 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / September 2004Drivers: How can you love something you hate so much?
> >I think that's part of the problem with American drivers: for them > >driving is a chore. Perhaps driving better cars (stick shift, sport > >suspensions, etc) on demanding roads (autobahn conditions) would do > >the trick. Otherwise they should be riding the bus. > > A stick shift does nothing to make the commute to work even 1 little bit more > fun. A stick shift with a DAMN BIG ENGINE might, but not just a stick. Put > that stick behind a huge V8, and inside the chassis of a Corvette - now yer > talkin. But, I prolly can't afford it, definitely don't want to try to afford > it, and would much rather be able to ride to work, as long as I don't have to > share space with anyone else I don't know, like you have to on a bus, train, > airplane, etc., nor be subject to someone else's pinhead rules about not > eating, drinking, playing the radio, etc. like on the Washington Metro subway, > where they carry off 12 year old girls in handcuffs for having a french fry on > the platform. That was probably because the fries were French... ;) But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B, and driving is a chore, to be palliated be eating, drinking, talking on the phone, why do you defend so stubbornly driving as your only option? HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH? :( http://webspawner.com/users/donquijote > But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many > drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH? :( Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down to convenience, and all other forms of transportation are extremely INconvenient for many reasons. So inconvenient that they might as well not even exist, as far as transportation options go. There are a few rare exceptions. For example, if you happen to live and work in a large city, you might get by OK with using the subway and not even owning a car. But other than that, you pretty much have to own and use some kind of motorized transport (usually a car, truck or SUV) to facilitate ummm . . . LIFE. At least that's the way it is in the U.S. You might hate all the time you have to spend behind the wheel, but without driving, you are a jobless, homeless outcast on the fringes of U.S. society. That's because so few people can afford to live in the same area that their employer happens to conduct business. That is, unless you want to be a grocery bagger or retail sales droid. -Dave >> But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many >> drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B, [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > employer happens to conduct business. That is, unless you want to be a > grocery bagger or retail sales droid. -Dave Amen to that, Dave. I can't go to the grocery and put 5 or ten bags of food on the back of the bike. I can't go to the home improvement center and put a load of hardware on the bike. I can't load up a week of clothes and commute to the motel I work out of for the week, 150 miles away. Local work for me is 40-50 miles each way. I am an engineer and don't think I would like fast food work at McJob. No bike to work either way. Fortunately, I am 'temporarily' unemployed and get to ride every day. I like my 1966 Mopar muscle car (8 MPG, 440 big block, 400 H.P.) for intimidating the Honda crowd, all noisy muffler, no go power. Once a month use. My normal use cars are wimpy 4 cylinder front wheel drive Japanese clones. Do I like driving a car? Not really but it serves a purpose and is great for stuffing the bike in the back and DRIVING to some of the more remote biking and hiking places that are more than 35 miles away. It is nice to have some energy to play when I get to the mountains instead of having to save 35+ miles of energy to rade back home. Do people need cars? Damn straight, unless they enjoy living in an apartment and really don't have a life. If homeless you can't sleep in the back of a bike anyway. Bill Baka  SignatureUsing M2, Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/ Hate? I luv cars, especially the Old timers- 30s thru 50s.. they were a work of art, not just a way to get around. Cars nowdays are funky in some ways but will never match those grand machines of long ago, just watch the woodward dream cruise some year, (a michigan thing) and it can bring tears to a car lovers eyes. You may get fed up with a problem vehicle if you happen to get one, but you hate the problems, not the car itself. Y.D. > Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable > transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down I agree with your sentiment, but 99.9 isn't really fair. I would guess approx 5-10% of the population of the country lives in the NYC metro area alone (this is a pure guestimate based on ~8 million people living in NYC proper, about twice that in the surrounding suburbs and ~300 million in the US total) where mass transit is a good option. Add in Philly, DC, Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target. Dave In article <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408160734450.24535-100000@ccrma-gate.stanford.edu>, > > Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable > > transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks > who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target. While 99.9% may be low 5-10% is way too high. Transit usage is only 2.5-4% of all usage. The overwhelming majority being a single optimal round trip. Far less than 1% can practically function by choice with just transit as a transportation option. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > In article > <Pine.LNX.4.44.0408160734450.24535-100000@ccrma-gate.stanford.edu>, [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > While 99.9% may be low 5-10% is way too high. Transit usage is only > 2.5-4% of all usage. That's of all usage in the entire country - which includes vast areas where there is no transit at all. The percentage is substantially higher where transit is actually available. >The overwhelming majority being a single optimal > round trip. Far less than 1% can practically function by choice with > just transit as a transportation option. Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car in order to use transit. BTW. You're an idiot > "Robert Cote" <tsch@adlph.net> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > That's of all usage in the entire country - which includes vast areas where > there is no transit at all. I might have said and reported the numbers in reference to the entire U.S. because the numbers used previously involved and directly refered to, and I quote: "people living in the U.S." Read first Leroy. > The percentage is substantially higher where > transit is actually available. Well golly gee. Shock and suprise. In FAct I'd be willing to bet near 100% of all transit use is in places where it is available. When the point is that transit is not and cannot be pervasive then all you've done is agree with the obvious. > >The overwhelming majority being a single optimal > > round trip. Far less than 1% can practically function by choice with > > just transit as a transportation option. > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that it's all cars > or all transit. You don't have to give up your car in order to use transit. The rest of us were discussing that very extreme. As it turns out all transit is not possible for several reasons. All POV transportation provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal. FYI Leroy there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and what you wish were said (all cars). > BTW. You're an idiot Better to be called an idiot by the likes of you than to produce posts that prove it without any prompting whatsoever. For instance; an idiot would most likely be found in alt.local.village.idiot whereas a discussion of POV versus transit would be found in alt.planning.urban and such. Even more telling, an idiot would try to trick honest posters into posting to just alt.local.village.idiot in a lame attempt at the last word on the subject in the relevant newsgroups. BTW if any rec.motorcycles are left I ride a '83 GS1100ES that has been lightly modified (meaning correctly jetted and tuned away from the factory settings that were for EPA only). For everyone else I apologize for Leroy Baxter. He's... umm. how should this be said? Ummm.... "special." Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that it's all cars > > or all transit. You don't have to give up your car in order to use transit. > > The rest of us were discussing that very extreme. Only you transit-haters are discussing that extreme. > As it turns out all > transit is not possible for several reasons. You mean it wasn't obvious from the start? > All POV transportation > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal. Yet you continue to argue for that extreme. >FYI Leroy > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and > what you wish were said (all cars). All cars is already the "overwhelming majority". If you were really arguing as you claim, there'd be no argument. It would be like arguing that this us usenet. > > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that > > > it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Only you transit-haters are discussing that extreme. Read again more carefully this time. It is certainly inthe interests of we transit supporters to find out what the limits of ther various modes may be. > > As it turns out all > > transit is not possible for several reasons. > > You mean it wasn't obvious from the start? Not at all. Several reasons are subtle and require education and intellect. I guess that explains why you had to ask. One subtlety is the decreasing utility nature of transit. Each additional increase in market share comes at an increasing price. This is not necessarially the the case for POV modes. > > All POV transportation > > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal. > > Yet you continue to argue for that extreme. Not at all. > > FYI Leroy > > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and > > what you wish were said (all cars). > > All cars is already the "overwhelming majority". That's not responsive. You tried to say I was arguing for all cars. Nothing you've said since is an admission of that error. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that > > > > it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > we transit supporters to find out what the limits of ther various modes > may be. To bad transit-haters aren't honest about their hate. No, you don't support transit. > > > As it turns out all > > > transit is not possible for several reasons. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Not at all. Several reasons are subtle and require education and > intellect. I guess that explains why you had to ask. Apparently you weren't smart enough to understand that that was a rhetorical question. > One subtlety is the decreasing utility nature of transit. Each > additional increase in market share comes at an increasing price. Actually not. As the transit network increases, it becomes more useful - not less. > This > is not necessarially the the case for POV modes. Actually it is. Critical roads are at capacity and there is no room to expand them without geometrical increases in cost - both in terms of money and destruction on the community. > > > All POV transportation > > > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal. > > > > Yet you continue to argue for that extreme. > > Not at all. Always. > > > FYI Leroy > > > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > That's not responsive. You tried to say I was arguing for all cars. > Nothing you've said since is an admission of that error. No error on my part. At some level you realize that getting rid of transit altogether is impossible, so you try to get rid of all you can. You're essentially arguing the meaning of "is". > > > > > Strawman. Nobody (except you transit-haters) is arguing that > > > > > it's all cars or all transit. You don't have to give up your car [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > To bad transit-haters aren't honest about their hate. No, you don't support > transit. Well I do insist on truth in reporting transport performance. Are you somehow suggesting that telling the truth is anti-transit? > > > > As it turns out all > > > > transit is not possible for several reasons. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Apparently you weren't smart enough to understand that that was a rhetorical > question. I am smart enough to recognize a lame retort to a clever insult. I was also the person to point out the less obvious contributing factors. I leave it to the audience, including your friends in alt.village.idiot, to determine the relative measure. > > One subtlety is the decreasing utility nature of transit. Each > > additional increase in market share comes at an increasing price. > > Actually not. As the transit network increases, it becomes more useful - > not less. Not responsive to the point. I said incrementally more expensive. This is the internal contradiction for transit systems. In order to be be more useful, it needs to be less efficient. The problem remains that they get less efficient faster than they get more useful. > > This is not necessarially the the case for POV modes. > > Actually it is. Critical roads are at capacity and there is no room to > expand them without geometrical increases in cost - both in terms of money > and destruction on the community. Read again Leroy. "Not necessarially" leaves room for the exceptions. > > > > All POV transportation > > > > provision on the other hand appears possible but not optimal. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Always. Well thanks for that refreshingly mature "is not/is too" exchange. > > > > FYI Leroy > > > > there's a difference between what I said (overwhelming majority) and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > No error on my part. It never is. YAWN. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------- Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > > To bad transit-haters aren't honest about their hate. No, you don't support > > transit. > > Well I do insist on truth in reporting transport performance. If only! >Are you > somehow suggesting that telling the truth is anti-transit? You only have a passing aquaintance with the truth. Mostly you avoid it like the plague. > > To bad transit-haters aren't honest about their hate. No, you don't support > > transit. > > Well I do insist on truth in reporting transport performance. Are you > somehow suggesting that telling the truth is anti-transit? Leave the communists alone. They are well indoctrinated into the ONE CHOICE SYSTEM. But we know better, it's only a matter of who's in power the pigs or the non pigs... ;) On Mon, 16 Aug 2004 07:39:05 -0700, Metal Dave <metal@rules.spam> >> Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable >> transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks >who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target. I've lived in Houston at Westheimer and Hillcroft. The only thing I really needed my car for was going to work, although come to think of it, I probably could've taken the bus to work <shudder>. Fortunately, I drove against traffic to work, so the drive was easy and there was very little traffic to deal with. I had 2 grocery stores in walking distance, a new and a used music store, a liquor store, a pool hall, a bookstore, a video store, a Venezuelan restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Italian restaurant, several fast food restaurants, 2 strip clubs, a cleaners, 2 gas stations, my bank, and quite a few other things all within walking distance. Of course, I still used my car quite a bit though. Limiting yourself to whatever's in walking distance can be boring. Sometimes I'd drive just for the fun of it. Taking Memorial Drive from the loop downtown and back at 60 is a fun drive, especially if you're doing it for no reason rather than having to appear in court for another ticket - which is just about exactly where you turn around to come back. I remember the Chronicle did an article years ago about how you could live your entire life and a full one at that without ever having to stray more than a block north or south of Westheimer. I'm pretty sure buses run the whole length of it, so even in a city like Houston, you could get by without a car if you had to. -- There's no way to delay that trouble comin' everyday >Of course, I still used my car quite a bit though. Limiting yourself to >whatever's in walking distance can be boring. Sometimes I'd drive just >for the fun of it. Ain't it nice to be able to drive BY CHOICE rather than OF NECESSITY? It's a freedom few people outside of the dense urban core get to experience... SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ > Ain't it nice to be able to drive BY CHOICE rather than OF NECESSITY? > > It's a freedom few people outside of the dense urban core get to > experience... You can have that most places, you only have to have the voters to agree to have almost all or more than all of their money taken by taxes. Surly you could convince the voters that it is a bargain. > > Ain't it nice to be able to drive BY CHOICE rather than OF NECESSITY? > > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have almost all or more than all of their money taken by taxes. Surly you > could convince the voters that it is a bargain. If you can convince the voters to waste a fortune in Iraq with no return, perhaps you can make the case that you can improve their transportation... ;) > That may be your opinion but the fact remains the tax, > as you call it, is a still a 'voluntary' tax. Obey the traffic [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > nearly as dangerous as driving > 50 MPH in a posted 25 MPH area. My 70 year old aunt--if I had one--would be happy to hear that. Their type never, ever get a ticket. They just hang tight to the steering wheel of their automatic Toyota as if the car was going to escape her, do 40MPH on the freeway and ignore everybody behind. Likewise for the phone talkers, the kid-attending soccer moms, and the zigzaging drivers. A faster but alert driver driving on the left would have much less of a chance to have an accident and would make life easier on everybody else. It's the faster driver though the only one that gets ticketed. :( Let me tell you, it's a jungle out there, and you better play by the rules of the jungle. Size (SUVs), camouflage (ie. slow drivers) and "kill or be killed" strategies sure get you a long way... I suppose it depends on the state in which one resides. In Pennsylvania and several other states it is illegal to drive in the left lane except to overtake other vehicles. A driver driving too slowly can be cited for impeding the flow of traffic. A driver using a telephone in the manner you describe can be cited for inattentive driving, or the more serious charge of reckless driving if their action result in an accident. In any event those that are cited are still paying a voluntary 'tax.' mike hunt > > That may be your opinion but the fact remains the tax, > > as you call it, is a still a 'voluntary' tax. Obey the traffic [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > rules of the jungle. Size (SUVs), camouflage (ie. slow drivers) and > "kill or be killed" strategies sure get you a long way... >My 70 year old aunt--if I had one--would be happy to hear that. Their >type never, ever get a ticket. They just hang tight to the steering >wheel of their automatic Toyota as if the car was going to escape her, >do 40MPH on the freeway and ignore everybody behind. I saw your aunt - if you had one - on the 405 in Fountain Valley a couple weeks back. She came up the onramp at molasses speed, but still merged right in (just my luck, right in front of me). 40 MPH and totally oblivious to everything around her. I would have flipped her off as I passed, but she was busy looking at (and talking to) her passenger, an elderly man wearing a fishing hat. SignatureSloth Kills! http://www.geocities.com/slothkills/ BrickMason@mailcity.com wrote in message news:<4124C401.4CBA2D63@mailcity.com>... > I suppose it depends on the state in which one resides. > In Pennsylvania and several other states it is illegal [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > any event those that are cited are still paying a voluntary > 'tax.' I'm sure there got to be some order somewhere. I hope it spreads to the rest of the states. But if it is as you say, voluntary or not, it ensures the common good. The way it is for the rest of us though is only an INDUSTRY. "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message news:<HwVVc.208083$eM2.173558@attbi_s51>... > > > Being in proximity to public transportation does not mean it is an > > > option for you. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Politicians love gullible people like you that always follow orders without > thinking. Obviously this people who can't read bus schedules, can't read traffic signs either, with much more disastrous consequences... :( > > > >symposium on urban environments that the School of Public Health held > > > >with the Graduate School of Design: "For the architects, designing [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > architects, the government, or anyone but ME to encourage my own > physical activity? Easy, have politicians work to accomplish something good like this. Then you would'n have to risk your life to save your life... ;) COPENHAGEN'S 10-STEP PROGRAM 1. CONVERT STREETS INTO PEDESTRIAN THOROUGHFARES The city turned its traditional main street, Stroget, into a pedestrian thoroughfare in 1962. In succeeding decades they gradually added more pedestrian-only streets, linking them to pedestrian-priority streets, where walkers and cyclists have right-of-way but cars are allowed at low speeds. 2. REDUCE TRAFFIC AND PARKING GRADUALLY To keep traffic volume stable, the city reduced the number of cars in the city center by eliminating parking spaces at a rate of 2-3 percent per year. Between 1986 and 1996 the city eliminated about 600 spaces. 3. TURN PARKING LOTS INTO PUBLIC SQUARES The act of creating pedestrian streets freed up parking lots, enabling the city to transform them into public squares. 4. KEEP SCALE DENSE AND LOW Low-rise, densely spaced buildings allow breezes to pass over them, making the city center milder and less windy than the rest of Copenhagen. 5. HONOR THE HUMAN SCALE The city's modest scale and street grid make walking a pleasant experience; its historic buildings, with their stoops, awnings, and doorways, provide people with impromptu places to stand and sit. 6. POPULATE THE CORE More than 6,800 residents now live in the city center. They've eliminated their dependence on cars, and at night their lighted windows give visiting pedestrians a feeling of safety. 7. ENCOURAGE STUDENT LIVING Students who commute to school on bicycles don't add to traffic congestion; on the contrary, their active presence, day and night, animates the city. 8. ADAPT THE CITYSCAPE TO CHANGING SEASONS Outdoor cafes, public squares, and street performers attract thousands in the summer; skating rinks, heated benches, and gaslit heaters on street corners make winters in the city center enjoyable. 9. PROMOTE CYCLING AS A MAJOR MODE OF TRANSPORTATION The city established new bike lanes and extended existing ones. They placed bike crossings using space freed up by the elimination of parking near intersections. Currently 34 percent of Copenhageners who work in the city bicycle to their jobs. 10. MAKE BICYCLES AVAILABLE The city introduced the City Bike system in 1995, which allows anyone to borrow a bike from stands around the city for a small coin deposit. When finished, they simply leave them at any one of the 110 bike stands located around the city center and their money is refunded. http://www.newurbanism.org/pages/519562/index.htm >> Ummmmm . . . because (unfortunately) driving is the ONLY viable >> transportation option for 99.9% of people living in the U.S. It boils down [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Boston, etc and you have a small but not negligible minority of folks >who can avoid driving. Otherwise, you're right on target. Being in proximity to public transportation does not mean it is an option for you. > But going back to the subject: I don't understand if there are so many > drivers in America for who driving is getting from point A to point B, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > HOW CAN YOU LOVE SOMETHING THAT YOU HATE SO MUCH? :( Americans are idiots. The media tells them cars are cool so they accept it. > Americans are idiots. The media tells them cars are cool so they > accept it. Some cars ARE cool. Hate-filled Usenetters are not. Bill "don't need no steenkin' media to see that" S. Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT, <wd6Rc.287$aB1.213@twister.socal.rr.com>, "S o r n i" <sorni@bite-me.san.rr.com> wrote: >Some cars ARE cool. The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are cool. All the rest of 'em still stink. Signaturezk > Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT, > <wd6Rc.287$aB1.213@twister.socal.rr.com>, "S o r n i" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are > cool. All the rest of 'em still stink. My 928 smells real nice, mmmmm leather. >>Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT, >><wd6Rc.287$aB1.213@twister.socal.rr.com>, "S o r n i" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My 928 smells real nice, mmmmm leather. My WRX smells of burnt rubber after smoking the tires through the twisties! And there are damned few smells as good as that. Hoppe's #9 is one. SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org > My WRX smells of burnt rubber after smoking the tires through the > twisties! And there are damned few smells as good as that. > > Hoppe's #9 is one. Unless it was the smell of burnt rubber coming off the tires of a WRX Sti. I almost bought one of these, but decided to buy a new Ford F-150 instead. Didn't really need a WRX Sti and my Corvette at the same time. > > My WRX smells of burnt rubber after smoking the tires through the > > twisties! And there are damned few smells as good as that. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > buy a new Ford F-150 instead. Didn't really need a WRX Sti > and my Corvette at the same time. Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the best automotive smell I can think of.. >>>My WRX smells of burnt rubber after smoking the tires through the >>>twisties! And there are damned few smells as good as that. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>buy a new Ford F-150 instead. Didn't really need a WRX Sti >>and my Corvette at the same time. > Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the > best automotive smell I can think of.. Yep. If all you wanna do it go in a straight line. That's marginally sillier than only making right turns. :-) SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org > > Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the > > best automotive smell I can think of.. > > Yep. If all you wanna do it go in a straight line. That's marginally > sillier than only making right turns. :-) Who makes only right turns? >>>Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the >>>best automotive smell I can think of.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Who makes only right turns? Or only left turns. Either way is equally boring. SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org In rec.motorcycles Mark Jones <noemail@mindspring.com> wrote: >> > Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the >> > best automotive smell I can think of.. >> >> Yep. If all you wanna do it go in a straight line. That's marginally >> sillier than only making right turns. :-) > Who makes only right turns? "Wrong Way" Bob on the Nascar Circuit. :^) > > Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the > > best automotive smell I can think of.. > > Yep. If all you wanna do it go in a straight line. That's marginally > sillier than only making right turns. :-) Well, I was describing the smell, but going in a straight line can be entertaining, given enough acceleration. It sounds pretty good, too.... > Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the > best automotive smell I can think of.. How about a whiff of castor oil from an old F Prod racer? Personally (with a nod to 'Apocalypse Now'), "I love the smell of hot brakes in the morning." -- C.R. Krieger (Been there; smelled that - Road America, Elkhart Lake, WI) > > Nitro-methane and burnt rubber is about the > > best automotive smell I can think of.. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Personally (with a nod to 'Apocalypse Now'), "I love the smell of hot > brakes in the morning." Hot brakes smell too much like hot clutch plate for my taste. I have not smelled the castor oil smell, so I will accept your description of it's loveliness. Bernard Mon, 09 Aug 2004 18:05:36 GMT, <Q1PRc.11694$114.5437@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>, "Bernard Farquart" <bernardfarquart@hotmail.delete.com> wrote: >> "Bernard Farquart" <bernardfarquart@hotmail.delete.com> wrote in message >news:<55jRc.1442$l96.1265@nwrddc04.gnilink.net>... \szip >I have not smelled the castor oil smell, >so I will accept your description of it's loveliness. No, you really must try it. Ricin is good to breathe. Signaturezk > No, you really must try it. Ricin is good to breathe. Oh, that explains alot. You really are using all the facilities you have *left* I get it. >>My WRX smells of burnt rubber after smoking the tires through the >>twisties! And there are damned few smells as good as that. >> >>Hoppe's #9 is one. > Unless it was the smell of burnt rubber coming off the tires > of a WRX Sti. I almost bought one of these, but decided to > buy a new Ford F-150 instead. Didn't really need a WRX Sti > and my Corvette at the same time. Sti being a given in the WRX fambly. :-) Hoppe's #9 is still awfully sweet too. SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org > Hoppe's #9 is one. Nothin' like a good at the range. Dave >>Hoppe's #9 is one. > > Nothin' like a good at the range. > > Dave I'm sayin'! SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org >>Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT, >><wd6Rc.287$aB1.213@twister.socal.rr.com>, "S o r n i" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My 928 smells real nice, mmmmm leather. "Mmmmmm donuts." --Homer Simpson John SignatureTo reply, remove "die.spammers" from address Von Herzen, moge es wieder zu Herzen gehen. --Beethoven > > Sat, 07 Aug 2004 15:06:04 GMT, > > <wd6Rc.287$aB1.213@twister.socal.rr.com>, "S o r n i" [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > My 928 smells real nice, mmmmm leather. I own 2 vehicles, neither leather and my butt don't burn in the sun but they all stink. Until they're patio furniture. Doug . > I own 2 vehicles, neither leather and my butt don't burn in the sun but they > all stink. That's some scary syntax you have there. > Until they're patio furniture. So get rid of them, you hypocrate.. Bernard > > I own 2 vehicles, neither leather and my butt don't burn in the sun but > they [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > So get rid of them, you hypocrate.. English smenglish we don't care. But if its a big deal to you, explain why. I don't get rid of them because my wife needs them so I enjoy paying $6 large each year for insurance. Gosh they stink! Doug > English smenglish we don't care. But if its a big deal to you, explain why. Well, I thought it was odd you felt the need to mention your butt, in the middle of a different thought. > I don't get rid of them because my wife needs them so I enjoy paying $6 > large each year for insurance. Gosh they stink! Your wife needs two cars? Why doesn't she pay the insurance? > The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are > cool. All the rest of 'em still stink. The big push now is to get that very high pollution, people killing, diesel busses under control. Cars have reduced their pollution about three orders of magnitude in the last three decades. Some people realize that technology changes and they can't keep using the same clich?'s forever. Maybe you should try to update your bigotry and hatred. > > The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are > > cool. All the rest of 'em still stink. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > same cliché's forever. Maybe you should try to update your bigotry and > hatred. Have you ever thought that the same technology can be incorportated into buses? But even without it... "A fully-loaded diesel bus, even a dirty one, is cleaner than 40+ cars." Clean Buses for Boston -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- UCS has joined health, transportation, and environmental organizations in Boston to form the Clean Buses for Boston (CBB) campaign. CBB came together in the summer of 1997 to address the problem of dirty diesel buses, trucks, and cars streaming through Boston's neighborhoods and harming the health and quality of life of city residents. The Massachusetts Bay Boston Transportation Authority (MBTA) runs a fleet of 980 buses, all of them diesel. This service is indispensible to the greater Boston area and offers an alternative to commuting by car. Public transportation reduces the number of cars on the road and the attendant air quality problems. A fully-loaded diesel bus, even a dirty one, is cleaner than 40+ cars. But the environmental benefits of buses over cars could be vastly increased by cleaning up the diesel bus fleet and converting it to cleaner, alternative fuels such as compressed natural gas or electricity. http://www.ucsusa.org/clean_vehicles/archive/page.cfm?pageID=240 > "A fully-loaded diesel bus, even a dirty one, is cleaner than 40+ > cars." Nifty soundbite (and one that is reliably trotted out by bus operators and advocates when the topic of bus exhaust cleanup is raised), but factually unsupportable partly because it's not altogether true and partly because "cleaner" isn't defined. PM-10 particulates? Not a chance -- 100 passenger cars newer than 15 years old are cleaner than even a brand-new fully-loaded bus operating on diesel fuel. For a long time, PM-10 was considered more of a nuisance and an eyesore than a health concern. That has been dramatically shown to be incorrect in the last few years, and heavy-duty diesels are *really* bad on PM-10s. Carbon Monoxide? That's much more highly dependent on the bus and the 40 cars involved. Could go either way, but it'd be a marginal advantage either way. Raw hydrocarbons? 40 cars would win with a dirty bus; bus would win with a clean bus. Oxides of Nitrogen (NOx)? 40 cars win with two wheels tied behind their back. This is the heavy-duty diesel engine's other big bugaboo. That covers the big four pollutants of concern. Emission control technology market penetration has *seriously* lagged on heavy-duty diesels compared to passenger cars and other light-duty vehicles. DS > > "A fully-loaded diesel bus, even a dirty one, is cleaner than 40+ > > cars." [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > technology market penetration has *seriously* lagged on heavy-duty diesels > compared to passenger cars and other light-duty vehicles. Like your answer better than mine :-) Of course it won't register with this incoherent, rambling, mentally ill person. > Have you ever thought that the same technology can be incorportated > into buses? But even without it... Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars to design a new motor. Hope you realize that the bus companies have such a smaller market that they can't afford to spend billions to keep up with the technology. Hope you realize that transit systems run their vehicles for such long time periods that it takes a long time to replace old dirty technology with better technology. Hope you realize that most governments don't give a damn about what they do because they are only interested in punishing people that are not in the government. > "A fully-loaded diesel bus, even a dirty one, is cleaner than 40+ > cars." > > Clean Buses for Boston Sounds like propaganda to me from a political group with an agenda. Obviously don't run full all the time so that is a lie. They didn't say which cars did they? 1970's dirty cars or 2004 clean cars. Looks like the usual lie after lie after lie we always expect from transit supporters. > Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars > to design a new motor. That's actually overstated by an order of magnitude. A brand-new, clean-sheet engine design may cost a couple-few million when all the personnel-hours and prototyping factors are included, but never even begins to approach a billion US dollars. > Hope you realize that the bus companies have such a smaller market that they > can't afford to spend billions to keep up with the technology. This also is quite incorrect. The "bus companies" don't make the engines, they just make the buses proper. The engines are made by a few firms worldwide that supply medium- and heavy-duty roadgoing engines to the much greater number of coach- and truckbuilders. Detroit Diesel and Cummins are two examples of very large medium/heavy duty engine producers whose engines are installed in a huge range of different makers' buses and trucks. There have been exceptions over the years; Ford and GM used to build both HD engines and HD vehicles, but this has always been the minority case. The M/H-D engine firms can and do spend enormous sums of money to keep up with and develop the new technology. > Hope you realize that transit systems run their vehicles for such long > time periods that it takes a long time to replace old dirty technology > with better technology. This is the closest you've come so far to accuracy. The amortization period of a transit bus is much, much longer than that of a passenger car -- and so is its lifespan. Even in vehicle-hostile climates, city buses can be made to run reliably for practically as long as is desired. Toronto, for instance, still runs a fleet of mostly GMC "New Look" buses that haven't been in production for a great many years. So, the first part of your point here is accurate. The second part, though, isn't. "Repowering" old M/H-D vehicles, as it's known, involves replacing the complete old engine with a complete newer engine, and sometimes involves a fuel retrofit from diesel to cleaner CNG, for instance. This is not a procedure generally undertaken on a passenger car, for it's usually not economically feasible for a passenger car. It is economically feasible and quite common on M/H-D vehicles. > Looks like the usual lie after lie after lie we always expect from > transit supporters. That's overstating the case a little, but it is indeed very unfortunate that hardcore activists have a tendency to bend the truth to suit their goals. > > Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars > > to design a new motor. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > personnel-hours and prototyping factors are included, but never even > begins to approach a billion US dollars. Then the auto companies are lying because that is what they say in public when talking about a major change in an engine design. "An average design cycle is anywhere from 36 months to 60 months (3 years to 5 years) for a total labor cost of (assuming 3 years) is $17,280,000,000. Lotsa zeros, ain't it? Let me say that number another way. The labor charged to the program cost for 3 years of a design cycle is $17.28 BILLION USD." http://www.allpar.com/ed/old/costs.html That is a new model design which is more than a motor design but millions of dollars is absurdly low. > > Hope you realize that the bus companies have such a smaller market that they > > can't afford to spend billions to keep up with the technology. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > worldwide that supply medium- and heavy-duty roadgoing engines to the much > greater number of coach- and truckbuilders. Does not matter. The point is the market is small compared to cars no matter who makes the engine. That limits how much they can spend. Having less money in a smaller market means you fall behind markets with much larger markets. That is why obsolete technologies keep falling further and further behind dominant market leaders. Obviously heavy vehicle markets are more than busses, but it still results in slow technology progress especially when combined with the uncaring attitudes prevalent in many Governments. > The second part, though, isn't. "Repowering" old M/H-D vehicles, as it's > known, involves replacing the complete old engine with a complete newer > engine, and sometimes involves a fuel retrofit from diesel to cleaner CNG, > for instance. This is not a procedure generally undertaken on a passenger > car, for it's usually not economically feasible for a passenger car. It is > economically feasible and quite common on M/H-D vehicles. True that cars are not designed for redesign in the field where it is much easier to change thins in a heavy vehicle. A car is so optimized for cost, that it is only practical to update by replacing the car. Total new system designs then can and do reach the market more quickly. > > > Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars > > > to design a new motor. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Lotsa zeros, ain't it? Let me say that number another way. The labor charged > to the program cost for 3 years of a design cycle is $17.28 BILLION USD." Er...that's for a *complete new car*, not "a new motor" (by which you meant engine). > Er...that's for a *complete new car*, not "a new motor" (by which you > meant engine). That is what I said. The point is than when you spend tens of billions to develop a new car, the cost of a new engine (not just a modification) is going to be a lot more than a few tens of million or even a hundred million. An engine is a major part of a new car, it is not going to be cheap. The tens of billions gives a good indication of the ball park of the amount of money being spent by car companies. Google is not helping much except for this article. This indicates that car companies don't say much about their design cost. Not a surprise. Microsoft is releasing a software "patch" upgrade this week (XP Service pack 2?) and they say they spent a billion dollars just to develop that software. Doing big business and being the dominant technology is extremely expensive These days little niche companies that do transit and other low volume market just can't spend the money that is required to stay up with the state of the art. I repeat, that is why end of life technology like transit is doomed to fail. This illusion that transit is going to rise from the grave and come back to life that transit people keep believing shows just a total lack of having any grasp on reality. > "An average design cycle is anywhere from 36 months to 60 months (3 years to > 5 years) for a total labor cost of (assuming 3 years) is $17,280,000,000. > Lotsa zeros, ain't it? Let me say that number another way. The labor charged > to the program cost for 3 years of a design cycle is $17.28 BILLION USD." Maybe the reactor for the shuttle? > http://www.allpar.com/ed/old/costs.html > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > is why obsolete technologies keep falling further and further behind > dominant market leaders. I hope you realize there are 300 cars to a bus... > Obviously heavy vehicle markets are more than busses, but it still results > in slow technology progress especially when combined with the uncaring > attitudes prevalent in many Governments. I hope you realize--again--that the corporation owns the government. :( > > "An average design cycle is anywhere from 36 months to 60 months (3 years to > > 5 years) for a total labor cost of (assuming 3 years) is $17,280,000,000. > > Lotsa zeros, ain't it? Let me say that number another way. The labor charged > > to the program cost for 3 years of a design cycle is $17.28 BILLION USD." > > Maybe the reactor for the shuttle? What reactor? > > "Jack May" <jack.may@comcast.net> wrote in message > news:<RqhRc.264754$Oq2.114235@attbi_s52>... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Maybe the reactor for the shuttle? > What reactor? Reactor sounds futuristic... > > Have you ever thought that the same technology can be incorportated > > into buses? But even without it... [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > Looks like the usual lie after lie after lie we always expect from transit > supporters. I hope you realize this is propaganda too... > The big push now is to get that very high pollution, people killing, diesel > busses under control. Cars have reduced their pollution about three orders > of magnitude in the last three decades. It sounds as if cars were giving out oxygen when they are choking us. This is reality: Car manufacturers RESISTING new more strict California regulations. OR YOU THOUGHT CORPORATIONS CARED ANYMORE THAN THE GOVERNMENT ABOUT THE PEOPLE? After all, THEY OWN IT! HA-HA-HA... California wants 34 per cent reduction in car emissions Automakers said set to challenge strict new rules SAN FRANCISCO California released its final plan Friday to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from cars and trucks by about 30 per cent by requiring hundreds of dollars in technology to control air pollution in new cars. The plan is the first of its kind among U.S. states. It has been closely tracked by car makers as California accounts for nearly 13 per cent of the U.S. auto market and because other states may adopt similar rules. Auto makers have said they may sue to block the plan. The California Air Resources Board said that in the initial phase from 2009 through 2012, the plan calls for regulation requiring technology to reduce emissions by about 25 per cent for cars and light trucks, and 18 per cent for larger trucks and sport-utility vehicles. When it is fully implemented after 2016, the recommended regulation would reduce emissions by up to 34 per cent for cars and light trucks, and by 25 percent for larger vehicles. In the intial phase, the new rule would add about $292 to the cost of each car and small truck, and about $308 to the cost of every large pickup and SUV. In the next phase, between 2013 and 2016, it would add an average of $626 per car and $955 per large pickup and SUV, the board said in a statement. Environmentalists said the board could have done more. They applauded the focus on making cars cleaner, but noted the board's plan does not take into account California's growth. "It's disappointing that the air board didn't go further," said Russell Long, executive director of the Bluewater Network environmental group. "Emissions will not decrease because of the increase in vehicles on the road. We need to reduce emissions on an absolute basis." Reuters > > Have you ever thought that the same technology can be incorportated > > into buses? But even without it... > > Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars to > design a new motor. A billion dollars to design a new motor? That seems way too high to me although I'd love to see any supporting data. I can't imagine with expenditures like that on something like design of a single engine a company would stay in business very long. Maybe to design a new *platform* or to set up a new facility that can be used to design many new motors. A billion dollars buys a lot of R&D. > Hope you realize that the bus companies have such a smaller market that they > can't afford to spend billions to keep up with the technology. I'm sure that's what their lobbyists tell congress. Ever see the Lincoln Tunnel ramp into Port Authority? Buses are not a small market. > Hope you realize that transit systems run their vehicles for such long time > periods that it takes a long time to replace old dirty technology with > better technology. That's true. > Hope you realize that most governments don't give a damn about what they do > because they are only interested in punishing people that are not in the > government. Um, yeah. OK. Dave > On Sun, 8 Aug 2004, Jack May wrote: >> Hope you realize that a car company spend one to several billion dollars [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > *platform* or to set up a new facility that can be used to design many > new motors. A billion dollars buys a lot of R&D. I've also seen similar figures; sorry can't remember where/when. You have to remember that the R&D also includes the tooling, which can be expensive - that's why they often choose cylinder spacing identical to engines they alread have so that they can use current tools. Floyd > "A fully-loaded diesel bus, even a dirty one, is cleaner than 40+ > cars." Too bad that the average, high usage bus seldom has 40 people on it. In prime areas, when fully loaded, most have 20 on them, so the bus is still twice as dirty as the equivalent cars used to carry the same 40 people. SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org > > The ones that have been shredded and recycled into patio furniture are > > cool. All the rest of 'em still stink. > > The big push now is to get that very high pollution, people killing, diesel > busses under control. Cars have reduced their pollution about three orders > of magnitude in the last three decades. So you'll be considerate now and duct your exhaust back into your car's cabin, since it's so innocuous, eh? I can still smell it and I don't like it. Chalo Colina > So you'll be considerate now and duct your exhaust back into your > car's cabin, since it's so innocuous, eh? I can still smell it and I > don't like it. The car puts out CO2 even if it were to put out zero pollution. Can't put it back into the car because when you burn something it combines carbon and oxygen to produce CO2 and usually other combustion product. You can't breath CO2 and oxygen is not produced in a combustion process. > The car puts out CO2 even if it were to put out zero pollution. Can't put > it back into the car because when you burn something it combines carbon and > oxygen to produce CO2 and usually other combustion product. You can put your CO back into your car, though. Try it and see. Signature-- Powered by FreeBSD Above address is just a spam midden. I'm really at: tkeats [curlicue] vcn [point] bc [point] ca > The car puts out CO2 even if it were to put out zero pollution. But it doesn't put out zero pollution; it pumps out plenty of carbon monoxide, unburned hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and micron-sized particles. Run your car in a closed garage and it's not CO2 that will kill you. Live out your days in a traffic-plagued city and it's not CO2 that will give you cancer. The fact that nothing can ameliorate the CO2, and that CO2 is the effluvium that's changing the climate, is another matter. It won't wash. The cars are robbing us of our individual health as well as our collective quality of life. "Cleaner cars" are like duller knives; they take longer to kill you but inflict every bit as much misery as the other kind. Chalo Colina >> The car puts out CO2 even if it were to put out zero pollution. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > kill you. Live out your days in a traffic-plagued city and it's not > CO2 that will give you cancer. Cleaner than the power plant that charges your electric car. > It won't wash. The cars are robbing us of our individual health as > well as our collective quality of life. "Cleaner cars" are like > duller knives; they take longer to kill you but inflict every bit as > much misery as the other kind. I think you're still living in the early 1970s. > >> The car puts out CO2 even if it were to put out zero pollution. > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I think you're still living in the early 1970s. Yea, he is totally out of touch with reality. He just wants to hate and return to the horrible old days. > > > It won't wash. The cars are robbing us of our individual health as > > > well as our collective quality of life. "Cleaner cars" are like [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yea, he is totally out of touch with reality. He just wants to hate and > return to the horrible old days. What's not to hate about cars? They kill hundreds of thousands per year by traumatic injury, millions a year by illness, and blight billions with a noisy, dangerous, polluted, congested, and ugly milieu. They propagate by employing people's selfishness, laziness, greed, insecurity, and willful ignorance of the costs they unilaterally impose upon the collective. Newer "clean" cars are not clean; they are toxic. A single running car would have exterminated Biosphere 2 for instance, whiz-bang anti-emission technology notwithstanding. I'm not ignorant about this stuff; I work in aerospace prototyping jet- and rocket-powered flight vehicles, which belch a lot of fumes. Yet rockets and even commercial jets are not responsible for the brown air in today's cities. The problem is not that cars exist or that they run on petroleum, it's that almost everyone uses them to go almost everywhere, almost all the time. Their ubiquity is what ruins the city surface for more human uses, and poisons the air despite the fact that their exhalations have been rendered somewhat less noxious than in the recent past. Chalo Colina >>>>It won't wash. The cars are robbing us of our individual health as >>>>well as our collective quality of life. "Cleaner cars" are like [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Chalo Colina "somewhat less noxious?" You mean almost zero, right? As in, almost pure C02 and water. I doubt any fuel-fired energy plant is any cleaner than a new car. The real problem, as you say, is that there are so many of them - but still I imagine that once our automobile fleet has turned over a few times, even you will have to admit that the problem is elsewhere. The car emission problem is, for all intents and purposes, solved - if you want to clean up smog etc. you're going to have to look elsewhere. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel >> I'm not ignorant about this stuff; I work in aerospace prototyping >> jet- and rocket-powered flight vehicles, which belch a lot of fumes. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> fact that their exhalations have been rendered somewhat less noxious >> than in the recent past. > "somewhat less noxious?" You mean almost zero, right? As in, almost > pure C02 and water. I doubt any fuel-fired energy plant is any cleaner [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > solved - if you want to clean up smog etc. you're going to have to look > elsewhere. They'll always point to the car. If someone found Tesla's pierce arrow in garage somewhere and it is as rumored and it's secrets figured out and we all started driving cars that run on etherial energy (zero point energy or dark energy, pick the term you prefer) and they would still find a reason to hate the automobile and claim it hurts the environment. Because the environment isn't the reason. It's the excuse. The reasons can be found elsewhere. IMO it's about power. Having power over where the masses can go and when they can go. > Because the environment isn't the reason. It's the excuse. The reasons > can be found elsewhere. IMO it's about power. Having power over where > the masses can go and when they can go. BINGO! "We know what you need and want to help you in spite of yourself!" SignatureMark Johnson, Ft Worth; IBA#288; CM#1; EOB, DoD#2021; LPR#50 2003 FJR1300 "E²"; http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org > > Because the environment isn't the reason. It's the excuse. The reasons > > can be found elsewhere. IMO it's about power. Having power over where > > the masses can go and when they can go. > > BINGO! "We know what you need and want to help you in spite of yourself!" Or better, "We know you are a communist disguised as a capitalist because you don't want OPTIONS for the masses." It happens all the time in Nature: It's called CAMOUFLAGE. ;) > > Their ubiquity is what ruins > > the city surface for more human uses, and poisons the air despite the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "somewhat less noxious?" You mean almost zero, right? As in, almost > pure C02 and water. You are in denial, buddy. If you think that enough carbon monoxide to kill you, anong with plenty of nitrogen oxides from the catalytic converter and unburned hydrocarbons qualify as "almost pure CO2 and water", then of course you'll be willing to sleep in the garage with the car running, right? A gas stove emits "almost pure" CO2 and water. If you cooked breakfast over your tailpipe instead, you'd be dead before you got to eat it. Chalo Colina >>>Their ubiquity is what ruins >>>the city surface for more human uses, and poisons the air despite the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Chalo Colina Time to wake up and smell the new millenium. Some of the new SULEVs you could literally run them in a closed garage and not die until all the O2 ran out. Your statement might be true of cars from the early 80's, but not today's vehicles. nate Signaturereplace "fly" with "com" to reply. http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel > Time to wake up and smell the new millenium. Some of the new SULEVs you > could literally run them in a closed garage and not die until all the O2 > ran out. Your statement might be true of cars from the early 80's, but > not today's vehicles. Sounds like you've been taking a double helping of automaker publicity department hype. If those are the claims they are making, and there is any truth to them, it surely stops at the laboratory door. I don't need any instrumentation to smell unburned aromatics and sulfur compounds in the exhaust of even the newest cars when I'm out riding my bike or motorcycle. Where those things are found there are also CO and NOx. The car that emits harmlessly clean exhaust after some mileage in the real world is a figment of your imagination. The tailpipe stink and the brown city air tell a tale that can't be "spun" by shills for auto manufacturers. Chalo Colina '> > Sounds like you've been taking a double helping of automaker publicity > department hype. If those are the claims they are making, and there [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The tailpipe stink and the brown city air tell a tale that can't be > "spun" by shills for auto manufacturers. Perhaps it is because most of the cars on the road right now are OLD. Moron. >> Time to wake up and smell the new millenium. Some of the new SULEVs you >> could literally run them in a closed garage and not die until all the O2 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Sounds like you've been taking a double helping of automaker publicity > department hype. SULEV are regulatory standards. Read them some time. > SULEV are regulatory standards. Read them some time. "Regulatory", meaning if the standard can be passed on the test bench, then it never need be verified with real cars in real world situations? "Regulatory", as in one of the rules that SUVs were specifically designed to circumvent? You know, those big trucklike things that seem to be outselling the cars you are talking about by a large multiple. "Regulatory", like the criteria that fall by the wayside when some jackass gets a chip and a pipe for his new econobox? "Regulatory", like the erstwhile requirement that automakers provide a certain percentage of ZEVs in past years, which they worked around by selling a few lame electric bicycles through car dealerships? I don't frankly know what kind of car qualifies as a SULEV. I do know that there isn't one parked out in front where I work, among the SUVs, pickup trucks, and sport sedans. Chalo Colina |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message