just
> as much sense, depending on your point of view.

Black's Law refers to this as the tort of Tui Facies Interdictum Mei Pugnus.

..max

 

[The Wogster]

Peter Cole wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
>> gooserider wrote:
>
>
>>
>>> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does
>>
>>
>>
>> The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>
>
> The real point is that most vehicles are too heavy.

Have a look at the smart car (http://www.thesmart.ca) , 75% of car trips
could be made in such a car, weight is 730kg without driver, the engine
is a 3 cylinder 799cc turbo diesel.

They got real popular in Canada last fall when fuel was over $1/L
($3.50/Gallon) and 4.2L/100km (56MPG-US) made a lot of sense.

W

 

[Chuck]

On 2006-02-05, Rich <[email protected]> wrote:
> gooserider wrote:
>> "Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>>
>>>gooserider wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>No. My point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>>>>
>>>>>Wayne
>>>
>>>>A big SUV is NOT overpowered. It's just a big SUV.
>>>
>>>I agree with Wayne. One of our vehicles is a Hyundai Santa Fe, which
>>>weights like 3000 lbs or something (it's physically small but somewhat on
>>>the heavy side) and it has a 4 cylinder that's perfectly adequate, even in
>>>Colorado (we get about 25mpg out of it).
>>>
>>>Of course, the next year they stopped selling the 4 cylinder model because
>>>customers much preferred the 6 cylinder. Fools.
>
>> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does
>
> The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.

That's to power the transfer case and spin the front differential that
get engaged 2-3 times over the life of the vehicle. GM is getting what
they deserve for reaping in the money off a 20 year old design, while
Toyota, Honda, etc., were investing in future technologies. My 87 4
cylinder 4-runner is a much better (dependable/economical) than any US
domestic 4wd vehicle. I expect this thing to run to the 500k mile mark
unless the frame somehow gets to where it's not repairable due to rust.

Yes, many vehicles are overpowered and under-geared. Put the enough
gears in the thing and a driver that knows how to use them and you'll
get where you need to go with less power.

 

[Wayne Pein]

gooserider wrote:


>
> Power has very little to do with fuel economy. Weight does. There are plenty
> of 4 cylinder cars with BLISTERING performance and a lot of power that get
> good gas mileage. Subaru WRX, Dodge Neon SRT-4, Mitsubishi EVO, Toyota
> Celica, Honda Accord V6, Nissan Maxima, etc. Too many vehicles are too BIG.
>
That BLISTERING performance means they are way overpowered.

Wayne

 

[Wayne Pein]

Johnny Sunset wrote:


> I don't have the problem you mentioned because I stay back far enough
> that I merge at full speed [1]. Logically if you did the same, you
> would not encounter the situation you describe.
>
> [1] Even if it means annoying the person behind me while I creep up the
> first portion of the ramp at 15 mph.
>

Yes, you have a point. I suppose I COULD do 15 and open up a huge gap in
front. But I keep a much bigger headway than most drivers, and it still
is not often sufficient to accelerate to speed.

But my initial point is that cars are overpowered and people don't even
use it where it might be appropriate. My 107 hp xB winds up accelerating
faster than vehicles with much greater hp/wt ratio.

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

gooserider wrote:

> Which could be why you are seeing nations starting to nationalize their oil
> industries. Venezuela already has. Bolivia is making noises to that effect.
> The Middle Eastern countries will likely start kicking western companies out
> and doing the same. The resource is limited and will only become more
> valuable, and handing over large profits to the "corrupt West" makes no
> sense.

The oil in the Middle East has already
been nationalized and is controlled by
governments, not oil companies.

R

 

[n5hsr]

"Peter Cole" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> [email protected] wrote:
>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
>>>
>>>Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be a
>>>lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of course.
>>
>>
>> I know "me too" responses are considered bad form. But when I
>> agree this thoroughly with Mark, I think I've got a moral obligation to
>> say so!
>>
>> Good post, Mark.
>
> How many rear-engined cars do you see on the road today? The only other
> rear-engined car that was made in large numbers was the beetle --
> another truly awful design that was obsolete long before it became
> popular. The idea that a more popular Corvair could have helped the US
> auto business is absurd.

If I were you, I'd double check the cars at Indy before I opened my mouth
and stuck my foot in like that.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> gooserider wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>
>>
>> The real point is that most vehicles are too heavy.
>
> Have a look at the smart car (http://www.thesmart.ca) , 75% of car trips
> could be made in such a car, weight is 730kg without driver, the engine is
> a 3 cylinder 799cc turbo diesel.
>
> They got real popular in Canada last fall when fuel was over $1/L
> ($3.50/Gallon) and 4.2L/100km (56MPG-US) made a lot of sense.
>
> W
>
>
>

Why do you think I'm trying to figure out a bicycle to ride the 3 miles to
work . . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[n5hsr]

"Rich" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> n5hsr wrote:
>
>> One of the things that I don't get is most of the SUV drivers have 1 or 2
>> childeren. Why do they need such a bus to haul them in? What happened
>> to mini-vans, anyway?
>
> There's really no difference between a mini-van and medium sized 2wd SUV.
> I'm not sure why you're for one and against the other.

Because for some reason, SUV drivers don't seem to watch where they are
going and don't notice the bumps in the road that used to be smaller cars.
Van drivers sit somewhat lower and seem to notice a little better. SUV
drivers, at least up here, seem to have a snobby superior ignorant attitude.
I have to do an awful lot of defensive driving around them. Much more so
than even the 18-wheeled trucks on the expressways. At least they know
they're huge and drive accordingly.

If I have a problem with an idiot on the road up here in Sloburbia, I have
an 80% chance he/she's driving an SUV. The remainder are usually driving 55
in the left expressway lane and usually driving a Buick <g>.

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[Peter Cole]

The Wogster wrote:
> Peter Cole wrote:
>
>> Rich wrote:

>>>
>>> The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>
>>
>>
>> The real point is that most vehicles are too heavy.
>
>
> Have a look at the smart car (http://www.thesmart.ca) , 75% of car trips
> could be made in such a car, weight is 730kg without driver, the engine
> is a 3 cylinder 799cc turbo diesel.
>
> They got real popular in Canada last fall when fuel was over $1/L
> ($3.50/Gallon) and 4.2L/100km (56MPG-US) made a lot of sense.

I'm familiar with the concept. In the 60's I drove a ~1500 lb car with
an 850cc engine. It was also more fun to drive than most cars I've
driven since. With today's material advances, a very light vehicle is
easier to design. The vehicles of the future may well be Chinese or
Indian designs.

 

[The Wogster]

n5hsr wrote:
> "The Wogster" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>Peter Cole wrote:
>>
>>>Rich wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>gooserider wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>That's fine, but a Santa Fe doesn't weigh what a Suburban does
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>The point is that the vast majority of vehicles are overpowered.
>>>
>>>
>>>The real point is that most vehicles are too heavy.
>>
>>Have a look at the smart car (http://www.thesmart.ca) , 75% of car trips
>>could be made in such a car, weight is 730kg without driver, the engine is
>>a 3 cylinder 799cc turbo diesel.
>>
>>They got real popular in Canada last fall when fuel was over $1/L
>>($3.50/Gallon) and 4.2L/100km (56MPG-US) made a lot of sense.
>>
>>W
>>
>>
>>
>
>
> Why do you think I'm trying to figure out a bicycle to ride the 3 miles to
> work . . . .
>

Well, since I can't afford to buy a new Smart, and am stuck with my
elderly Chrysler Intrepid, I am seriously debating about riding to work
this summer, it's about 12km one way.

Advantages :
0L/100km.
Extra bike time.
It will be light out to and from.
I start work at 7:30, before the temps start to go up.

Disadvantages :

I need to ride through one of the worst parts of town.
A fairly steep valley, with a stop at the bottom.

W

 

[Rich]

n5hsr wrote:

>>How many rear-engined cars do you see on the road today? The only other
>>rear-engined car that was made in large numbers was the beetle --
>>another truly awful design that was obsolete long before it became
>>popular. The idea that a more popular Corvair could have helped the US
>>auto business is absurd.
>
> If I were you, I'd double check the cars at Indy before I opened my mouth
> and stuck my foot in like that.
>
> Charles of Schaumburg

Those are driven on the road?

 

[[email protected]]

Peter Cole wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Mark Hickey wrote:
> >
> >>Mike Latondresse <mikelat@no_spam_shaw.ca> wrote:
> >>
> >>Yes, it's more complex than that, but the US auto universe would be a
> >>lot better today had the Corvair not been demonized. IMHO of course.
> >
> >
> > I know "me too" responses are considered bad form. But when I
> > agree this thoroughly with Mark, I think I've got a moral obligation to
> > say so!
> >
> > Good post, Mark.
>
> How many rear-engined cars do you see on the road today? The only other
> rear-engined car that was made in large numbers was the beetle --
> another truly awful design that was obsolete long before it became
> popular. The idea that a more popular Corvair could have helped the US
> auto business is absurd.

You're mis-reading. It's not that the Corvair was a brilliant piece of
design. (It had some good features, many bad ones.) But the handling
problems had been more than corrected by the time Nader started
whining, and Nader's publicity stunt had the unintended consequence of
stifling almost all innovation from Detroit.

(Not the last time that Nader's delusions of grandeur screwed things
up, of course. I think the guy is a disaster.)

Re innovation: At the time Honda was producing the Civic (transverse
engine, able to meet pollution standards without a catalytic converter,
decent performance, excellent economy, excellent reliability, very
roomy for its size) Detroit was producing ... what? The Chevette?

Gee, thanks, Ralph. And I hope your "airbag" idea doesn't take my
kid's head off in the name of "safety."

- Frank Krygowski

 

[[email protected]]

di wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> >
> > One of the reasons people buy SUVs is so a collision with another car
> > will cause them to be less injured - consequently, causing the other
> > person to be more injured. The cost of excess injuries to those in
> > smaller vehicles should be assessed and added to the SUV's cost.
>
> Why not a tax on the smaller vehicles to defray the additional cost of
> medical injuries for their occupants in a collision with a SUV, makes just
> as much sense, depending on your point of view.

No, that makes much less sense.

There is a difference in a person choosing to accept a certain level of
risk, and a person choosing to impose risk on others. This is
recognized in law and in moral theory. That's one reason you find
people voluntarily rapelling for fun, but you don't find people forcing
strangers to dangle over cliffs on ropes.

Furthermore, if (for sake of argument) we were all forced to drive 1500
pound cars, there would be no excess risk in doing so, AND our nation
would be much more secure against foreign influences.

The only reason the more socially responsible choice carries extra risk
is because of the "me first" yahoos.

- Frank Krygowski