Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Junk Science: Dying for Better Gas Mileage
Fox News ^ | 5/18/2007 | Steven Milloy

Posted on 05/18/2007 5:07:34 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last
To: newgeezer

I wonder if these people who must drive the biggest vehicles possible for their “safety” in a major collision that will probably never happen, also wear a DOT-approved helmet when driving? After all, head injuries are a major cause of deaths in accidents, and you can’t be too safe, right? I wonder if they’re the same sort of people who plaster every square inch of their car with retroreflective tape and other visibility-enhancing features? If they never exceed the speed limit and usually drive under it? If they always keep both hands on the wheel and never let anything distract them, like eating or drinking, cell phones, kids in the back seat, that sort of thing.


41 posted on 05/18/2007 6:22:14 AM PDT by -YYZ-
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: GeorgefromGeorgia

You’ve already laid out “when” alternative energy sources will become available -

when they are more economical to produce and sell than oil.


42 posted on 05/18/2007 6:23:34 AM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk

According to statistics a 1981 Ferrari 308 took 7.9 to go to 60. According to Car and Driver a 2007 Toyota Avalon takes 6.6. A V6 Accord with a stick shift is around 6.


43 posted on 05/18/2007 6:24:23 AM PDT by SmoothTalker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: newgeezer
I can't imagine ever buying something big in the name of "safety" and paying for it every day while sacrificing both the economy and the fun of driving a smaller, nimbler car.

Ah yes....And that is your choice. The difference is that you have the good sense not to try and force your choice on everyone else.

Me, I like as much steel wrapped around my family as feasible. If a Sherman Tank was a possibility, I'd look into it.

44 posted on 05/18/2007 6:24:48 AM PDT by wbill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Kenny Bunk
Jackrabbiting away from stoplights is still a big deal! It really shouldn't be.

Actually it's the middle pedal that wastes all the gas - most cars are fairly efficient when accelerating - trading chemical energy for kinetic. Turning kinetic into wasted heat with the brakes kills gas mileage.

My wife gets 16 - 17 mpg with our Town & Country - I get 22 over the same roads. Just by keeping my foot off the brake as much as possible.

45 posted on 05/18/2007 6:26:46 AM PDT by NY.SS-Bar9 (DR #1692)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage
The automobile has remained unchanged in concept since its inception in the late 1800’s: safe, reliable, convenient personal transportation… an engine (otto, diesel, rankine, electric, etc.) married to a chassis (A, T, H, uni-body, etc.) to carry a person from point A to point B. In the beginning of automobile hstory the emphasis on safety, economy and reliability were far less than today.

Nonetheless, historical observation shows that great leaps have been made in auto safety, reliability, convenience and economic operations in the last century. Consequently, arguments about Newtonian physics aside, why is it unreasonable to assume that demands for greater safety, economy, etc. cannot continue to be made and satisfied with appropriate incentives?

Safety enhancements such as crush zones, seat belts, air bags, anti-skid braking, etc., were undreamed of in the beginnings of the automobile. Similarly, these devices are not necessarily the end of safety innovations… What about a radar-activated equivalent of external auto air bags (e.g., an extendable bumper on super shocks) for greater “crush zone” deceleration? …perhaps the addition of radar or laser activated braking without driver intervention, or even (on the wild side) some sort of “reverse thrust” assisted deceleration device.

My point is that increased vehicle weight is not a necessity for increased safety. However, by those very Newtonian physics cited some earlier posters, reduced vehicle weight is a necessity for increased operating economy, even factoring in radical changes in engine economy, alternative fuels or power sources.

Just as in the beginning of the automobile’s history, there will continue to be a price for safe, convenient, reliable, economical, personal transportation. The engineering question becomes how much safety, how much reliability, how much economy, how much convenience, etc., and what will the trade-offs be at what price to the consumer?
46 posted on 05/18/2007 6:28:03 AM PDT by Lucky Dog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

Actually, you are largely wrong. The key to crash safety is deceleration speed. If you ran a tank into a solid barrier at 35 mph, you would be dead, because it wouldn’t crumple, and you would immediately decelerate after hitting solid metal.

There are lightweight materials that can be engineered to properly crumple and absorb the energy of a high-speed crash just as well as a heavier object.

The extra weight ONLY helps you in deciding WHAT wins in a collision. Into a brick wall, you will lose, so it’s all about your own crumple zone.

If you run a 4000 pound car into a 2000 pound car, then the 4k car has an inherent advantage because it will actually drive the 2k car backwards. However, if that other person is driving a 4k car, the total energy of collision is greater, and you might both suffer MORE injury.

For the most part, people in bigger cars gain the advantage at the expense of people in smaller cars. It’s better for ALL of us if every car is the same weight and has bumpers at the same height, but if every other car is small and YOU selfishly drive a car twice as big, you make yourself safer while endangering every other driver more.

That kind of “tragedy of the commons” only works if there are only a few selfish people though. Because when you are driving your 4k car, some else buys an 8k armored car, and then YOU lose, until you buy a 10k humvee, and then they buy a 12k tank.


47 posted on 05/18/2007 6:31:22 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Thermalseeker

My prius has 8 air bags and a solid crumple zone. If all the other cars were the same size, we’d all be very safe driving them.

My problem is the SUV driver who loses control of his behemoth is going to run OVER my car and crush it, sure he’ll be fine while I’m the one who gets injured.

I ran a Priuse head-on into a solid concrete pole at over 20 mph, and walked away with just a bruise where the seat belt pulled me back before the air bag went off. My car bounced 6 inches off the pole, which didn’t move.


48 posted on 05/18/2007 6:34:23 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
and then they buy a 12k tank.

The ones like the old people drive? With the blinker that stays on all the time as they cruise at 20 under the posted speed in the fast lane during rush hour? :)
49 posted on 05/18/2007 6:36:38 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: MrB
when they are more economical to produce and sell than oil.

I hope you got to listen to the hearing I posted yesterday. The statement about 72% of the remaining oil supplies being in Muslim hands at 1:19:43 to 1:20:18 makes an interesting economic argument.

rtsp://video.c-span.org/project/energy/energy051507_energy.rm?
50 posted on 05/18/2007 6:39:30 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: P-40

Are you listening to KLBJ now with this queer talking?


51 posted on 05/18/2007 6:43:05 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Guns don't kill people. None of my guns ever left the house at night and killed anyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952

Yes, it is some funny stuff. I remember back when it was just the gay and lesbian alliance, or something like that. Now they have everything thrown in there.


52 posted on 05/18/2007 6:44:38 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT

The next time you need a pole removed, please call. I know another way.


53 posted on 05/18/2007 6:47:01 AM PDT by Kenny Bunk (Crazies to my left. Wimps to my right. BTW, Muslims ain't "Immigrants." They's Colonists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: P-40

I liked SGT Sam’s answer about having to add another restroom at the station if he would come and work as a traffic reporter. I cannot believe the PC garbage that group is spouting.

It’s time to call the waaaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmmmmmmmbulance


54 posted on 05/18/2007 6:52:01 AM PDT by Arrowhead1952 (Guns don't kill people. None of my guns ever left the house at night and killed anyone.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: NY.SS-Bar9
The OTHER reason to ditch CAFE has to do with the propensity of more fuel efficient vehicles to ENABLE urban sprawl, and CAUSE people to drive more for every reason imaginable. We drive 35% more today than we did in 1975.

People commute today from previously UNHEARD OF distances. Businesses utilize the company car to keep from having satellite offices. So, most of the improvement in fuel efficiency gets gobbled up by increased usage.

In which alternate universe can the CONSERVATION of a commodity be increased by making it cheaper to use?

55 posted on 05/18/2007 6:57:29 AM PDT by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: P-40
"the future of oil is decidedly Muslim."

Muslim oil may run out in a few years. The future of oil sand and oil shale is decidedly American.

56 posted on 05/18/2007 7:02:29 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: BillM
F1 cars don't run into much of anything at 200 mph; in fact, there might only be a couple of tracks on which the cars could hit 200 mph, Indy and Monza coming immediately to mind. Further, when an F1 car leaves the track, there is usually a long stretch of sand followed by a tire wall to cushion the impact--that's a major reason why there hasn't been a racer fatality in F1 since Senna was killed over a decade ago.

As far as CART or Indy cars go, again, much of the improvements in safety have to do with improvements in track safety, not car safety (although there certainly have been improvements in car safety). Indy's SAFER barrier (now installed at every major oval track in the nation) was a tremendous leap forward in improving track and driver safety--but again, it wasn't a car development. Even with the SAFER barrier, Tony Renna was still killed during practice at Indy in 2003.

Racing has done a great job at making racing safer, but it's not really because the cars themselves are safer--it's developing technology that makes the race itself safer, not the car: four point seat belts, HANS system, fireproof racing suits, tires that are cabled to the car, SAFER barrier, etc.

Lightweight cars equal more injuries. That's just all there is to it.

57 posted on 05/18/2007 7:09:34 AM PDT by Publius Valerius
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: norwaypinesavage

It kind of sounded like Sankey was more in favor of ‘coal to liquid’ technology. That certainly makes a lot of sense...but his comments on the regulatory environment makes me wonder if it will happen...or happen here anyway.


58 posted on 05/18/2007 7:10:15 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: Arrowhead1952
They are back on the amnesty bill now...and doing a good job discussing it.

If anyone wants to listen in, the address is www.590klbj.com
59 posted on 05/18/2007 7:12:41 AM PDT by P-40 (Al Qaeda was working in Iraq. They were just undocumented.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Lucky Dog
"My point is that increased vehicle weight is not a necessity for increased safety."

As I said earlier, whatever you do to a lightweight car to make it safe, I can do to a heavier car and make it safer yet. Yes, there are and will be innovative technologies to improve fuel efficiency. But you can't pass laws to innovate new technology. When faced with federal mandates to improve fuel economy for next year's models, and that technology isn't yet available, the only option is to make cars smaller, and less safe. That's trading blood for oil.

60 posted on 05/18/2007 7:13:26 AM PDT by norwaypinesavage (Planting trees to offset carbon emissions is like drinking water to offset rising ocean levels)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-74 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson