Bush said "America is addicted to oil!"

[The Wogster]

Peter Cole wrote:
> 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.

Light weight small cars have been around for years, some infamous ones
were the Citroen 2CV (375-450cc engine), the original VW Beatle (985cc)
the Original Mini (850cc). Essentially any car with 1000cc or less
falls into this category. The Suzuki Forsa (right at the limit with
1000cc), was a Japanise version (sold in NA by GM as the Chevy Sprint
and Pontiac Firefly), I actually had one of these (Firefly).....

I expect that when we hit peak oil, that this class of car, will see a
massive resurgence.

W

 

[n5hsr]

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

Amen. Or mess up the wire I got across my breastbone last summer to close
up the quad bypass. . . .

Hey, I thought they weren't supposed to need airbags if 3/4 of the states
passed seat belt laws?

Won't be the first time, nor the last that we've been lied to by the
government, I fear. What ever happened to those tall flags on the back of
bikes from something like 2 decades ago?

We're the Nanny State, we're only here to help. . . .

Charles of Schaumburg

 

[Violet Tigress]

In article <[email protected]>,
"gooserider" <[email protected]> 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.
********
How many suburbans will ever actually do what they wer designed to do?

 

[Sorni]

n5hsr wrote:

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

What's to figure out? For three miles, it almost doesn't matter WHAT you
ride.

Bill "really" S.

 

[Sorni]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Cole 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.

> 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.

OMG, I agree with Frank!

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

OMG, I agree with Frank!

> 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."

OMG, I agree with Frank!

Bill "this too shall pass " S.

 

[di]

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


You still don't get it, but your words do "if we were forced to drive 1500
pound cars", some just don't like to be "forced" to do something they don't
want to. I have not been arguing the pros or cons of heavy vs light cars,
but rather the attitude that we should force someone else to do as we
believe.

 

[Mike Latondresse]

The Wogster <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> [email protected] wrote:
>> Very true, the days of the dollar ARE counted, THEY MAY realize
>> the fact and have some sort of plan? Or don't they have a clue...
>
> Well, I would think that being clueless, is much more likely....
>
> Actually an America's currency would be a very good thing, with an
> Americas trade agreement to go with it. Canada and Brasil offer
> raw materials, countries like Bolivia, Columbia and Argentina can
> offer cheap labour, The United States offers technology. The
> market would be about the same size as Europe (750 million
> people), people and goods can be moved by either sea or rail for
> the entire distance. Of course the United States might need to
> deal with some issues, such as cancelling their trade embargo with
> Cuba
>
> W
>
Forget that concept...after the scam of softwood lumber I wouldn't
trust the US with and other "free trade" agreements and I hope we do
re-examine our energy trade policy.

 

[[email protected]]

di wrote:
>
>
> You still don't get it, but your words do "if we were forced to drive 1500
> pound cars", some just don't like to be "forced" to do something they don't
> want to. I have not been arguing the pros or cons of heavy vs light cars,
> but rather the attitude that we should force someone else to do as we
> believe.

If that attitude bothers you, you're overdue for an isolated cabin in
Alaska.

One of the features of society is a collection of rules. Rules force
others to do as society believes. And society is, essentially, "we."

And these debates serve to help determine what society believes.

- Frank Krygowski

 

[di]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> If that attitude bothers you, you're overdue for an isolated cabin in
> Alaska.

Not a bad idea! :<)

> One of the features of society is a collection of rules. Rules force
> others to do as society believes. And society is, essentially, "we."
>

Rules of the majority, I think your proposals are in a very, very small
minority.

 

[Gooserider]

"Johnny Sunset" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> gooserider wrote:
>> ...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...
>
> The Honda Accord V6 has a 4 cylinder engine?????
>
Slipped there. It still gets excellent mileage. The 4 cylinder gets better
though.

 

[Gooserider]

"Wayne Pein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:zcqFf.7871$%[email protected]...
> 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.
>
If they get good mileage what does it matter? Cars with low horsepower are
not fun to drive, and can be unsafe.

 

[Gooserider]

"Violet Tigress" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "gooserider" <[email protected]> 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.
> ********
> How many suburbans will ever actually do what they wer designed to do?

Very few, but for people who need them there is no substitute. They need to
be de-contented to make them less appealing to soccer moms.

 

[Gooserider]

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

The next step is for governments to control every aspect. Own the wells, own
the tankers.

 

[The Wogster]

di wrote:
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>di wrote:
>>
>>><[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>
>>
>>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.
>
>
>
> You still don't get it, but your words do "if we were forced to drive 1500
> pound cars", some just don't like to be "forced" to do something they don't
> want to. I have not been arguing the pros or cons of heavy vs light cars,
> but rather the attitude that we should force someone else to do as we
> believe.
>
>

It depends, forced how, how about limited fuel availability with
stratospheric prices to match. How many people would drive a 7500lb SUV
if you could only buy 5 gallons of gas at a time, and it cost $20 per
gallon? What if, even dispite this limited amount, and high price,
going to a gas station on a Thursday, Friday, Saturday or Sunday was an
excersize in futility, because they usually get gas on Monday and run
out by Wednesday.

W




Most of the mini cars were developed because of fuel shortages or
amazingly high fuel prices.

 

[Peter Cole]

n5hsr wrote:
> "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
>
>

Those are mid-engine cars, which is a different design. The corvair was
a rear-engine, air-cooled car like the beetle and early Porsche models.

 

[Peter Cole]

[email protected] wrote:
> Peter Cole 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.
>
>
> 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.

Big claim.

> (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?

I worked for a company that made precision measurement (computerized)
equipment for car engine manufacture in those days. Nobody gave a damn
about emissions, economy or reliability. Detroit was caught flat-footed
by the first oil-shocks in the mid-70's. Honda didn't take off as a
brand until the 80's. There were plenty of econo-boxes around in the
late 70's (Subaru, Datsun, VW, etc.) The US guys had no experience with
4-cylinder, small displacement engines, never mind FWD. Catch-up took a
long time (actually they never did, the oil shocks abated, so they
didn't have to).

It strikes me as a *really* big reach to lay all that on Nader and his
one little book in 1965

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

Nader invented airbags? Keep your kid in the back, they'll be fine.

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>> The real limitation to our current oil supply is lack of refinery
>> capacity.
>
>Refining capacity affects the supply and price of
>gasoline and other light products of crude oil
>but does not affect the supply of oil or its
>price.

Maybe I worded that ambiguously, but the fact remains that doubling
our crude oil input wouldn't increase our creation of finished
petroleum products to the end user (as evidenced by the refinery
shutdowns due to the recent gulf hurricanes). To keep from having
supply-related spikes to the consumer, you have to have enough
capacity of crude AND refinery capacity. Shut down more than a few
percent of either and the end result will be the same (to the
consumer, that is...).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

[email protected] wrote:

>Mark Hickey 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.

Dang. Any of you planning a vacation in hell should pack ice skates!
;-)

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Wayne Pein]

Gooserider wrote:

> If they get good mileage what does it matter? Cars with low horsepower are
> not fun to drive, and can be unsafe.
>

Slow is cool.

Low hp is unsafe? That's a real hoot. I've owned high hp and low hp
vehicles, and low hp is not unsafe.

Wayne

 

[[email protected]]

Gooserider wrote:
> "Violet Tigress" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> > ********
> > How many suburbans will ever actually do what they wer designed to do?
>
> Very few, but for people who need them there is no substitute.

I doubt that. It sounds too much like "But Mommy, I _NEED_ an MP3
player!!!!!"

Somehow, people survived - even prospered - Before Suburbans.

- Frank Krygowski