Green ....Butt

[unjonharley]

I took a trip this weekend..I discovered green is for just a few folks..They are few and far between..As I drove along at a even speed to get the max MPG..The short dicked rednecks ripped past at 20-30 mile over the speed limit..Each one in a monster pickup it takes a ladder to get into..Almost all loaded with four five six ATV's.. Offton as not followed by Mon and famly..Franticly wiping in and out of lanes at 85 -95 trying to keep up..This is not just one or two..This is normal weekend traffic.. Along with at least 100 big trucks passing..SEveral tripples..All useing more fuel than needed by runing 10-15 over the speed limit..

In town as I ride my electric..The streets are full of stop and go traffic..If there is a break in a lane.. The next car speeds ahead just to slam on there brakes catching the car ahead..One person to a car..

It may just be me, but there is a lost battle that has not even been engaged to save this earth..Not to be a defeatest I fight the good fight in my surroundings..

ALL HALE THE BIG THREE..

[Apollonaris Zeus]

It just shows you that the changes have to FORCED on the masses.

55mph

35mpg fleet

Black Boxes

CO2 Taxes even for large engines and weight pay when you renew your vehicle registration.

Fuck the big three and the republicans. they are the reason for $3.75 gas prices

AIIZ

[mojo]

My brother runs an environmental science consulting company. I think that he has in the past been a conservative in his forecasts for future changes. He has recently told me to prepare because he believes that global famine is now inevitable. He is aware of reports about changes that have already occurred in massive ecosystems such as the populations of oceanic krill. These systems are so vast that there is little or nothing we can now do to reverse the cascading damage that is happening.

His conversation with me was more than chilling. His recommendation for the very best thing humans can do is to not have children. The available resources will be so scarce that there will simply not be enough to go around.

We who grew up with Nuclear Nightmares remember what it feels like to consider the possibility of annhialation at any time - we have now a whole new generation who have inherited a different nightmare.

[EvilDustBooger]

The available resources will be so scarce that there will simply not be enough to go around.

...you mean I should have been saving those plastic butter tubs like my mom for all these years?

[mojo]

And rubber bands, aluminum foil, string, keychains.....it boggles the mind.....

[gyre]

55 mph is bullshit.
Why do you think planes don't fly 55?

I once got 45 mpg in the mountains at 85 mph in a fiat with carb and points, no fuel injection, no electronics.
Why not drive 20 mph?

My fast ford gets 25 mpg at 75 mph and loses mileage at 55 mph.

The 55 mph speed limit was for safety.
When it had a negative effect on safety, they started talking about fuel.

The speed limit was the creation of the airlines.
They love 55 mph because it puts people on high consumption planes.
Car rental companies love it even more.

Autobahn research shows that one type of pollution increases at high speed and the other type decreases.
There is no net change per mile as the engines are more fuel efficient under full load.


On the news today, they are talking about food price increases caused by acreage shifted to corn for ethanol.
You have to think these things through.

[unjonharley]

55 mph is bullshit.
Why do you think planes don't fly 55?

I once got 45 mpg in the mountains at 85 mph in a fiat with carb and points, no fuel injection, no electronics.
Why not drive 20 mph?

My fast ford gets 25 mpg at 75 mph and loses mileage at 55 mph.

The 55 mph speed limit was for safety.
When it had a negative effect on safety, they started talking about fuel.

The speed limit was the creation of the airlines.
They love 55 mph because it puts people on high consumption planes.
Car rental companies love it even more.

Autobahn research shows that one type of pollution increases at high speed and the other type decreases.
There is no net change per mile as the engines are more fuel efficient under full load.


On the news today, they are talking about food price increases caused by acreage shifted to corn for ethanol.
You have to think these things through.

\/
I did not call for a speed limit in my rant..Instead i referred to the amount of iron going down the street to haul one short dicked redneck..I not into believing that it takes the same amount of mpg to drive 85 as 65..All this while waching TV on your cell phone..

[helitack]

55 mph is bullshit.
Why do you think planes don't fly 55?

I once got 45 mpg in the mountains at 85 mph in a fiat with carb and points, no fuel injection, no electronics.
Why not drive 20 mph?

My fast ford gets 25 mpg at 75 mph and loses mileage at 55 mph.

The 55 mph speed limit was for safety.
When it had a negative effect on safety, they started talking about fuel.

The speed limit was the creation of the airlines.
They love 55 mph because it puts people on high consumption planes.
Car rental companies love it even more.

Autobahn research shows that one type of pollution increases at high speed and the other type decreases.
There is no net change per mile as the engines are more fuel efficient under full load.


On the news today, they are talking about food price increases caused by acreage shifted to corn for ethanol.
You have to think these things through.

So you are saying that when driving my truck at 70 and get 11-12 mpg and when I drive the same truck over the same road at 55 and get 15-16, consistently, every trip, since 1994, is a scientific anomaly?

The aircraft speed analogy is apples and oranges. WW I aircraft had maximum speeds of just over 100 mph. I'll bet the cruising speed is just about 55 or 60.

[Jus Say Ventura]

[quote="gyre"]
The speed limit was the creation of the airlines.
[quote]

Got a cite on that one?


I don't think that AZ was referring to planes, but cars and trucks.

Every vehicle is different, but the most efficient speed is the speed it takes to shift into your lowest gear (4th or 5th or whatever) Once you accelerate past that speed then you are just burning fuel faster.

My truck uses 20~35% more fuel at 75 then 55. Yes, I get to my destination faster, but now I have to fill up instead of having almost a half a tank of gas left on one of my routes of 175 miles. Gas usage was 27~28mpg at 50~60mph reduced to 15~19mpg @ 70~75mph

http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/autos/gasave.htm

Shifting Gears: Real Money-Saving Steps
There are numerous no- or low-cost steps you can take to combat rising gas prices. The most important place to start is at the gas pump; buy only the octane level gas you need. All gas pumps must post the octane rating of the gas under the FTC's Fuel Rating Rule. Remember, the higher the octane, the higher the price. Check your owner's manual to determine the right octane level for your car.

Here are some additional tips from the EPA to help you get better gas mileage.

Drive more efficiently

Stay within posted speed limits. The faster you drive, the more fuel you use. For example, driving at 65 miles per hour (mph), rather than 55 mph, increases fuel consumption by 20 percent. Driving at 75 mph, rather than 65 mph, increases fuel consumption by another 25 percent.
Use overdrive gears. Overdrive gears improve the fuel economy of your car during highway driving. Your car's engine speed decreases when you use overdrive. This reduces both fuel consumption and engine wear.
Use cruise control. Using cruise control on highway trips can help you maintain a constant speed and, in most cases, reduce your fuel consumption.
Anticipate driving situations. If you anticipate traffic conditions and don't tailgate, you can avoid unnecessary braking and acceleration, and improve your fuel economy by 5 to 10 percent. In city driving, nearly 50 percent of the energy needed to power your car goes to acceleration. Go easy on the gas pedal and brakes. "Jack-rabbit" starts and sudden stops are wasteful.
Avoid unnecessary idling. Turn off the engine if you anticipate a lengthy wait. No matter how efficient your car is, unnecessary idling wastes fuel, costs you money and pollutes the air.
Combine errands. Several short trips taken from a cold start can use twice as much fuel as one trip covering the same distance when the engine is warm.
Remove excess weight from the trunk. Avoid carrying unneeded items, especially heavy ones. An extra 100 pounds in the trunk reduces a typical car's fuel economy by one to two percent.
Maintain your car

Keep your engine tuned. Studies have shown that a poorly tuned engine can increase fuel consumption by as much as 10 to 20 percent depending on a car's condition. Follow the recommended maintenance schedule in your owner's manual; you'll save fuel and your car will run better and last longer.
Keep your tires properly inflated and aligned. Car manufacturers must place a label in the car stating the correct tire pressure. The label usually is on the edge of the door or door jamb, in the glove box, or on the inside of the gas cap cover. If the label lists a psi (pounds per square inch) range, use the higher number to maximize your fuel efficiency. Underinflated tires cause fuel consumption to increase by six percent.
Change your oil. Clean oil reduces wear caused by friction between moving parts and removes harmful substances from the engine. Change your oil as recommended by the vehicle manufacturer.
Check and replace air filters regularly. Your car's air filter keeps impurities in the air from damaging internal engine components. Not only will replacing a dirty air filter improve your fuel economy, it also will protect your engine. Clogged filters can cause up to a 10 percent increase in fuel consumption.
Consider buying a fuel efficient vehicle
Deciding which vehicle to buy may be the most important fuel economy decision you make. The difference between a car that gets 20 MPG (miles per gallon) and one that gets 30 MPG amounts to $3,125 over 5 years, assuming gas costs $2.50 per gallon and you drive 15,000 miles a year.

Visit www.fueleconomy.gov for more information. You’ll find gas mileage estimates and other data from EPA for 1985-2007 model year cars.

One thing not mentioned: by a manual gear transmission

[gyre]

Unjon, I wasn't actually responding to your rant.
I do agree that speed requires attention from the driver.


Heli,
I'm pointing out that there is no magic in it.
My big block wagon gets the same mileage at 55 as 75 because it is very aerodynamic compared to a truck.
The engine's enhanced efficiency at higher speed is not offset by air drag enough to create a penalty.
Semi trucks got worse mileage at 55 when the change was passed.
It was due to gearing.
Most of the mileage records are set at high speeds for a reason, although some idiot set one recently at 20 mph.
Anyone find 20 mph useful for long distance travel?

The Lotus Europa tested at 32 mpg at 80 mph.
Many considered that an anomaly, but it is very reasonable for an ultralight car with fairly low drag and a small engine.

Speed is only one arbitrary factor.
Air drag, which you could improve drastically on your truck in spite of it's profile is another.
Then there is gearing.
Then you get into things the average person doesn't want to change, but they still matter.
Engine tuning, compression, friction, fuel octane, etc.
And there is weight.
Your truck weighs a lot but at steady speed on level ground that is not as big a deal as you might think.
But it all matters.

You can tune anything for 55 mph.
It may not be smart to do so.
When you have something like a van or a bob truck it is time to consider 55 mph as a good idea.
But I had a Dodge van with a 318 and very tall gearing and an overdrive 4 speed.
I got 26 mpg with it at 65 mph.

It all depends.
55 is no more magical than 75 mph.
It's just a number.

Just for reference, my fast ford has one of the lowest drag bodies ever put on a stock car.
That is a huge factor and it can be improved.
With a big high compression engine and 3.25 gearing, I suspect it's mileage peaks at 100mph.
Acceleration doesn't taper below 125.
Then you can feel the air drag.

It is a little maddening that my volvo gets worse mileage if it is loaded than the ford.
I hope to trim out the airflow on it.
That should be good for 5 mpg.

It all matters.

[Apollonaris Zeus]

I'm pointing out that there is no magic in it.
My big block wagon gets the same mileage at 55 as 75 because it is very aerodynamic compared to a truck.
The engine's enhanced efficiency at higher speed is not offset by air drag enough to create a penalty..

55 same as 75 that would be impossible and what are you smoking because its not pot, but exhaust fumes: find, "increases very quickly at high speed"... below

Cd in automobiles
The drag coefficient is a common metric in automotive design, where designers strive to achieve a low coefficient. Minimizing drag is done to improve fuel efficiency at highway speeds, where aerodynamic effects represent a substantial fraction of the energy needed to keep the car moving. Indeed, aerodynamic drag increases with the square of speed. Aerodynamics are also of increasing concern to truck designers, where a lower drag coefficient translates directly into lower fuel costs.

About 60% of the power required to cruise at highway speeds is taken up overcoming air drag, and this increases very quickly at high speed. Therefore, a vehicle with substantially better aerodynamics will be much more fuel efficient. Additionally, because drag does increase with the square of speed, a somewhat lower speed can significantly improve fuel economy. This was the major reason for the United States adopting a nationwide 55 mile per hour speed limit during the early 1973 oil crisis as slower traffic would save scarce petroleum.

CdA
While designers pay attention to the overall shape of the automobile, they also bear in mind that reducing the frontal area of the shape helps reduce the drag. The combination of drag coefficient and area is CdA (or CxA), a multiplication of the Cd value by the area.

In aerodynamics, the product of some reference area (such as cross-sectional area, total surface area, or similar) and the drag coefficient is called drag area. In 2003, Car and Driver adapted this metric and adopted it as a more intuitive way to compare the aerodynamic efficiency of various automobiles. Average full-size passenger cars have a drag area of roughly 8.5 ft² (.79 m²). Reported drag area ranges from the 1999 Honda Insight at 5.1 ft² (.47 m²) to the 2003 Hummer H2 at 26.3 ft² (2.44 m²).


More CdA Examples
This value is extremely useful as either the area or drag coefficient alone are not enough to be used in any equation. Sometimes it is not possible to get either value, but it might be possible to deduce it. For a skydiver example below, it is possible to deduce CdA from the mass of the diver and equipment and terminal velocity. Skydiver CdA examples are in both ft² and m² units.



To see more related information visit the Extreme High Altitude Conditions Calculator


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

Automobile examples of CdA ft² are shown below: [5]

3.95 - 1996 GM EV1
5.10 - 1999 Honda Insight
5.71 - 1990 Honda CR-X Si
5.76 - 1968 Toyota 2000GT
5.80 - 1986 Toyota MR2
5.81 - 1989 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
5.88 - 1990 Nissan 240SX
5.92 - 1994 Porsche 911 Speedster
5.95 - 1990 Mazda RX7
6.00 - 1970 Lamborghini Miura
6.13 - 1993 Acura NSX
6.17 - 1995 Lamborghini Diablo
6.27 - 1986 Porsche 911 Carrera
6.27 - 1992 Chevrolet Corvette
6.35 - 1999 Lotus Elise
6.40 - 1990 Lotus Esprit
6.54 - 1991 Saturn Sports Coupe
6.57 - 1985 Chevrolet Corvette
6.77 - 1995 BMW M3
6.79 - 1993 Toyota Corolla DX
6.81 - 1991 Subaru Legacy
6.90 - 1993 Saturn Wagon
6.93 - 1982 Delorean DMC-12
6.96 - 1988 Porsche 944 S
6.96 - 1995 Chevy Lumina LS
7.02 - 1992 BMW 325I
7.04 - 1991 Honda Civic EX
7.10 - 1995 Saab 900
7.14 - 1995 Subaru Legacy L
7.34 - 2001 Honda Civic
7.39 - 1994 Honda Accord EX
7.48 - 1993 Chevy Camaro Z28
7.57 - 1992 Toyota Camry
7.69 - 1994 Chrysler LHS
7.72 - 1993 Subaru Impreza
8.70 - 1990 Volvo 740 Turbo
8.70 - 1992 Ford Crown Victoria
8.71 - 1991 Buick LeSabre Limited
9.54 - 1992 Chevy Caprice Wagon
10.7 - 1992 Chevy Blazer
11.7 - 1993 Jeep Grand Cherokee
16.8 - 2006 Hummer H3
17.4 - 1995 Land Rover Discovery
26.3 - 2003 Hummer H2

Drag in sports and racing cars
Reducing drag is also a factor in sports car design, where fuel efficiency is less of a factor, but where low drag helps a car achieve a high top speed. However, there are other important aspects of aerodynamics that affect cars designed for high speed, including racing cars. Notably, it is important to minimize lift, hence increasing downforce, to avoid the car ever becoming airborne. Also it is important to maximize aerodynamic stability: some racing cars have tested well at particular "attack angles", yet performed catastrophically, i.e. flipping over, when hitting a bump or experiencing turbulence from other vehicles (most notably the Mercedes-Benz CLR). For best cornering and racing performance, as required in Formula 1 cars, downforce and stability are crucial and these cars have very high Cd values.


Typical values and examples
The typical modern automobile achieves a drag coefficient of between 0.30 and 0.35. SUVs, with their flatter shapes, typically achieve a Cd of 0.35–0.45. Notably, certain cars can achieve figures of 0.25-0.30, although sometimes designers deliberately increase drag in order to reduce lift.

Some examples of Cd:

0.7 to 1.1 - typical values for a Formula 1 car (downforce settings change for each circuit)
0.7 - Caterham Seven
at least 0.6 - a typical truck
0.57 - Hummer H2, 2003
0.51 - Citroën 2CV
0.35 - Dodge Viper GTS
0.46 - Ford Mustang, 1979 (coupe)
0.45 - Dodge Viper RT/10
0.44 - Ford Mustang, 1979 (fastback)
0.44 - Toyota Truck, 1990-1995
0.42 - Lamborghini Countach, 1974
0.42 - Triumph Spitfire Mk IV, 1971-1980
0.42 - Plymouth Duster, 1994
0.39 - Dodge Durango, 2004
0.39 - Triumph Spitfire, 1964-1970
0.38 - Volkswagen Beetle
0.38 - Mazda Miata, 1989
0.38 - Honda Prelude, 1987-1991
0.374 - Ford Capri Mk III, 1978-1986
0.372 - Ferrari F50, 1996
0.37 - Renault Twingo
0.36 - Eagle Talon, mid-1990s
0.36 - Citroën DS, 1955
0.36 - Ferrari Testarossa, 1986
0.36 - Opel GT, 1969
0.36 - Honda Civic, 2001
0.36 - Citroën CX, 1974 (the car was named after the term for drag coefficient)
0.355 - NSU Ro 80, 1967
0.35 - Toyota MR2, 1998
0.34 - Ford Sierra, 1982
0.34 - Ferrari F40, 1987
0.34 - Chevrolet Caprice, 1994-1996
0.34 - Chevrolet Corvette Z06, 2006
0.338 - Chevrolet Camaro, 1995
0.33 - Dodge Charger, 2006
0.33 - Audi A3, 2006
0.33 - Subaru Impreza WRX STi, 2004
0.33 - Mazda RX-7 FC3C, 1987-91
0.33 - Citroën SM, 1970
0.32064 - Volkswagen GTI Mk V, 2006 (0.3216 with ground effects)
0.32 - Dodge Avenger,1995-2000
0.32 - Toyota Celica,1994-1999
0.32 - Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.5-16/2.3-16
0.31 - Citroën AX, 1986
0.31 - Citroën GS, 1970
0.31 - Eagle Vision
0.31 - Ford Falcon, 1995-1998
0.31 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S, 1986-91
0.31 - Renault 25, 1984
0.31 - Saab Sonett III, 1970
0.31 - Audi A4 B5, 1995-2000
0.31 - Holden Commodore, 1998
0.31 - Honda Civic, 2006
0.30 - Audi 100, 1983
0.30 - Hyundai Sonata, 2006
0.30 - BMW E90, 2006
0.30 - Porsche 996, 1997
0.30 - Saab 92, 1947
0.295 - Ford Falcon au, 1998
0.29 - Dodge Charger Daytona, 1969
0.29 - Honda CRX HF 1988
0.29 - Subaru XT, 1985
0.29 - BMW 8-Series, 1989
0.29 - Porsche Boxster, 2005
0.29 - Chevrolet Corvette, 2005
0.29 - Mazda RX-7 FC3S Aero Package, 1986-91
0.29 - Lexus LS 400, 1990
0.29 - Lancia Dedra, 1990-1998
0.29 - Honda Accord Hybrid, 2005
0.29 - Lotus Elite, 1958
0.29 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Coupe, 2001 - 2007
0.29 - Toyota Prius, 2001-2003
0.28 - Toyota Camry and sister model Lexus ES, 2005
0.28 - Porsche 997, 2004
0.28 - Renault 25 TS, 1984
0.28 - Saab 9-3, 2003
0.27 - Infiniti G35, 2002 (0.26 with "aero package")
0.27 - Mercedes-Benz W203 C-Class Sedan, 2001 - 2007
0.27 - Rumpler Tropfenwagen, 1921
0.27 - Toyota Camry Hybrid, 2007
0.27 - Honda Civic Hybrid, 2006
0.26 - Alfa Romeo Disco Volante, 1952
0.26 - Hotchkiss Gregoire, 1951
0.26 - Lexus LS 430, 2001 (0.25 with air suspension)
0.26 - Mercedes-Benz W221 S-Class, 2006
0.26 - Toyota Prius, 2004 - 2007
0.26 - Vauxhall Calibra, 1989
0.25 - Audi A2 1.2 TDI, 2001
0.25 - Dymaxion Car, 1933
0.25 - Honda Insight, 1999
0.25 - SmILE (an experimental car)
0.212 - Tatra T77 a, 1935
0.20 - Loremo Concept, 2006
0.20 - Opel Eco Speedster Concept, 2003
0.195 - General Motors EV1, 1996
0.19 - Alfa Romeo BAT Concept, 1953
0.19 - Dodge Intrepid ESX Concept , 1995
0.19 - Mercedes-Benz Bionic Concept, 2005 [6] (based on the boxfish)
0.16 - Daihatsu UFEIII Concept, 2005
0.16 - General Motors Precept Concept, 2000
0.14 - Fiat Turbina Concept, 1954
0.137 - Ford Probe V prototype, 1985
0.12 - Reflex 1000, 1996 [7]
0.117 - Summers Brothers Goldenrod Bonneville race car, 1965 [8]

gyre, your vehicle may be aerodynamic, but it must still shove and push air out from the front of it and to do that it takes more fuel!

AIIZ

Special thanks to Wikipedia

[gyre]

Shifting into high gear depends on load and conditions.
Low rpm in high gear is usually most comfortable due to low noise, but it is usually below the peak of efficiency of the engine.
Even if you have a V8 that peaks low, a change of intake or cam can change that considerably.
Wear is far far more important to me than fuel economy so if I am not over stressing an engine, I will run the lowest rpm possible.
Noise is a big factor in some engines as well.
My fiat 1300 hit peak efficiency at 5000 rpm.
I would not tolerate that today for a long drive.


There is a lot of misinformation out there.
I have no idea what a jackrabbit start means.
Slow throttle has long been known to be the least efficient way to drive.
It is easy on the car, bad on the fuel.
BMW found that 90-95% throttle to a steady speed is the most efficient.
They recommend 75% throttle as a compromise.
Cars are good at cruising and at hard throttle, not much else.
Smooth driving is a plus, of course.
The sooner you get to speed and quit wasting fuel the better.

Many people are not using premium that should.
If you have any advantage in mileage, it is usually cheaper.
The math can be a little surprising.
If you test both on the freeway long enough and detect no difference, stick to regular.
Some computers take time to adapt to premium.
Advancing timing can radically improve mileage with high octane fuel.
That was how I got 45 mpg in the fiat.

And some tires are lower drag than others.
I am running 45 psi cold but not all tires are happy with that.
The difference is there.

[gyre]

AZ,
Re-read what I said.
Aero drag is not the only factor.
It is true that what you have in drag increases with speed.
It is not always a linear increase.
There are some anomalies, but it does increase.
A long streamlined car will out-perform a short car.
Motorcycles have extremely high drag due to this.
The hotrod is not a wagon.
Two different cars, but both with big engines that waste fuel at low speeds-like 55 mph.
The older wagon is low compression and not fuel injected so it is very non-adaptive as well.
At 55 mph the hotrod is virtually idling without a load.
Most of the fuel becomes heat energy.
A 4 cylinder in the same car does well at 55 mph but can barely run the ac, and has a shot life span.
It's a matter of efficiency.
Cars are not airplanes and drag is much more complicated.
If you have a full size american truck and want to know where your fuel is going, climb underneath.
Most have an underbody that a child could improve with a belly pan.
Even airplanes have peak efficiency speeds and they are dictated by engines and props as well as air coefficients.
You have to buy a soaring plane to get to where air drag is all that counts.


The info about why the 55 limit was added is just wrong.
It was always political wmds and grandstanding.
Rather like an ad agency making up slogans about air safety and trying ever since to do studies to justify the popular myth.


The statement "uses more fuel"....more than what?

[mdmf007]

The available resources will be so scarce that there will simply not be enough to go around.

The sad part is the United States has the resources to feed ouselves, fuel ourselves and the military might to protect what we have. While less developed counries will crumble and have no option but to invade their neighbors, and further for food - My prediction. Mass extinction of peoples in Africa, China, India, and many of the island states. It has been predicted that the earth can support only 9-11 billion people. Joel Cohen, the Rockefeller University population biologist, argues in a 1995 book (How Many People can the Earth Support?) Sources figure that we reach the 9 billion mark (at current rates of procreation) in as little as 50 years

Mass extinction due to disease, famine, pestilence and war I feel is inevitable when we reach a level of population where retioning will no longer be a viable option.

When the oil runs out or hits 100 a barrel we will be at war with the middle east, and south american oil magnates, and that will lead to many of the same problems - different reason

a study the office down the hall did a few years back for a large company indicated that the food situation will actually get better for much of the developed world with global warming leading to a longer growing season then more kids, leading to more pollution and then a major let down when other areas cannot produce the food they are accustomed too.

Shitty thing is I will probably be dead and my children and grand children will haev to deal with it, or perish.

later

[mojo]

From what I heard being discussed, unless you plan on dying in the next 20 years or so, you may not be too late for all the fun.

[Lassen Forge]

Thanks, hon! Motivated my lazy butt - Someone fucking needs to say this...

My prediction. Mass extinction of peoples in Africa, China, India, and many of the island states.

Or here and China. When you take a small population who consumes a majority of the resources wantonly, who's gonna run out of stuff first? The Thrifty Indians who don't have the infrastructure to throw away, or we who burn more in a day than the others do in a year?

Of course, the American way is to think that even tho it is our right to waste as much as we can we will go on burning oil long after the last well is dry because, by God, we're Americans and it's our right. Mass extinction? Yeah - those fucking non-Americans will die off but not us Omnipotent Blessed People who don't realilze we've just burned our last barrel of oil and can't save a weeks worth of food let alone 3 years worth. Fuck, ADM will fill us with petro Corn Syrup, right?? FUCK. What a bullshit lie you've bought into and are willing to get violent to keep alive. WAKE THE FUCK UP!!!

It has been predicted that the earth can support only 9-11 billion people.

Less than that. We're wearing out the planet faster than it can repair itself. Look at the whole Atmospheric fuckup, the loss of necessary species from the North American continent (bees) - we've gone beyond critical mass. Now look at your morning traffic jam - or better - go join it. Grrrr... Add some toxins to your air tank, and who cares, it's your offspring that will die of the poison... as long as it's not ME ME ME ME ME!!!!!

Sources figure that we reach the 9 billion mark (at current rates of procreation) in as little as 50 years

What makes you think that we won't be extinct in less than that? We'll run out of clean water, air, oil, and food long before that. AND we'll kill off the youngest and brightest in war, too, to make sure there IS no future Americans! KEWL!!! What fun! Kill our own children - no child left behind. 50% of the US tax goes to exterminate your offspring, and the American people GLADLY pay to kill their own children off. Isn't this a bit like Masturbation with Lives???

Mass extinction due to disease, famine, pestilence and war I feel is inevitable when we reach a level of population where retioning will no longer be a viable option.

We're already there. Look beyond the North American Superpower at the rest of the world. Beyonf jacking off your future generations for your oil companies, Disease is rampant - when was the last time Penicillin fixed something? Some old diseases are coming back. Listen to the news - Cancer is rampant. THERE'S your plauge. And how can you ration what there just flat isn't any of. Bees? Where are they going? Oops - dead. Let's see if our tailpipes and oil can pollinate plants.

When the oil runs out or hits 100 a barrel we will be at war with the middle east,

Ummm... we're ALREADY at war in the middle east, not over nothing BUT oil and oil profits and Oil Companies. You think otherwise, then why do YOU care what Iraq does to itself? What the thing is is the 2nd biggest pool of OIL under that country - it MUST be kept stirred up to keep us there so WE Americans OWN THE OIL!!!

Honor our children? BULLSHIT!!!. Ask our dead American children who are snuck back in shame to cargo bays in the dead of night - no photos allowed - to hide from YOU that OUR FUTURE is being sold out for that cheap powerful oil that we can all burn.

Put your kid in your gas tank so you can drive your 11 MPG SUV to work. How many more of our children are we willing to kill to drive on cheap gas to make the oil magnates their profiot? Do you love the oil companies that much you are glad to kill your children for them? Human Sacrifice for your American Lifestyle?? Oops - have some Oil Produced Corn Syrup Sweetner and it will be all right!!! GRRRR!!

and south american oil magnates, and that will lead to many of the same problems - different reason

The South American Oil thing is bullshit. It's part of the BIG DISTRACTION so you ignore what's going on (with your blessings) over Oil Pool #2 (Iraq) and #3 (Iran). Just like the un-news that you get glued to on TV, whether it be Fox or Amy Goodman - it's to keep you confused and entertained so you remain blind to what's happening in plain sight...

a study the office down the hall did a few years back for a large company indicated that the food situation will actually get better for much of the developed world with global warming leading to a longer growing season then more kids, leading to more pollution and then a major let down when other areas cannot produce the food they are accustomed too.

Shitty thing is I will probably be dead and my children and grand children will haev to deal with it, or perish.

PLEASE don't say that company was ADM. A lot of the dirt is as dead from overuse as it was in Oklaholma in the 30's. The ONLY thing keeping it producing - where it gets its fertility from - is Oil Based Fertilizer. Remove that Fertilizer and see how much corn can be produced for how long?

We are in a chemical based dirt hydroponic food chain. And when that oil stops... when it runs out... wehen there's no more fertility to pump into this dead, inert growing media - when there's more minerals to grow stuff on the burned out dead desolate soil of fracking MARS than here, it's over.

Of course... you're AMERICANS. Better ignore this, call me a traitor say "fuck you". After all - I'm talking about you having to not being able to stuff yourself to excess and drive wherever you want so there is a world tomorrow. I mean, who gives a fucking SHIT if your children die a painful death of poisoned air and NO food and no clean water, as long as you have a fat belly? Its your right as an AMERICAN to be the "GIMME" people.

I'm done. Whew. Had to get that off my chest - sorry!!!

[robotland]

Whew! BBS, you're a hard act to follow so I won't even try...I'll just post my little observation about drag and mileage and be gone.
Driving from The Oven Mitt State (that's Michigan to you Non-Apokiliptikan Masses) to the burn every year I have noticed a consistantly increased hit to my wallet on the westbound versus eastbound trek due to my travelling "upwind" on the way out...It almost takes another whole tank of gas. (It's usually fourteen fillups for the whole round trip.) There were furious storms around the Great Lakes this year, magnifying the effect to almost another full tank. Now, I LOVE my Element....but it's a freakin' bread truck of aerodynamic badness.

[Lassen Forge]

This message of lighthearted entertainment and doom brought to you by:

Ever wanted to become a propoganda writer? Thought you lacked the terrifying skills to bend others to the official party line? Writewing Acadamy may be the answer to your educational needs. Writewing Academy (lovingly referred to by it's alumnus as "Ol' Dubya") can make you an accomplished Poet-lauriate of Propogandorial Prose through its PhD in Anti-actualism, which will confer upon you the title of "Doctor of Spin". Our program can open up numerous exciting occupational choices!
"I used to be a pancake flipper at the local IHOP, without much chance at a future. But with my degree from Writewing University, I started getting job offers from all kinds of media companies and even various world Governments! Thank you, Ol' Dubya, for showing me how to make any truth THE truth!" C. H. "Hugh" Rove, W.A. Graduate.
Get your chance to rewrite the right future the Write way today at Writewing University (A subsidiary of Halliburnin Corp, an Apokiliptik Fortune-419 Company).

From a grant by the fine folks who bake D-Con-derbread. For all the small, new, and growing problems in your life - D-Con-derbread helps end strong bodies 12 ways.

And from the generous donations from Viewers like Hugh. (OK, who is this Hugh guy, anyway, and why do viewers want to be like Him??)

[gyre]

Robotland,
Wind direction has a recognized effect on mileage.
I think turbulence can cause more effect than windspeed would lead you to think.
Even sports cars are affected.

You may want to consider an air dam and other air trim.
On a truck there is much you can do.
I will be trying to put as low a sacrificial air dam as I can manage.
It can be done to improve cooling dramatically too, if that matters to you.

Not much you can do about wind direction.
It may be a consideration for certain routes that are known for crosswinds.

You can test any changes with a controlled coastdown on a measured stretch of road.

[thisisthatwhichis]

Why doesn't somebody just come up with a way to bring Hydrogen to the masses, and then we can be done with this silly argument over who can save more fossil fuels and our current atmospheric quality?
Energy fuels current Human "existance", so it doesn't matter how "clean" everyone thinks they are, to make you feel good, we are filthy pigs, leaving our imprint.....
If you want to Really change things, shoot for something that will Really make an affect...... Then we can just sit around and complain about important things, like........how my beer got warm.

[gyre]

We don't have an energy shortage.
We have a population problem.

We could reduce our energy use a lot though.
Anyone can cut heating and cooling costs without sacrificing comfort.

When they pitched a local nuclear power plant to my elementary school they promised no electric meters.

[Toolmaker]

We have a population problem.

spay and neuter. problem solved.

[unjonharley]

We have a population problem.

spay and neuter. problem solved.

\/
Anyone want to play doctor with me? I have a rusty razor blade.

[Lassen Forge]

Lessee, (looking in the toolbox) I have bolt cutters and a nut splitter...

Will that help?

bb

[unjonharley]

Why doesn't somebody just come up with a way to bring Hydrogen to the masses, and then we can be done with this silly argument over who can save more fossil fuels and our current atmospheric quality?

\/
It takes to much fossil fuel to produce hyrogen..It's a red herring..

It would take millons of acres to produce the corn needed for alcohol fuel..Not to mention the fossil fuel to render it..Or the acreage taken from the food producing crops..This time, a Bush and Big Three red herring..

At this time in space, Hybrids are and should be in the front running..That is until something new comes over the hill..

Quote BBS "kill your kids and put them in your gas tank" War for oil is a Bush, Red Hering..

Shell we dine?..Pass the fucking herring

[Ugly Dougly]

220 mph would be more efficient:
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

[thisisthatwhichis]

\/
It takes to much fossil fuel to produce hyrogen..It's a red herring..


Shell we dine?..Pass the fucking herring

Huh??? there are more ways to produce electricity, than fossil fuels....... If anone could do it this community could.... and hurry up, the beer is still getting warm........

[unjonharley]

\/
It takes to much fossil fuel to produce hyrogen..It's a red herring..


Shell we dine?..Pass the fucking herring

Huh??? there are more ways to produce electricity, than fossil fuels....... If anone could do it this community could.... and hurry up, the beer is still getting warm........

Yeah,We can nuke,dam and kill off the food chain..

Shell we dine? Pass the fucking Soylent Green!!

[thisisthatwhichis]

No, no, no....... Let's put our burner thinking caps on.....

It takes more energy to break the chemical bond, than you end up with (that's usable)....
So the only way you can make up for it is:
A. Burn fossil fuels ( forget the nukes, that environmental waste far exceeds any fossil fuel)
B. use renewable fuels (that still have an evironmental emission )
C. use other free energy sources: Solar, Wind, Kinetic...... A car moving down the road has access (at various times) to all three.

I choose option C, for my project.....But first, I must get a cold beer.... The last one got warm......

[MikeVDS]

D. Nuclear plants. (not sure if you meant that by B.)

It takes more energy to break the chemical bond, than you end up with (that's usable)....

I am unsure if this is true or not, but even if it is, you end up with a net gain of usable energy anyway, which is what matters. For example let us say you can get 10 units of energy from burning 1 volume of hydrogen gas. (I'm using made up numbers as an example). If it takes 6 units of energy to burn the hydrogen and you're left with water and 10 units of energy out, you have a net gain of 4. Sure the input was greater than the net gain, but that's fine. The energy is not lost it's just now in the water molecule and we have heat that we can turn a turbine with, heat our houses, etc. You do get a net gain out of burning hydrogen. If you don't believe it, try lighting it and you'll see net output.

Now is it a good choice? I don't know how much we can get from Earth or if getting it makes it any better than oil. I've heard that most of the stuff we get is from oil production to begin with, though I cannot verify it.