backtop

Gadgets 157 MPG Vehicle for only $13,000
Brandon Hill (Blog) - February 27, 2006 5:15 PM
Print 219 comment(s) - last by Xenoterranos.. on Mar 9 at 1:47 AM
Loremo AG set to debut 2+2 coupe that gets over 150 MPG

I'm happy when my little hatchback gets 31 MPG on the highway, but German-based Loremo AG is set to debut a 2+2 coupe at the Geneva Auto Show that gets a whopping 157 MPG.

The $13,000 Loremo LS weighs just 992 lbs and features a two cylinder turbo-diesel engine pumping out a hardly earth shattering 20HP. The mid-engine, RWD coupe gets roughly 157 miles per gallon and has a cruising range of 807 miles. It goes 0-60 in 20 seconds and has a top speed of 99 MPH.

A more powerful $17,800 Leromo GT will also be available. It weighs in slightly more at 1,036 lbs and features a 3 cylinder turbo-diesel with 50 HP. It gets 87 miles per gallon, has a cruising range of 497 miles, goes 0-60 in 9 seconds and tops out at 137 MPH.

Both will come standard with airbags, radio and particle filter. Options will include a dashboard computer, A/C, MP3 player, navigation system, and leather.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
This is the future of the automobile folks!
By Heatlesssun on 2/27/2006 5:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
Like it or not, eventually the dinasour guzzeling cars we drive today are going to become dinasours.

It's something that American's don't want to think about. All we want is cheap gas and more roads, but the world is using more and more oil at an almost exponential rate.

China in about 20 years will use more oil than the WHOLE world does now. Oil is just going to keep getting more and more exspensive because we keep using more and more of it. Supply and demand.

Light cars CAN be made safe. We don't have to ride around in tanks for safety.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By NFS4 on 2/27/2006 5:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
Light cars can be made safe, but you can't fight the laws of physics. A buddy of mine was coming home late from work one night on a two lane backroad.

He fell asleep and crossed the center line hitting a pickup truck head on with his 2004 Mini Cooper S (at about 50-60MPH I would assume). He died at the scene and the pickup truck driver walked away.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By TSS on 2/27/2006 6:12:41 PM , Rating: 2
you cant change the laws of physics but you can stay awake behind the wheel. no matter what excuse, if you havea chance of falling asleep while driving, either pull over or dont drive at all.

anyways, this is definatly a good car, if it atleast does what it says it does. looks futuristic too. now all thats left is computer driven cars.


By Mr Perfect on 2/28/2006 3:56:09 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, the on-board driving computer has crashed. Expect the rest of the car to follow shortly. Have a nice day.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 6:12:53 PM , Rating: 2
At 50-60mph you're going to be lucky to walk away no matter what you're driving. While heavy vehicles like SUV's might be safer in a head on collision, it would be a mistake to assume they are safer overall. Many, many people die in SUV's all the time, and with small cars you don't have to worry about flipping over if you lose control for a moment or two.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 6:34:06 PM , Rating: 4
Err, no thats not how it works. Assume the driver of a 4000lb vehicle doing 60 mph hits one of these head-on. That's equivalent to them hitting an equal-weight vehicle doing only 15 mph...and anyone can survive that.

For the poor sap in this lightweight car, though, its equivalent to their hitting an equal-weight car at 105 mph...an accident that no one is likely to survive.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 6:58:54 PM , Rating: 2
If I were in a 4000lb vehicle I still wouldn't want to smash into another 4000lb vehicle going 15mph if I were going 60. In fact, I wouldn't want to smash into it if it was parked.

That's assuming that both vehicles are going 60, though. If you thought I was talking about 1 going 60 and the other being parked you would be right.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 7:07:28 PM , Rating: 3
Sorry, you still don't understand the physics here. Its not equivalent to hitting another vehicle doing 15 while you're doing 60...but rather to that of BOTH vehicles doing 15 mph. Or equal to you hitting a tree while doing 15 mph.

To summarize. An F150 @ 60MPH head-on with Loremo @ 60 MPH is equal (for the F150 driver) to hitting a tree while doing 15 MPH. For the Loremo driver, its equivalent to hitting a tree while driving 105 MPH.

Big difference.


By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 7:30:44 PM , Rating: 2
Or equal to you hitting a tree while doing 15 mph.

Hmm, yes you are right. Assuming that both vehicles absorb an equal amount of the collision, of course, which depends on exactly how they collide and the way in which they are designed. In my defense, I don't think there are too many 1000lb vehicles here in the states, but I suppose that was your point.

Nevertheless, I stand by my original statement, which was: small cars may be less safe in a head on collision, but they can be safer in other ways. For example, you don't have nearly the risk of flipping over if you lose control of the vehicle for a second or two. I was just trying to point out that stats show heavy vehicles really aren't any safer than lighter ones most of the time in real world accidents. There will always be some cases where one is obviously better than the other.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 2/27/2006 8:13:50 PM , Rating: 2
You are randomly making up nonsense.

No it's not like both doing 15 MPH, and no it's not like anything hitting an immobile object like a typical (medium-large) tree.

The tree is far worse, because it's not just a matter of mass, or mobility of the object but also impact zones. BOTH vehicles absorb a great deal of the impact and this completely negates any of your ideas about X MPH- they're simply, completely invalid.

Most significant in such a crash are that most american trucks still have fixed bumpers on a full frame. Second most significant is not the weight of the smaller car, but rather it's smaller passenger compartment and the force exerted on the driver through the front firewall and windshield no matter what the car had weighed. With a small car even a breakaway steering column may be deadly simply due to distance, not (lack of) weight.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 8:53:53 PM , Rating: 4
Look kid, I'm not making anything up. It's a simple problem in physics. Momentum is conserved, therefore assuming one vehicle of mass x and a second of mass x/5, you have initial p(init) = p(final) = 60(x)- (60(x/5)) = 48(x). Therefore, vehicle A (the heavier one) experiences a delta v of 60-(48)/(6/5) = 20mph, whereas Vehicle B (the lighter one) experiences a delta v of (-60)-40 = 100 mph. Assuming the same dT, the occupants of the smaller vehicle therefore experience 100/20 = five TIMES the g forces as do those in the larger vehicle.

Note this does not take into account crumple zones or any other factors influencible through engineering. However, those factors are-- in a head-on collision between two vehicles of significantly dissimilar mass-- trivial .

Weight wins. Period.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 10:10:42 PM , Rating: 2
Your physics are indeed correct, but I believe the poster above was talking about design. Design is a much more important factor than pure weight, but since both vehicles are presumably well designed then this might even out. And yes, a collision with the tree would be worse, because all of the force is being applied to a small area. If a true head on collision were to occur a much larger area of the vehicle would be available to absorb some of the impact.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 10:55:12 PM , Rating: 3
As I've already shown, design is a factor, but in a head-on crash, mass is THE primary factor. If the mass ratio is large enough in your favor, design is totally unimportant...you won't experience enough of deceleration to even notice the crash. Design can only do so much, and it can't circumvent basic laws of physics.

As for a collision with a tree or other small object
"concentrating" force-- here is a situation where design can prevail. The very best case is a occupant cage strong enough to withstand crumpling entirely, and to communicate the force of impact equally across all points. You can't do better than this; the energy has to go somewhere. It is this best-case scenario to which I was comparing collision energies. If you wish, substitute a "fixed, immoval barrier" for the word "tree".


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By smitty3268 on 2/28/2006 1:28:14 AM , Rating: 2
If the mass ratio is large enough in your favor, design is totally unimportant...

Agreed, but a 4-1 mass ratio isn't that large, all things considered. Especially if you allow the car with lower mass to be made of a different material - one that is lighter and stronger, and no doubt more expensive. Not that I'm saying that is the case here (I don't know) but a 4-1 mass ratio can easily be overcome if it needed to be.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:36:02 AM , Rating: 3
A 4-1 mass ratio is huge, about equivalent to a full-size car colliding with a dump truck. And for the Loremo, a 4-1 ratio isn't the worst case...if it strikes a large SUV or pickup, it can be 6-1 or more.

As for "stronger materials" overcoming this difference, its you're still missing the point. Even assuming infinitely strong materials, the occupants of the lighter vehicle are STILL being subjected to several times the g forces. A much lighter vehicle striking a heavier one gets thrown backwards, violently so. You experience an impulse acceleration of several hundred g's...strong enough to break bones and damage internal organs, even if the occupant cage experiences no failure whatsoever.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 3/1/2006 3:39:54 AM , Rating: 2
you haven't shown anything, except that you can't wrap your head around more than simplistic concepts. You are the "kid" here.

Fact is, tiny cars are crash-tested into almost immovable dozen ton barriers. That alone makes your simplistic concept completely void. Unlike what a prior poster suggested, having both vehicles designed to absorb shock is not any kind of equalization, on the contrary is a HUGE benefit.

Yes, the smaller vehicle, even the larger one are subjected to very significant forces. Nobody has argued otherwise, only that your ideas about it are completely wrong.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 8:52:04 AM , Rating: 4
> "Fact is, tiny cars are crash-tested into almost immovable dozen ton barriers"
Lol, you still don't get it. The mass of the barrier is irrelevant...the important point is the barrier is immovable . That in itself changes the dynamic totally...and thats the ENTIRE reason crash tests are done against fixed barriers. It removes the mass of the vehicle from the equation. Because the barrier is fixed, its momentum-- both before and after the crash-- is zero. Therefore the only momentum involved is that of the tested vehicle itself.

Against a fixed barrier, a half-ton mini-car can (and usually does) score better than a 10 ton truck. Are you actually naive enough to believe that, should the two collide head-on, that the mini-car would still "win"?

Answer, please.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By Snarfy on 3/7/2006 5:20:44 AM , Rating: 2
Dood, Mindless, i tkinda fits your name. Uhh and Masher, what's wrong with you? The kid obviously doesn't understand his physics, no need to humiliate him... Come to think of it, 90% of this thread has been an intellectual d1c|< measuring contest... What's up with that...


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By mindless1 on 3/7/2006 5:54:40 PM , Rating: 1
Clueless one, here's how it is:

Masher has a simplistic concept of the world. he knows a simple monkey trick, a calculation, but that doesn't mean he knows enough physics to see that one cannot arbitrarily reject everything except a simplistic "mass is everything" argument.

I know to do the calcs if there were applicable. You fail to see it's not intelligence that leads one down a tangent as masher has done, it's inability to grasp the larger picture, that there is not only one variable (mass).

Anyone foolish enough to think there is only one variable is completely ignoring all the engineering that has gone into crash safety over the past few dozen years!


By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2006 7:24:54 PM , Rating: 3
> "Anyone foolish enough to think there is only one variable..."

I see your reading comprehension is as poor as your understanding of physics. I have stated numerous times that vehicle design and other factors exist, but that mass is, in a head-on collision, the primary factor. Do you know what the word "primary" means? Its usage alone implies the existence of other factors, even had I not troubled to explicitly name some.

The most common type of accident involves only a single vehicle, and in this case, good design is paramount. But in a head-on collision involving vehicles of substantially different mass (note the disclaimer, please), design plays a backseat role. If the best-designed and safest one-ton car collides with a 50-ton truck-- the truck wins. Period. No matter how poorly its designed...even if it lacks so much as a seat belt.

Now, do you finally understand? Somehow I doubt it.



By Scrogneugneu on 2/27/2006 8:22:08 PM , Rating: 2
Absolutely right, when you crash in a 1000 lbs car while driving a 4000 lbs SUV, you have much better chance to survive, and you're safer.


However, if everyone thinks the same way, then every crash is gonna be 4000 lbs vs 4000 lbs, thus it won't be any safer than any 1000 lbs vs 1000 lbs collision. In fact it would be worst.


So, ultimately... we're all better off driving small cars :)


By smitty3268 on 2/27/2006 10:14:03 PM , Rating: 2
I think it's obvious we all need to start driving 20 ton semis and monster trucks...


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By gamara on 2/28/2006 2:30:32 AM , Rating: 2
Your very wrong yourself. If you hit a 1000 LB car that is parked with your F150 at 60, how is that like hitting another F150 at 15? Now put both in motion and your even further off. Its nice to put assumptions of mass and velocity and the energy of the collision being the same, but the reaction of those energies are very different in these 2 cases. I would MUCH rather be in a 15 vs 15 MPH F150 vs F150 accident than a single F150 vs anything 1000 lbs at 60. Every accident is different since you can't accidentally collide exactly the same way every time. So pull your head out of your physics text and realize in the real world you will only make an ass of your self if you assume its perfect.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:42:34 AM , Rating: 4
> " If you hit a 1000 LB car that is parked with your F150 at 60, how is that like hitting another F150 at 15?"

I explained how, with very simple mathematics. Go back and read it.

> "Every accident is different since you can't accidentally collide exactly the same way every time."

Of course, which is why we compare RELATIVE dangers by assuming a perfect head-on collision. Factors such as like rollover, partially-elastic collisions, oblique impact angles, occupant cage failure, etc don't affect this relative situation. They make some accidents worse, some better...but the primary relationship of mass ratios dominates in a head-on collision.


By Burning Bridges on 3/1/2006 8:53:15 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, most SUVs have very weak body work. However, the chassis is often constructed from heavy steel bars (to support the wieght) these are the real danger as the will peirce right through any car that a SUV might hit.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By tonjohn on 2/27/2006 6:47:00 PM , Rating: 2
You guys need to read this if you think small, light cars are less safe...

Crash Testing: MINI Cooper vs Ford F150
http://www.bridger.us/2002/12/16/CrashTestingMINIC...


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 6:56:28 PM , Rating: 2
Um, you just don't understand the context of a "crash test". Its done against a fixed barrier, which NEGATES the weight differential of vehicles. If a Ford F150 head-on's a Mini Cooper at any reasonable speed-- the Cooper loses. Period. The MC driver dies horribly, while F150 driver will (usually) walk away untouched).

A larger vehicle is not inherently "safer", especially when you factor in accidents involving only a single vehicle...but in a multi-car collision, the heaviest man wins.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By tonjohn on 2/27/2006 7:20:01 PM , Rating: 2
Most major car accidents involve stationary objects. The MC is a safer car in most cases.


By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 7:24:26 PM , Rating: 3
Actually, for 2002 at least, the worst 3 vehicles for driver deaths were all subcompacts. Overall, trucks and SUVs will do slightly worse than cars of the same size, simply due to their higher center of gravity.

In a crash test, weight doesn't matter. In the real world, it most certainly does.


By haelduksf on 2/27/2006 7:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Yes...and you're more likely to be in one of these collisions if you're driving a tugboat like an F-150.

If you look up the "deaths per capita" figures that the US Gov. puts out every year, you'll notice that most of the top 10 are pickups and SUVs.


By xsilver on 3/6/2006 5:34:59 PM , Rating: 2
but if the other driver was also driving a mini -- there would have been a greater chance of survival -- the problem here is that everybody thinks that getting bigger cars will protect them -- it is true, but you may also be putting others at risk


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By clubok on 2/27/2006 10:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Like it or not, eventually the dinasour guzzeling cars we drive today are going to become dinasours.


Not until/unless one of three things change: Family sizes get smaller, US laws regarding child car seats are changed, or child seats are redesigned to take up much less space.

Back in the "old days," you could stick three kids in the back seat of a mid-sized car - no problem, except for the inevitable fights that would ensue when one encroached upon the other's space. (I was the smallest, so I always got to sit on the hump.) Now, a family with three children needs either a large SUV or a minivan - even a mini-SUV won't do. You simply can't fit three car seats there.

This also makes it a lot harder to do carpooling. My neighbor can't give my kid a ride, because their car doesn't have the car seat installed.


By Fricardo on 2/27/2006 11:43:32 PM , Rating: 1
Regardless, this is a ZERO SUM GAME. Yes, having a car more massive than the other guy will help you out in a crash, but it hurts him. If people keep getting bigger and bigger cars just to be bigger than the other guy, there is no net benefit. Concurrently, there is no net problem (simply from a mass perspective) if everyone switched to lighter cars.


By WhipperSnapper on 2/28/2006 7:36:36 AM , Rating: 2

Two words: Peak Oil

It's possible that we might be lucky to have enough gasoline to even drive those cars. I'll leave it at that.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:43:31 AM , Rating: 2
Peak Oil is a long-discredited fraud. Move along.


By WhipperSnapper on 2/28/2006 1:05:59 PM , Rating: 2

How so? Are you suggesting that we have an almost unlimitted amount of oil or that the oil gets replenished? When you combine the decreasing amount of oil available with population explosion and increased industrialization in the third world, it seems as though the demand for oil will only increase relative to supply.

I'm in this too; I hope you're correct and that I'm wrong. What is your response to the content of this website?

http://www.LifeAfterTheOilCrash.net



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 1:31:29 PM , Rating: 1
You misunderstand what Peak Oil really suggests. Obviously petroleum is a natural resource and will eventually be exhausted. Peak Oil goes much further than this, though, claiming that oil production will be forced down despite increasing demand, and cause a premature crisis long before oil is actually exhausted.

The fallacy is based on a misunderstanding of historical logistic curves. Every resource eventually experiences declining production. Scarcity causes price rises, which both drive down demand, and make other alternatives economic. Eventually, prices drive down demand, and production declines....a pattern repeated historically countless times.

Peak Oil puts the cart before the horse, however. The claim is that production is somehow willy-nilly forced down DESPITE rising demand, simply to fit a curve to past history. However, all past 'peaks' in resource production were driven from the demand side...not production.

Hubbert theory predicted reasonably well the US production decline. However, that was in a period in which lower-cost imports began to dominate. The "peak" came and went without any drop in global production, nor a drop in US demand. No crisis. Hubbert theory applied globally has failed many times, predicting a peak in the late-1990s, again in early 2000s, and the latest somewhere between 2008 and 2012. HT also predicted "peaks" that never came for the former USSR, Saudi Arabia, and many other nations.

With every failure, the Hubbertites go back to their figures, mumble a bit, and come up with a new prediction...along with a bagful of excuses of why THIS time their prediction is accurate. But the basic premise is flawed. Hubbert Theory works ONLY in the absence of any technological advances, new finds, and geopolitical factors. Factors that exist in the real world.

Hubbert Theory applied globally is like looking at Newton's Law of Inertia, and then claiming cars should all get infinite MPG, because once set in motion, they'll never stop. But in modelling car mileage, you can't ignore the friction factors....and in modelling global oil production, you certainly can't ignore all the factors Hubbert Theory does.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 2/28/2006 4:25:38 PM , Rating: 2
Your posting does not accurately represent the danger that peak oil presents. All resources are exhausted and follow a logistics curve. What Hubbert determined is that petroleum production lags the discovery curve in an oil province. The single most important variables is the ultimated recoverable reserves. The most agreed upon number is 2 trillion and we have (as at dec 2005) produced about 1 trillion. This means we are on the peak.

Now peak oil does not mean that there is no more oil, it just means that there is no more cheap oil. In order to get oil we have spend more money and energy to get the oil. What you don't understand is that when you "burn" energy to get energy, you get to a break even point when it no longer pays to extract the oil (I would not use 1 gallon of oil to extract .9 gallon of oil). That is the point - its the energy ratio.

Additionally if oil continues to get more and more expensive, the layers of service that our society is built upon start to break down because they are reliant on a certain cost structure. It also has an inflationary effect.

Now I also saw your posting about cost liquification - thats just a load of bull - we cannot even hope to extract coal from the ground fast enough to match our current oil/energy requirements. Likewise with ethanol, etc, etc.

As car ownership is threatened (by less people being able to afford fuel) so will affordability - its a nasty scenario that is only affected at the margins by high MPG vehicles.

PS Hubbert Theory has correctly predicted the production curves in all major oil provinces. Your example of Russia is wrong - they hit their peak at the time of the FSU breakup and consequent failure of their oil infrastructure - they basically left oil in the ground. The current crowd there is getting this oil but they are still in decline.

Watch Saudi Arabia - when they go into decline then the world is in decline.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 5:11:22 PM , Rating: 1
> "This means we are on the peak... "

Lol, which peak? The 'first' global peak, predicted by Hubbert himself, was for 1995-1997. The next "peak"-- predicted when that failed to pass, was 2000-2002. The latest I heard ( from the Leherre crowd) was the 2008-12 timeframe.

> "Your example of Russia is wrong - they hit their peak at the time of the FSU breakup "

The FSU's production declined after the breakup, and continued to decline for almost a decade afterwards. However, its been increasing sharply every year since 1999, and is now almost back up to Soviet-era levels, an effect wholly unexplained by peak oil fanatics.

Here, let me quote something that might give you a bit of historical perspective:

At regularly recurring intervals in the quarter of a century that I have been following the ins and outs of the oil business, there has always arisen the bugaboo of an approaching oil famine, with plenty of individuals ready to prove that the commercial supply of crude oil would become exhausted within a given time — usually only a few years distant...

The source? The Oil Trade Journal. The Date? 1918...nearly ONE HUNDRED YEARS ago.

Since 1965, the world has found five barrels of oil for every three we've consumed. Despite those forty years of rising demand, we now have MORE proven oil reserves than we did then. In fact, in the past five years, exploration has slowed down sharply. Why? Because our reserves are so large, its just not economic to explore for more at this time.

Let's take another example of why Hubbert theory is fatally flawed. In 1942, California's Kern River oilfield was estimated to hold a remaining 54 million barrels of oil. However, over the next 50 years, it produced not 54 million barrels, but 740 million barrels. And, at the end of that period, was THEN estimated to still hold another 970 million barrels!

What changed? Technology. A process that continues today...the past decade alone has seen petroleum advances that have substantially boosted our ability to produce oil from existing fields....essentially creating new oil out of thin air.

Hubbert theory relies on the ability to accurately estimate total reserves. But URR is, even in the absence of new finds, a highly dynamic figure that depends on politics, economics, and of course technological progress.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 2/28/2006 6:57:07 PM , Rating: 2
> Lol, which peak?

Global Peak. As for scoffing at Hubberts claim of 1996 as peak - its not too shabby as he made that prediction in the twenty years prior. Also pretty good considering consumption dropoff as a result of 1979/1980 consumption dropoff.

> almost back up to Soviet-era levels

Haha - only you (and madmen) are claiming that FSU is going to exceed their peak production. They are improving their recovery in Samotlor and romashkino but thats it.

> ... Kern River oilfield

How much does it produce today? Oh, you forgot to mention that inconvenient fact.

> What changed? Technology. A process that continues today...

The bigger the straw does not necessarily mean greatly expanded reserves. Notice how the UK is poised to become a net oil importer - all that fancy EOR technology has not stopped the production decline of about 8%. You can bet they are not replacing reserves at that rate.

>exploration has slowed down sharply. Why? Because our reserves are so large, its just not economic to explore for more at this time.

What nonsense - why is BP scratching in the oil shales when there is *SO* much oil out there? Dunno - its all that magical oil just waiting to be found.

No doubt there is oil to be found but at current and expected demand levels, they had better be finding oil provinces the size of the middle east, not some piddling prudhoe bays.

>Hubbert theory relies on the ability to accurately estimate total reserves. But URR is, ...

So in essence you are doing the: The facts are uncertain so lets carry on as before routine - the same nonsense that the current US administration uses to justify doing nothing about AGW. Sorry - thats why we actually need leadership and not a bunch of slimy panderers.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 2/28/2006 8:10:55 PM , Rating: 2
> 7.3 MBD to 11.1 MBD

You are talking bull. The Peak of Russian production was 11.1MB (around 1982 - 1990). Current production is around 9. The Soviets raped their super-giants and the break in production clearly reflects this.

http://www.theoildrum.com/uploads/44/russia_produc...

> It produces 570,000 barrels

Again - your numbers are bogus. The water cut at Kern is 89.7% (http://www.asa3.org/archive/asa/200407/0068.html). The production is in steep decline. Great - next example.

> n essence you are saying, "we have no proof, but lets scream

Uh - you might have noticed that there is a great deal of volatility as well as oil incremental price run-ups. This, while not compelling (re. peak oil), is indicative of a supply squeeze. If there is all this oil demand - where is the supply? That is what you fail to address, again and again. Its nice to try and knock holes in my argument but your "evidence" is certainly not compelling. At least I err on the side of caution - you resemble the ostrich and the preverbial hole in the ground.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 10:41:17 AM , Rating: 1
> "You are talking bull. The Peak of Russian production was 11.1MB (around 1982 - 1990). Current production is around 9"

Once again, you're wrong. Soviet high production was 12.053 MBD (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/ipsr/t41c.xls). Current RUSSIAN production is around 9 MBD/day...but that doesn't include the rest of the FSU such as Kazakstan, Azerbaijan, etc. For the entire FSU, production for all of 2005 averaged 11.6 MBD, and for the last quarter, hit 12 MBD/day. (source: http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/steo/pub/3tab.html)

My figures are correct. FSU crude production "peaked", and declined sharply...but has now risen back to past levels. An inconvenient fact wholly unexplained by Hubbert theory.

You're wrong. Deal wth it, kid.

> Again - your numbers are bogus...

Lol, my figures aren't bogus. From the Bakersfield Chamber of Commerce:

"Kern County produces 77percent of California’s crude oil, approximately 570,000 barrels of oil per day , and 82 percent of the state’s onshore production. This represents ten percent of the nation’s oil production and one percent of the total world’s production."

(source: http://www.bakersfieldchamber.org/petroleum.asp)

The production is in steep decline. Great - next example.

A 7% annual drop isn't exactly "steep decline", not for a field that was predicted to run out of oil fifty years ago. If all oil fields outperform like Kern has, we have over 20 TIMES as much oil as current reserves indicate, and enough petroleum to last thousands of years.

Great example, I agree. A field originally estimated to contain only 50 million barrels has already produced close to one BILLION barrels...and even after that, is still estimated to hold another 500 million barrels. And, as technology advances, that "fixed" reserve amount will rise still further.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:40:52 AM , Rating: 2
A couple of points, granddad!

Since you are changing the subject back (from Russia to FSU) I will look into those numbers. The EIA has the reputation of being rather "optimistic" in its numbers - similar to the blue sky estimates of the USGS.

Why are you obsessing with Kern County oil province? Its below GOM and East Texas! (http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/natural_gas/dat...) And, yes, a decline of 7% is huge. Additionally the water cut of 89% means that the field is very mature and that you need to pump in 9l of water to get 1l of oil. Additionally the oil out of this field is heavy and needs steam to get it out. Come on - this is nasty example - why not talk about the East Texas field, or Prudho bay. That Kern field is mature and its dying fast.

Maybe next you will show that the US is about to reverse its overall decline and start increasing production!!

LOL - that will be funny - lots of vigorous arm waving.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:52:19 AM , Rating: 2
If you have an open mind, there is a great post on the www.thoildrum.com that lays out the case why we are most likely at peak right now. Obviously there is some doubt like there is about everything. But its an interesting read:

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/3/1/3402/6342...


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:25:32 PM , Rating: 1
> "Since you are changing the subject back (from Russia to FSU) I will look into those numbers. "

Nice attempt at saving face, but I never "changed the subject" in the first place. My first post and every subsequent one mentioned FSU specifically. Your figures were wrong, plain and simple. And the phenomena of massive increases in FSU oil production-- long AFTER their predicted peak-- is simply not explained by Hubbert Theory. Nor are the many global peaks that failed to show up, nor the US LNG peak that Hubbert predicted for the the 1990s (we now produce 2.4X his "mathematically certain" highest possible level).

Peak Oil is a fraud, based on misapplication of logistics curves and a misnderstanding of basic history.


> "Why are you obsessing with Kern County oil province? "

Easy answer. Because it is just one of the MANY oilfields that far outproduced its stated reserves. And, since Hubbert Theory relies upon reserve figures being accurate, fields like Kern are just another nail in the coffin.

Once again-- if all oilfields perform like Kern, then we have 20 times or more the oil that our URR figures suggest. THAT is why the Kern example is relevant.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 12:32:57 PM , Rating: 2
Look at the arm waving - "Because we managed to get this one oil field to produce for a long time, we avoid peak oil"

The field is declining as is the whole production of the US. There is nothing we can do to reverse short of finding 2-3 prudhoe bays right now.

Whats next? Abiotic oil? Jeez - you are a joke.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:46:52 PM , Rating: 1
Look at the arm waving - "Because we managed to get this one oil field to produce for a long time, we avoid peak oil"

Do you now feel the need to lie and distort to save face? My position is more accurately "Because we have consistently failed to EVER accurately estimate URR values, our current global estimates are similarly unreliable. And therefore, Hubbert Theory, which is based entirely upon URR accuracy, is likewise flawed.

Not that this is the only problem with Hubbert Theory, of course...but its a major one.

BTW, still waiting for your reply on the FSU situation. Your figures were wrong as you've admitted. So how do you explain their massive increases in production? After that, explain why the predicted past global peaks all failed to materialize. Then explain the US LNG peak (still rising 20 years later), and all the other failed predictions of Peak Oil.

Then, if you manage that magic trick, explain why you still believe in this fraud of Peak Oil.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:00:01 PM , Rating: 2
Hubbert linearization, while an approximation, does not rely on URR. It accurately demonstrated US production declines (which you continue to ignore [oddly enough]). Thats while models are called models - they model. Just like climate models, etc. Again you focus on only one set of data (FSU/Russian not sure which one you are switching to this time around)

I do not have the time right now to dig into the numbers but the DOE numbers for FSU 2005 look suspect (and still do not exceed the peak production but are close).

Since you did not comment on the link I provided (odd that? Could it be that it contains inconvenient facts) [

1. There's a very good chance claimed OPEC reserves are exaggerated
2. World production stopped increasing in late 2004.
3. Decline rates of existing production are very high
4. Hubbert Linearization points to peak oil
5. At least one major oil company is warning us
6. The price of oil keeps going up.
7. There is no evidence of Saudi spare capacity
8. There are geopolitical and climatic risks to the existing production level

Not that I expect you address any of this - just keep waving the arms, pointing away into the distance.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:14:38 PM , Rating: 1
> "It accurately demonstrated US production declines (which you continue to ignore [oddly enough]). "

Ignore? Learn to read-- I mentioned it in my first post. But, as I pointed out, the US "decline" was not due to any innate shortage, but rather the abundance of cheap imports, from nations without our environmental regulations on exploring and drilling. And this "peak" came and went without any crisis...just like all past historical peaks.

The one ignoring inconvenient facts here is you. You've repeatedly ignored Hubbert Theory's past failed predictions for the FSU, Saudi Arabia, US LNG, and the world as a whole. Why do you keep running from the issue, eh?

> "2. World production stopped increasing in late 2004. "

Once again-- wipe that egg off your face. 2004 production was 83.044 MBD. The average for 2005 was 83.979 MDB.

That's an increase, in case your math skills are as challenged as your reading comprehension.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:21:21 PM , Rating: 2
> But, as I pointed out, the US "decline" was not due to any innate shortage

Bull - the only reason we are importing is because we cannot produce enough to supply our needs. WE ARE A DECLINING OIL PROVINCE - accept it.

>wipe that egg off your face. 2004 production was 83.044 MBD. The average for 2005 was 83.979 MDB.

What part about **LATE 2004** do you not understand?


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:31:08 PM , Rating: 1
> "What part about **LATE 2004** do you not understand? "

You never tire of embarrassing yourself, do you? Late 2004 was December, with a production of 83.714 MBD. Thats still BELOW the average of 83.979 for 2005, and significantly below the record high hit in May 2005 of 84.642 MBD.

Now, what part about "global oil production did NOT stop increasing in late 2004" do you fail to understand?


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:45:30 PM , Rating: 2
Granted, but looking at the data:

As of right now, production has been flat-but-bumpy since late 2004. The peak month of production is presently May 2005. This is true despite high oil prices giving strong incentives to produce more oil. Lack of refinery capacity is often cited as an alternative explanation for this. If this were true, heavy hard-to-refine oil would be cheap. It isn't.



By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:55:14 PM , Rating: 1
Lol, this is just too amusing. In true Hubbert fanatic fashion, just minutes after your "late 2004" peak was disproved, you seize upon "May 2005" as the new figure. What will you say when we beat that figure in a few more months...just as we have dozens of times in the past decade?.

Petroleum production is a cyclic business. The "bumpy" nature you point out has existed since the 1880s. But the overall trend is rising...and has been for just as long. There is no peak coming in the near future. The sky isn't falling. Yes oil production will eventually "peak" (though it'll be our grandchildren and great-grandchildren will likely see it, not us). But that peak will NOT entail any crisis.

And it will happen due to decreased DEMAND, not inavailability of supply. Just as it did countless times in the past, for countless other natural resources.




RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
> In true Hubbert fanatic fashion, just minutes after your "late 2004" peak was disproved, you seize upon "May 2005" as the new figure.

Ah, in a world of continuing demand, the production picture does not look good. We have not produced more oil than 1 year ago and you claim there is nothing to worry about?

When do you think we should start worrying? 2 years with now sustained production increase? 3 years?

>But the overall trend is rising...and has been for just as long. There is no peak coming in the near future.

And I am the fanatic? We have cantarell peaking, Indonesia is now a net importer, US sliding down, Iran past peak, the Burgan field peaking. The number of non-declining producers are growing thin indeed.

>But that peak will NOT entail any crisis.

Is that an article of faith? Tell that to numerous civilizations that have experienced resource shortfalls.

When do we start moving aggressively on this? I am not talking about fiddling on the margins. The Hirsch report (http://www.hilltoplancers.org/stories/hirsch0502.p...) quite clearly says that mitigation needs to be started well in advance (15 - 20 years) with the assumption of 2-5% declines.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 2:35:46 PM , Rating: 1
> "Ah, in a world of continuing demand, the production picture does not look good"

Long-term, it certainly doesn't. That still doesn't prove Peak Oil...quite the opposite, in fact.

> "When do you think we should start worrying?"

When we see demand levels above supply for more than a 90 day window.

> "And I am the fanatic?"

Yes, sorry. You're screaming the sky is falling on zero evidence. We have reserves good for another fifty years and-- if history holds true-- those reserves will dramatically expand once the need is there.

> "Tell that to numerous civilizations that have experienced resource shortfalls."

I'm glad you brought this up. The most famous example of this-- and one often errroneously used to "prove" Peak Oil-- is Easter Island. Unfortunately, it dicredits the theory quite soundly. While resource consumption did lead to the downfall of their civilization, production did not follow anything at all resembling a Hubbert curve. Archeological evidence shows massive, increasing production...right up to the very end.

You really need to go back and read what Peak Oil is all about. I think you believe its something its not. Yes, oil production will eventually peak. Obviously. Peak Oil is, however, still a fraud.



RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:51:37 PM , Rating: 2
> Long-term, it certainly doesn't. That still doesn't prove Peak Oil

We cannot sustain production it *IS* peak oil.

> When we see demand levels above supply for more than a 90 day window.

When that happens, it won't a case of worrying - it will be a recession - plain and simple.

> You're screaming the sky is falling on zero evidences

No screaming and you still fail to address the other observations in my prior posting.

> Easter Island.

Easter Island is a good example of a resource shortfall (don't start "quoting" me again). The difference between wood and oil is that oil is hidden below the surface whereas wood is quite plainly there to be seen. But that is not that only example: The Mayans, Sumerians, Greenland vikings all failed due to resource shortfalls.

http://www.theoildrum.com/story/2006/2/28/21235/14... is a great article that basically lays out how we are continuing to *NOT* replace our reserves. By a factor of 1:6.5 - not too sustainable.



By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:24:20 PM , Rating: 1
> "We cannot sustain production it *IS* peak oil. "

You don't have the slightest idea what Peak Oil really is. It is NOT just claiming oil production will eventually peak and decline. It is claiming that peak is highly predictable based upon just one single factor-- total recoverable reserves. Furthermore, its claiming the peak will occur very near the midpoint of total production, irrespective of technological advances or geopolitical or other factors. Learn about your subject before you try to defend it. You'll do better.

Actually, on second thought, you won't. The more one learns about Peak Oil, the less one is able to support it.

> "Easter Island is a good example of a resource shortfall "

And a good example of why Hubbert Theory doesn't work in the real world. There was no magical "peak" long before the wood was exhausted...they maintained high levels of production, right up to the very end.


RE: This is the future of the automobile folks!
By triphop on 3/1/2006 3:48:53 PM , Rating: 2
>It is NOT just claiming oil production will eventually peak and decline.

And what I said (in mangled English) is that we will know that we are at peak when we cannot sustain our production. As to the rest: its that imaginary conversation again.

>And a good example of why Hubbert Theory doesn't work in the real world.

Uh - no one claimed that it was an example of a Hubbert Peak - remember I was talking about resource shortfalls.

Damn that reading.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:58:00 PM , Rating: 1
> Uh - no one claimed [Easter Island] was an example of a Hubbert Peak

Good god man, wake up! Easter Island has been claimed as "proof" by Hubbertites countless times. Look on PeakOil.com and you will find over four HUNDRED references to Easter Island.

Of course, as both you and I realize, Easter Island doesn't prove Hubbert Theory. Its an example of how it doesn't work, in fact.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
Please provide some references for that. I have only seen where it is provided as an example of a resource shortfall. I have read both of Diamonds works and nowhere does he mention Hubberts peak.


Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By 03Mini on 2/28/2006 8:32:42 PM , Rating: 2
With the weight of the vehicle and bumper ratings I doubt you'll see this here.

Don't forget that the evil oil companies will buy these up so that they don't go out of business. :-) (Black Helicopter moment: OVER)

Masher2 you're a breath of fresh air. He's correct in that it's much easier to blame large vehicles than it is to actually think and analyze the data. Energy use is relative. But I know, thinking is hard.

You show me a 74 Volvo with a "Save Mother Earth" bumper sticker and I'll show you a blue cloud of smoke and a puddle of oil under it.

The Environmentalist movement has very little to do with wanting a clean environment. I hate to make you all grow up with that - but it's true.





RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By mindless1 on 3/1/2006 3:48:29 AM , Rating: 2
It's much easier to draw the correct conclusion about anything, than to make up nonsense. Fact is, we can see every day the vast majority of people driving these large fuel-hungry vehicles are not using them in any conservative way, than no matter what they like to think about themselves, they have chosen to waste gas, increase pollution.

"Think", "analyze data"? You're confused, the data is the MPG rating on the sticker or more accurate real-world measurements. One cannot just claim they drive smart and suddenly it matters since those buying the gas-conserving vehicles are certainly not doing so to wastefully drive.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 9:03:11 AM , Rating: 2
The previous poster was funny:

He first defines environmentalists as being polluters, etc and then he rails against them. High school debating trick really.

People often through out these red herrings to justify their own wasteful behaviour: Hey, look, those "greens" waste so much, therefore it is ok for me to do the same.

meh.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 9:28:50 AM , Rating: 2
> You show me a 74 Volvo with a "Save Mother Earth" bumper sticker and I'll show you a blue cloud of smoke and a puddle of oil under it...

Just so. There are far too many people out there driving their poorly-maintained small cars 500 or even 1000 miles a week, and thinking they're "saving the environment". Many of them the same people responsible for blocking nuclear power generation, thereby ensuring we keep decades-old coal burning plants fouling the atmosphere.




RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:08:31 AM , Rating: 2
Oh, come on. Firstly you define them and then you condemn them. And now you conflate them with people who are anti-nuclear. It adds nothing to the conversation and its *very* disingenous.

You need to stop tilting at windmills of your own imagining.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 10:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
> "And now you conflate them with people who are anti-nuclear."

Lol, are you actually trying to claim with a straight face that the environmental movement hasn't been a force blocking nuclear power for the past 30 years? Stop embarrassing yourself.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:30:05 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, a significant number do oppose nuclear power, but many also support it. I refer you to people like James Lovelock and his ilk. Personally I am all for Nuclear power along side a whole range of renewable power sources. Tarring a whole group with such a large brush only damages your vision.

But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of you imaginings.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 11:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
The same James Lovelock that campaigned against nuclear power for almost forty years? Sure he changed his mind about nuclear power a few years ago...but what about the rest of the environmental movement? Let me quote:

[Lovelock's call to embrace nuclear power] will cause huge disquiet for the environmental movement...it has always regarded opposition to nuclear power as an article of faith. Last night the leaders of both Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth rejected his call...

...Stephen Tindale, executive director of Greenpeace UK, said last night. "he's wrong to think nuclear power is any part of the answer"...

Name ONE major environmental group that supports nuclear power. Greenpeace, WWF, EDC, the Green Party, Friends of the Earth, the Sierra Club, Earth First, the list goes on. They are ALL againt nuclear power...and have been the primary force blocking it for decades.





RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:46:55 AM , Rating: 2
http://www.nei.org/index.asp?catnum=2&catid=322

Next? Come on - surely you have heard of google, or do you want an explanation Granddad?

Anyway I am not representing any environmental group just like you are not representing any anti-environment group (are you?).


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:37:57 PM , Rating: 2
> "Next? ..."

Whoa, buddy, you can't move to the next until you name the first. Which you haven't done. I ask you again, name one major environmental group that isn't stridently against nuclear power.

Your link names a few radical independents. Lovelock...who I already replied to. Patrick Moore, a man universeally reviled by the environmental movement, from the day he left Greenpeace over 30 years ago. Oh, and Hugh Montefiore, who is not only DEAD at present, but who was forced to resign from the board of Friends of the Earth BECAUSE of his support of nuclear power. Wipe that egg off your face now, will you?

Your attempts to suggest the opinions of these few radicals as being in any way characteristic of the environmental movement as a whole are just plain silly. Every major environmental group, and 99 out of 100 publicly quoted environmentalists are rock solid against nuclear power. Furthermore, they are THE single most important barrier to the spread of nuclear power today. Period.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 12:50:15 PM , Rating: 2
Now you want Stridently against Nuclear Power? Do you always change the terms of the discussion? Its very dishonest and its transparent. Remember the discussion - I plainly stated that conflating Nuclear Opposition with Environmentalist is dishonest (but characteristic of your debating style).

Remember that one can be environmentalist and be pro-Nuclear power, just as one can be pro-gun and still not be a drolling idiot.

That was my point before you went off on this tangent - try and stay on target...


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
> Do you always change the terms of the discussion?...I plainly stated that conflating Nuclear Opposition with Environmentalist is dishonest..

Look, take a deep breath and try to think clearly for once. My pointing out that every major environmental group is against nuclear power IS disproving your point. The environmentalist movement is stridently against nuclear power, and "conflating" them with the Nuclear Opposition is simple, honest truth. Period.

Of course, if you can't even admit you confused Russia with the FSU, you certainly won't admit this obvious truth.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:06:41 PM , Rating: 2
What you are using is called a logical fallacy:

Every member of an Environmental Organization is an environmentalist

DOES NOT MEAN

Every evironmentalist is a member of an Environmental Organization.

I might need to hold my breath - you need to engage your cranial matter.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:23:26 PM , Rating: 2
Honestly, its hard to stop laughing long enough to even reply. You need to stop and read what you're actually posting. The environmental movement is against nuclear power, plain and simple. Stridently so, in fact.

And the mere presence of a few radicals doesn't disprove this. In fact, it helps demonstrate it...since those radicals were shut out of the mainsteam movement BECAUSE of their support of nuclear power.

Can you find ONE person in the world, somewhere, who calls themself an environmentalist and who also supports nuclear power. Sure. Does that one counterexample prove anything? No, of course not. It's a fringe example...and such a person would be loudly shouted down in any environmentalist rally anywhere in the world.

I'm sure you can find an 'environmentalist' somewhere in the world who doesn't want endangered species protected. Or one who favors unrestricted polluting by coal-fired plants. Does that mean the MOVEMENT supports these? Not hardly.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:33:49 PM , Rating: 2
it was you that started talking about the Environmental Movement and no-one else. If you like to argue against strawman position you set-up then go ahead. If you go back and read what I wrote you should have no problem with my position. If, however, you wish to do otherwise - go ahead, but do not ascribe that position to me.

agreed?


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:38:56 PM , Rating: 2
> "If you go back and read what I wrote you should have no problem with my position"

I read it. First, you claimed I was "tarring the environmental movement with a large brush" by pointing out their opposition to nuclear power. Then you claimed that my "conflating" environmentalist with nuclear power opposition was a lie.

Now you seem to have realized your error, and have shifted to the fallback position that I'm right, but that I "unfairly changed the subject". It's a bit hard to keep up with all your waffling, however, so if this is incorrect, please let me know.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Nice quote there - except its not what I wrote - try and read it again.


All there in black and white...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 2:01:28 PM , Rating: 2
> "Nice quote there - except its not what I wrote - try and read it again. "

It's all there in black and white, don't try to deny it. Six posts up: you said:

"I plainly stated that conflating Nuclear Opposition with Environmentalist is dishonest, (but characteristic of your debating style)."

And ten posts up:

"a significant number do oppose nuclear power, but many also support it...Tarring a whole group with such a large brush only damages your vision..."

Just give it up. The environmentalist movement is stridently against nuclear power, and only a fool would even attempt to deny it.


RE: All there in black and white...
By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:08:18 PM , Rating: 2
Heres what you wrote:

quote:
you claimed I was "tarring the environmental movement with a large brush"


Heres what you wrote:

quote:
Tarring a whole group with such a large brush only damages your vision


If you want to quote me, get it right.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:10:04 PM , Rating: 2
Edit:
heres what I wrote.


RE: All there in black and white...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 2:28:57 PM , Rating: 2
If the environmentalist movement wasn't the "whole group" to which you were referring, who was it?

Oops...better give up now.


RE: All there in black and white...
By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:34:03 PM , Rating: 2
Never admit you made a mistake, eh?


RE: All there in black and white...
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 2:39:18 PM , Rating: 2
But I didn't make a mistake. I correctly and concisely paraphrased your remark for brevity, without in any way, shape, or form, altering its innate meaning.

As for people not admitting they made a mistake...Kazakhstan anyone? Oh wait...you did admit that mistake. And your mistake on global oil production figures. And about the environmental movement not being against nuclear power. And several others in this thread.

You're quite good at admitting mistakes. Lots of practice, it seems. You have the advantage of me there. :)



By triphop on 3/1/2006 2:43:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But I didn't make a mistake. I correctly and concisely paraphrased your remark for brevity, without in any way, shape, or form, altering its innate meaning.


Which is not the same as quoting. Its that Reading thing agint.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By 03Mini on 3/1/2006 3:15:16 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, it was ME that brought up the EnvironMENTAL Movement.

quote:
by triphop on March 1, 2006 at 1:33 PM


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:19:59 PM , Rating: 2
lol, poor Triphop....I believe the word "pwned" applies here once again.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:25:44 PM , Rating: 2
pwned? How? This brain surgeon mentions it **subsequently** on **another thread** and I am pwned? First rate Imagination you got.

Clutching at straws.


RE: Neat - but I doubt you will see this here.
By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:24:05 PM , Rating: 2
On this thread - perhaps you can show me where.


By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
oops - I see it. blush.


Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By Tacitus on 3/1/2006 10:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
Not to give you a hard time, Masher2, but isn't it a little disengenuous to say that your Hummer2 is actually great on fuel because other people in smaller cars may drive more than yourself? How many miles other people in smaller cars may drive misses the point. The point is, regardless of how many miles you drive on a given day, you would consume less gas doing it in a smaller and more fuel efficient vehicle. Hence why the Hummer "wastes" gas. I don't have any axe to grind with people that drive Hummers (though I don't understand why anyone would want one, save for work purposes or unless they truly love off-road driving... can't think of even one Hummer I've ever seen with a speck of dirt on it, though), but it seems like a specious argument to say that they're actually environmentally friendly since they use less gas than someone driving a smaller car 10,000x as much.




RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:16:23 AM , Rating: 2
Of course its specious and it has a lot to do with trying to justify the purchase of such an obese car to oneself and her peer group. Of course such honesty has been missing so far what with all this evasive talk about houses, nuclear power etc.

Obviously total miles driven is an important measure - its the combination with MPG thats the problem. TMD is increasing year on year as we build further away from where we work and play. MPG is decreasing too as we replace cars with light trucks. This far flung growth is fueled by cheap gasoline and cheap land as we can afford to make these monster commutes. As soon as the price moves higher, it becomes less affordable.

Enter the ultra-efficient cars - which will allow a few more years of this kind of living arrangement.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 10:16:40 AM , Rating: 2
> "isn't it a little disengenuous to say that your Hummer2 is actually great on fuel"

But that's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying I use less gas than a long-distance commuter, despite owning an H2. My choice to live close to work outweighs (by far!) my choice of vehicle.

> "The point is, regardless of how many miles you drive on a given day, you would consume less gas doing it in a smaller and more fuel efficient vehicle"

Again, not necessarily true, as I pointed out earlier. I have a 2 seater sports car that, despite its EPA rated 19mpg, gets about 10-11 MPG when I drive it hard in the city...or about equal to my H2. When you consider my H2 often has 4-6 people in it, whereas my ragtop never more than 2, the larger vehicle gets considerably better mileage-- per capita-- than does the smaller vehicle.

Is this true for everyone? No, of course not. There are plenty of people who commute long-distance in a large SUV, and rarely carry more than one person. The point is that the problem is NOT so much their choice of vehicle, as it is the entire long-distance lifestyle.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:25:00 AM , Rating: 2
In you case, it probably is, but SUVs are car replacements and with the trend to longer commutes, they compound the problem.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By Tacitus on 3/1/2006 10:35:31 AM , Rating: 2
Again, not necessarily true, as I pointed out earlier. I have a 2 seater sports car that, despite its EPA rated 19mpg, gets about 10-11 MPG when I drive it hard in the city...or about equal to my H2. When you consider my H2 often has 4-6 people in it, whereas my ragtop never more than 2, the larger vehicle gets considerably better mileage-- per capita-- than does the smaller vehicle.

Is this true for everyone? No, of course not. There are plenty of people who commute long-distance in a large SUV, and rarely carry more than one person. The point is that the problem is NOT so much their choice of vehicle, as it is the entire long-distance lifestyle.

Ah, I can see how that would be the case in your situation. Missed the crux of your argument, earlier, so thanks for clarifying.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 10:56:33 AM , Rating: 2
> "with the trend to longer commutes, they compound the problem."

Aha! Despite yourself, you've admitted I'm correct. SUVs often are a compounding factor to the problem...but they are not the problem itself.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 11:42:05 AM , Rating: 2
No where do I say that SUVs are the only cause of the problem. You might need to read what I wrote instead of using your imagination.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 12:50:09 PM , Rating: 2
I've said from Post One that SUVs are just a symbol, and not the real problem, which is our long-distance lifestyle. Now, after After several posts railing against this obvious truth, you are agreeing with me. SUVs can be an aggravating factor, but the real problem lies elsewhere.

Glad to see you've switched to the winning side. Welcome aboard.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 12:51:13 PM , Rating: 2
Have you quit arguing against positions that people don't hold? Maybe start reading (and comprehending) then open your month.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:05:24 PM , Rating: 2
The person who confuses Russian and Kazakhstani oil production is telling me to "start comprehending" what I read? Lol, will miracles never cease?


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:07:34 PM , Rating: 2
Changing the subject again? Nice going.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:48:30 PM , Rating: 2
No change of subject; I've been saying the same thing continuously. In case you forgot, the major points are: Peak Oil is a fraud, SUVs are just a symbol for simple-minded people to focus upon, the real problem is our long-distance lifestyle, and the real cure is nuclear power, to enable us to replace petroleum with renewable fuels.

Any questions?


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 1:56:31 PM , Rating: 2
Here is where I disagree:

1. Peak Oil is no fraud.
2. SUVs are a very large part of the personal transportation problem in the US.
3. Nuclear power is only part of the solution.

As to 1. Time will tell - I have provided a host of indicators for this (only one of which you address)
2. Methinks you oppose this for personal reasons - looking in the mirror.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:27:04 PM , Rating: 2
> "Peak Oil is no fraud..."

As a theory with one semi-success and a thousand flaming failures, its predictive ability is a fraud. Don't you understand the basic rule of fortune telling? Make enough predictions and eventually you'll get one right.

Peak oil fanatics will continue to predict "peaks" that never materialize. Eventually, at some point in the far future, they'll score a hit, and claim they were right all along. Human nature is so predictable.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By 03Mini on 3/1/2006 3:43:00 PM , Rating: 2
Here is where I disagree:

1. Peak Oil is no fraud.
2. SUVs are a very large part of the personal transportation problem in the US.
3. Nuclear power is only part of the solution.

As to 1. Time will tell - I have provided a host of indicators for this (only one of which you address)
2. Methinks you oppose this for personal reasons - looking in the mirror.

The onus of proof is on he which asserts the positive. Time and time again his predictions (darts thrown at a board seemingly) of peak oil have been as accurate as the religious kooks who think the end of the world is coming. Now I for one like a good work of Science Fiction, but peak oil needs better character development besides the evil oil companies, and white males in America driving Hummers and Tahoes. Which I'll restate is what the "environmental movement" is about. It isn't about the environment, it's about politics. Ask Patrick Moore - a founder of Greenpeace who left the organization after it was hijacked by radical kooks. Have a read: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=%5CNati...

Global Warming. White males driving SUV's. You're what's wrong with the world. (wagging finger) No proof mankind is causing it. No proof it's even bad. Every article I've ever read about it is littered with words like, may, could, might, perhaps, is feared (there's the ticket) indications, signs, and so on.

Well let me use words like, DO, IS, DIRECTLY, TRACEABLE, RESPONSIBLE. The envirokook movement got DDT because it was "bad". No evidence whatsoever. Not one case of cancer, not one death, not even a head cold. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Now because of it, MILLIONS die every year from malaria because "DDT IS BAD".

Don't believe me? Look it up. MILLIONS DEAD in Africa and 3rd world countries. MILLIONS.

I will die an early death if it's revealed that Global Warming is actually good for us. Which some studies show - it is.

Look, I'm for a clean environment - who isn't? But the current one raises concerns where there aren't any which causes people to stop listening.

"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!" -Chicken Little, date unknown & the Envirokook movement, 1960 - present.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 3:52:43 PM , Rating: 3
> "Ask Patrick Moore - a founder of Greenpeace who left the organization after it was hijacked by radical kooks. Have a read:"

An excellent point. And yet another embarrassment for Triphop, given he used Patrick Moore's support of nuclear power elsewhere in this thread as an example of how "unkooky" the environmental


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:03:38 PM , Rating: 2
> The onus of proof is on he which asserts the positive.

The United States total liquids production. North Sea oil production. Science is not about "absolute proof" - its about a set of evidence that does not invalidate a hyposthesis. It sounds like Peak Oil denial is just as much a faith issue as you claim Peak Oil is. Do you have the honesty to accept this? Probably not.

And no one here (except you, of course) is talking about white males or oil companies - but, hey, a little straw man argument is always good if you need to score a few points.

> Littered with words like, may, could, might, perhaps, is feared (there's the ticket) indications, signs, and so on.

Thats because there is no certainty in such large and chaotic systems. Oil reserve numbers have been mercilessly fudged since they first got published. We have some decency in the majors reporting because they adhere to SEC guidelines but for the national oil companies - there is no similar assurance.

>MILLIONS die every year from malaria because "DDT IS BAD".

Is this a pet peeve? Sorry about that it makes you so upset - carry on crying into your pillow.

> Look, I'm for a clean environment - who isn't? But the current one raises concerns where there aren't any which causes people to stop listening.

Oh, you are for a clean environment as long as you have 100% certainty. Well, wake up to the real world where there is no certainty. The evidence, taken as a whole, is more than compelling. Similarly for AGW - on one side we have major scientific organizations, on the other side we have a handful of contrarians who, strangely enough, are funded by interested industrial groups. Its called: follow the money.

What are you waiting for: a full blow recession, rationing or what?

>"The sky is falling! The sky is falling!"

Vs. the ostriche with its head in the ground? Yeah - that helped, didnt it?

Do not believe me: Believe Chevron: http://www.willyoujoinus.com/ they do not specifically mention peak oil but the elements are all there.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By triphop on 3/1/2006 4:06:21 PM , Rating: 2
It predicted the US peak and subsequent decline. it is a model and as such cannot be said to be 100% accurate. For those regions where we have good data, we get a good match, where the data is not so good, the models start failing. Does this mean that model is bad or that the data is bad?


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 4:30:39 PM , Rating: 3
It predicted a US peak...and came close to getting the date right. Of course, when Hubbert made his prediction, it was no secret that US production would begin to decline. There were many predictions out there, with a wide range of target dates.Hubbert only missed by a couple of years...close enough to call success in the eyes of his followers.

He failed, though, utterly in predicting US production declines...they have been proceeding far slower than even the most optimistic Hubbert curve.

Worse, that extremely slow decline has meant US total reserves are higher than originally thought...and when you go back and plug in those more accurate figures into Hubbert's original prediction for the peak-- it turns out to be totally incorrect. In other words, his theory only came close because the data was bad. So, to answer your questoin, the DATA isn't the problem, the MODEL is.

A few of his other failures-- Hubbert's predictions of a peak for the Former Soviet Union and Saudi Arabia, his first global oil peak (1995-96), his followers second, third, and fourth global peaks, and his failure to predict the US LNG peak (he thought it would occur over 15 years ago, but its still rising today).



RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 4:39:28 PM , Rating: 3
> "Do not believe me: Believe Chevron...they do not specifically mention peak oil "

Yes, they don't. Why do you think that is? Because they (and everyone else) realize that petroleum is a limited resource...but they refuse to fall for the additional assumptions and misconceptions present in Peak Oil.

Recorded history stretches back five thousand years. In that period, there are hundreds of cases of resources being exploited. Yet there is not ONE historical case of a resource causing a crisis anywhere NEAR the midpoint of total production, long before the resource is actually exhausted.

Find ONE historical example to support Peak Oil, and you'll be a rich man. Put it in a book and make a fortune on the talk circuit. There's millions of gullible people out there willing to believe...you just need one fact to hang their faith upon.

Can't find that one historical example? I didn't think so.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By 03Mini on 3/1/2006 4:42:52 PM , Rating: 2
I can find one, the left is running out of hot air to forward it's movement....


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By sethhoyt on 3/1/2006 6:51:00 PM , Rating: 2
Masher2,

Getting back to your earlier reply to me...

If someone purchases an excessively large home, it is indeed a waste of resources, including energy used to build and maintain it. My point is that if it is not being efficiently utilized, the energy that went into its creation is effectively wasted.

You cannot simply ignore the resources that went into building your Hummer when considering the energy it consumes. Even if the vehicle can be considered a work of art, in which case value is derived from its exhibition, the effort going into its creation must be weighed against this additional value.

For instance, if you purchase a Hummer and it never leaves your garage, you have commissioned energy to be expended towards its creation (or the creation of its replacement in the supply chain), but have not derived any value from it. This extreme case is the ultimate waste of energy. The efficiency can be determined by dividing production output by energy input. In this case, the result is roughly zero.

In your particular case, you have driven it just a little, so the production output is small, but non-zero. However, the energy input must include both the operating fuel and the energy used for its creation. Even if one takes into account its aesthetic value, it would be difficult to argue that your case constitutes an efficient usage of resources.


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By 03Mini on 3/1/2006 4:40:46 PM , Rating: 2
Science is not about absolute proof. Let's run with that, ok Pumpkin? Using your guidelines one could scientifically show that Santa exists.

Consider the facts:
- Millions and perhaps billions of children believe in him and have for decades. I'll bet even you used to believe in him before you grew up. (hint)
- A google search returns: Results Results 1 - 10 of about 360,000,000 for santa. Sadly, peak oil only produces: Results 1 - 10 of about 25,100,000
- There are numerous books, movies, folk songs, greeting cards and truckloads of other items bearing his image.

So, don't talk to me about straw men there, scarecrow. :-)

I didn't state than anyone HERE was talking about White males or oil companies - but that is a thrust in the envirokook movement.

>Thats because there is no certainty in such large and chaotic systems.

Pardon, but I was talking about global warming and not peak oil.

Is it a pet peeve that millions of people die as a result of the mis-steps of a misguided environmental policy? You bet it is a pet peeve of mine. People dying as a direct result of someone elses actions is something we should do something about; I point it out because peak oil, global warming, the ozone hole, acid rain, and so on, and so on, and SO ON never come to pass and never become the Galactic cataclysm of our age.

So yes, sometimes science IS about absolute proof skooter.

I don't require 100% proof, but I do require some.

Follow the money, eh? Yeah, how many Climate scientists would be out of work if there wasn't a big scary threat like global warming (boogie man music: ON) to study.

Better put some ice on that there, tripup. It's starting to bruise. I mean, come up with some real facts or a decent defense - discussions with you are like pushing a little kid down. It's funny once.

After a while it just becomes.... sad.... :-D

Have a nice day!


RE: Comparitive Fuel Consumption
By 03Mini on 3/1/2006 4:46:49 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, the model IS bad.

That's because it's:http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=bullshit


A/C standard?
By andrep74 on 2/27/2006 5:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how slowly the car would run if the A/C is on.




RE: A/C standard?
By andrep74 on 2/27/2006 5:21:40 PM , Rating: 2
whoops...that's A/C "option"...


RE: A/C standard?
By Furen on 2/27/2006 5:26:56 PM , Rating: 4
Well, I live in southern california and never use my A/C, so I kind of understand why it's an option. I'm more interested to see just how well this 1000 pound wonder does in a crash against a 5000 pound monster SUV...


RE: A/C standard?
By haelduksf on 2/27/2006 7:06:27 PM , Rating: 1
It won't- it's small and maneuverable, so it can move out of the way of the lumbering beast.

Weight is not the only factor in car crashes.


RE: A/C standard?
By mindless1 on 2/27/2006 8:06:01 PM , Rating: 2
With 20HP, it's hardly maneuverable. Lots of maneuvers require maintaining speed or accelerating. Maybe if they put a wind sail on the top so the mass of air pushed forward by the SUV just scooted it out of the way? Otherwise they could just slope the sides more so it's like a ramp.


RE: A/C standard?
By psychobriggsy on 2/28/2006 7:48:19 AM , Rating: 2
It'd probably bounce away from the SUV.

Apparently that's what those tiny SMART cars do when hit. They're meant to be quite safe actually, not that I'd want to be in one when some chelsea tank ploughs into me because the brainless woman driving it is chatting on the phone whilst doing her makeup.


RE: A/C standard?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:24:06 AM , Rating: 4
FYI, a "bounce" (elastic collision) is the worst possible thing; it winds up amplifying the forces involved. What you want is a "crumple" to absorb at least some of the energy of the collision.


RE: A/C standard?
By Jkm3141 on 3/1/2006 12:18:24 AM , Rating: 2
Accually, FYI An elastic collision (a true perfect one (impossible to get, but the ultimate)) does not amplify the collision, both objects in an elastic collision (assuming they are the same mass) have the same velocity before and after. If they are difrent masses, the smaller one will "bounce" off and be going faster and the bigger one slower, having both sides equal the momentum of both of them combined before the collision. Its a simple Physics question, and if you have taken high school physics you should know it. M1V1 + M2V2 = M1V1' + M2V2' (M= mass, V= Velocity, and V' is the velocity after collision). is the formula for collisions.


RE: A/C standard?
By matthewfoley on 3/1/2006 8:29:39 AM , Rating: 2
Well since I haven't had many car accidents while reading my high school physics book, I'll take the former poster's real world information over the perfect one you describe.


RE: A/C standard?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 8:43:42 AM , Rating: 3
> "Accually, FYI An elastic collision...does not amplify the collision"

Compared to a standard, inelastic collision, it does amplify the effects of the collision, because an elastic collision preserves kinetic energy, as well as momentum.

To see this, consider two equal-mass cars colliding at 60mph. In a perfectly inelastic collision, their final velocity will be zero. In a perfectly elastic collision, their velocity will be 60mph...in the opposite direction of their original travel. Therefore the occupants of those cars experience double the g forces.

Obviously, a fully elastic collision will never happen in an auto accident. But any degree of "bounce" can and does worsen the collision. This is one of the reasons autos are designed with crumple zones, to ensure as perfectly an inelastic collision as possible.


RE: A/C standard?
By oTAL on 3/1/2006 10:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
You are right in what you said and you actually partially stole my response. You did, however, make a mistake on the last phrase. The crumple zones are used to spread the colision through time. The human body can only sustain a certain amount of acceleration/deceleration. When your driving at 100 km/h if your car bumps into a tree you go to 0 in very little time - almost instantly. If your body did that you would die, usually for hitting something (it is possible to die just of the forces without actually having external visible damage - I believe Senna died this way). What manufacturers do is prevent your body from quickly decelerating in a myriad of ways - the objective is to make the time from impact to full stop as long as possible, and maintain a transmit no "decceleration peaks" to your body. Ina simplified way: first, by making your car crumble against the obstacle the your car takes longer to stop, then you have the seat belt, and last but VERY important, the airbag softens the impact *slowly* and gently deccelerating your head - the most vital and delicate part of your body.


RE: A/C standard?
By oTAL on 3/1/2006 10:19:42 AM , Rating: 2
You are right in what you said and you actually partially stole my response. You did, however, make a mistake on the last phrase. The crumple zones are used to spread the colision through time. The human body can only sustain a certain amount of acceleration/deceleration. When your driving at 100 km/h if your car bumps into a tree you go to 0 in very little time - almost instantly. If your body did that you would die, usually for hitting something (it is possible to die just of the forces without actually having external visible damage - I believe Senna died this way). What manufacturers do is prevent your body from quickly decelerating in a myriad of ways - the objective is to make the time from impact to full stop as long as possible, and maintain a transmit no "decceleration peaks" to your body. Ina simplified way: first, by making your car crumble against the obstacle the your car takes longer to stop, then you have the seat belt, and last but VERY important, the airbag softens the impact *slowly* and gently deccelerating your head - the most vital and delicate part of your body.


RE: A/C standard?
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 11:03:24 AM , Rating: 3
> "You did, however, make a mistake on the last phrase"

No, which is why I said this was one of the reasons for crumple zones. You are correct in that they spread the impact out over time, but they are also designed to absorb the energy of impact, and prevent an elastic collision. This is why elastic materials such as rubber and bumper-springs see very limited use. They also spread out the impact over time, but they don't absorb any energy....or rather they absorb it, then re-release it, accentuating the effects of the collision.


RE: A/C standard?
By NullSubroutine on 3/6/2006 11:35:26 PM , Rating: 2
Correct, they want to transfer the kenetic engery from momentum, into the car frame/body/etc. Humans dont "bounce", they splatter, they used to make cars extremely ridged very sturdy frames.

When the Corvair came out, which has a rear-engine, everyone believed it was unsafe because the trunk (front of the car) would be too easily crushed, without the engine and extra supports. What the found out however, is that the crushing aborbs the energy, thus letting the car decelerate and prevent the human inside from sharing the kenetic energy (In which case you die more likely than not).


RE: A/C standard?
By Rock Hydra on 3/4/2006 7:21:09 AM , Rating: 2
I was going to say something very smilar. An absorption of the force, either by the frame or by something else, hopefully not the passenger, though...is probably the best situation you would want in a collision, short of no accident at all.


RE: A/C standard?
By Griswold on 3/6/2006 9:07:24 AM , Rating: 2
SMART's dont bounce. A frontal collision is absorbed by the engine being moved under the front seats. These are extremely safe cars for their size indeed - part of the reason why they are pricey, besides the fact that its a Mercedes sub-brand.


We should all drive tanks
By Hulk on 2/27/2006 9:01:18 PM , Rating: 2
According to all of our physics experts quoting the law of conservation of momentum for perfectly inelastic collisions we should all be driving tanks. Otherwise you will die. Unless the other guy has a bigger tank, then you die again, unless you get a bigger tank.

Solution. Limit all vehicle weights to 3000lb. Period. End of tank wars end of paying for our terrorism through oil.

Thank you and goodnight.




RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 9:16:29 PM , Rating: 2
First of all, momentum is conserved in elastic and inelastic collisions, thanks. Secondly, your "solution" doesn't solve the oil problem. The problem isn't vehicle size; its the amount of miles we drive.

My Hummer H2 (curb weight:6400 lbs) uses less gas than the VW Jetta being driven daily 50 miles to work each way. It uses less gas than does a souped-up Civic does, when its driven by a teen for hours and hours around a parking lot every Weekend night. Fuel consumption is MPG times miles driven....and the second factor varies far more than does the first.

SUVs are a symbol, useful for weak-minded people to simplify a complex issue into something they can grasp. The reality is far more complex.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By acejj26 on 2/27/2006 10:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
actually, fuel consumption is gallons per mile times the number of miles driven....check your units. your way says that the higher the mpg, the higher the consumption.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 10:59:11 PM , Rating: 2
Correct. I should have said MPG^-1 x mileage (or GPM x mileage) but I didn't think anyone would understand it that way :p


RE: We should all drive tanks
By sethhoyt on 2/28/2006 2:09:19 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
My Hummer H2 (curb weight:6400 lbs) uses less gas than the VW Jetta being driven daily 50 miles to work each way.


Was that supposed to prove something?

So are you trying to say that because you don't use it that much, your H2 is not consuming many resources? Yeah, I guess if you never actually use it for anything but a show piece, the Hummer is quite environmentally-friendy.

Oh wait a minute... What about all of the resources that went into building it in the first place?

Lets see, how much fuel did it take to mine and transport the materials, drive the factory workers to work and back, power the factory, ship the vehicle...

Nope, actually the thing is a waste of resources, both human and natural even if it's never driven. Sorry.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:53:31 AM , Rating: 2
> "Was that supposed to prove something? "

It was, and it did. Large vehicles do not waste gas, people waste gas. Drive a small car excessively and you waste more gas than someone who drives a large vehicle more moderately. Drive a small car with a heavy foot on the accelerator, and you waste even more gas.

> "Lets see, how much fuel did it take to mine and transport the materials, drive the factory workers to work and back, power the factory, ship the vehicle... "

How much fuel and resources did it take to build your house? Given most people around the world live in a tenth the space of the average US resident, your house is obviously an enormous waste of resources. How can you justify that? How do you even justify using electricity to post topics to an Internet message board?

Going down the "waste" road is a dangerous game, kid. Man doesn't "need" anything except a club and a loincloth. Everything else is just standard of living. And too many self-righteous pimples such as yourself believe your own personal standard is right and perfect, whereas anyone with a bit more is the one being wasteful. Face facts, anyone not living in a cave is 'wasting' energy and resources.



RE: We should all drive tanks
By triphop on 2/28/2006 4:37:14 PM , Rating: 2
"My Hummer H2 (curb weight:6400 lbs) uses less gas than the VW Jetta being driven daily 50 miles to work each way. It uses less gas than does a souped-up Civic does, when its driven by a teen for hours and hours around a parking lot every Weekend night. Fuel consumption is MPG times miles driven....and the second factor varies far more than does the first."

This is hardly a like-like comparison. My scooter driven to Nepal and back uses more gas than your hummer driven to the end of the driveway and back informs no one.

Unfortunately people are driving these bloatmobiles as a regular car and that, my friend, is the real issue. You have basically taken a dump in the common water supply (obviously not literally) in terms of air quality, carbon emissions and petroleum usage.

I hope you are very nice to the good soldiers who are working every day to protect the supply lines and sites of production so that you can drive around in your "car".


RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 6:48:50 PM , Rating: 1
> "My scooter driven to Nepal and back uses more gas than your hummer driven to the end of the driveway and back informs no one."

It's a bit hard to understand your broken English there, but if you really were driving a Scooter mindlessly back and forth to Nepal, then you would indeed be using more gas than I. And therefore you (and your scooter) would be contributing more to the problem than me. Pretty simple, really.

Vehicles don't waste resources; people do. We all do, regardless of our choice of vehicle...and those who choose a larger vehicle may well be wasting far less than those who driving around in a subcompact.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By triphop on 2/28/2006 7:06:23 PM , Rating: 2
Nice ad-hominem attack there - you've obviously got nothing.

My statement stands - your comparison is specious.

I like the way you quite ignored the fact that SUVs are being used by most users as CAR REPLACEMENTS and therefore can be said to be contributing more to resource depletion and AGW.



RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/06, Rating: 0
RE: We should all drive tanks
By triphop on 2/28/2006 8:25:37 PM , Rating: 2
Quit being a jackass.

Firstly no one is talking about house sizes here (except you, of course). You need to stop making apples/oranges comparisons. Go and RTFA fer gawd sakes.

Secondly a large SUV requires more resources and energy to manufacture (as you so proudly point out earlier in terms of total mass) and operate.

And your "point" that "vehicles don't waste gas, people do" - well, its completely redundant. The fact is that SUVs are car replacements and therefore the driving of SUVs is a problem. Note that driving requires humans, at least on this planet.

And I would ask you not assume I waste energy "without a thought" - I ride a bicycle to work every day and own a high mileage vehicle. I own a good number of shares in renewable, etc companies and funds. My computer is tuned for minimizing energy.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By mindless1 on 3/1/2006 3:43:23 AM , Rating: 2
"A person driving an SUV is not inherently using more gas than someone driving a compact car. "

Wow talk about a desperate idiot. Yes they most certainly are wasting more gas, all else being equal. Seldom is "all" equal but given any typical scenario, they are definitely wasting more gas. There are only use-specific exceptions such as when the person driving the large vehicle had a legitimate need to haul a lot of cargo (or people).


RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 9:05:25 AM , Rating: 1
> Yes they most certainly are wasting more gas, all else being equal. Seldom is "all" equal...

Not seldom. Never. When comparing real-world situations, you can never ignore all the other factors. Especially the most important one, which is total miles driven, NOT mpg.

Several colleages of mine commute ~150 miles/day. All of them drive cars. I commute <10 miles/day. I drive a large SUV. Which of us is being more wasteful of gasoline? Me, by virtue of my choice of vehicle? Or them, by virtue of their choice of home location?

The situation is even more complex. I only drive the SUV to work maybe once a week, the rest of the time I drive a two-seater ragtop. But when I do, I drive it hard enough that it usually gives the same or worse mileage than the SUV. So now which is a worse choice of auto, the car or the SUV?

On the weekend, my SUV-- if it goes anywhere-- almost always has 4-6 people in it. Is it a worse choice than 2 or 3 small cars? I don't think so.

As I said before, SUVs aren't the problem. They're a symbol, designed to give people motivated more by emotion than logic an easy target to focus upon. The reality is more complex. The real issue isn't large vehicles, its the huge amount of miles we drive.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By triphop on 3/1/2006 10:23:24 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is complex as you say but the problem has as a large component people who drive SUVs as car replacements and people who drive many miles. The fact that you drive a short distance in your bloat mobile means you waste more than someone who drives a more efficient car that same distance. Additionally fuel economy on cold engines is worse than that for warm/hot engines means that the short trip in your obese car is even worse. That, my friend, is the comparison, not your colleagues who drive long distances in more efficient cars.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By mindless1 on 3/7/2006 6:02:59 PM , Rating: 2
Always amusing to see someone deluded about being wasteful. No you are CHOOSING to waste more gas if you don't have specific need to drive a gas guzzler.

Claiming "several colleages" commute 150 miles is a ridiculous arguement since we both know the average person does not. You try to make misleading arguments because you don't actually have a valid one.

What is being most wastefull is for ANY driver to choose a vehicle far larger than necessary to get a job done, with "larger" also including some of the more performance tuned cars.

One can move closer to their most frequented destination, but that doesn't then justify the gas-guzzling car nor make an excuse for it. Many cannot simply choose to move closer to the most commonly traveled destionation and do so without other economic or environmental impacts either. If they can, perhaps they should, but two wrongs don't make a right, the argument that it's ok if you waste gas because some other extreme example wastes more, is clearly false.


RE: We should all drive tanks
By masher2 (blog) on 3/7/2006 7:32:10 PM , Rating: 1
> "What is being most wastefull is for ANY driver to choose a vehicle far larger than necessary to get a job done"

Ah, so you've never driven a car? A motorcycle is plenty large enough to "get the job done". Even if you have a passenger or two to carry. HEll, in Asia I've seen an entire family of five go to dinner on a moped.

No one "needs" a car. I suspect you own one anyway...and drive many, many miles each week on trips you don't need to take. But you don't mind being a self-righteous pimple about everyone else's waste, do you? Your OWN waste is perfectly acceptable to you, isn't it? Hypocrisy is so shameful.

Most people drive far more miles than they NEED to. And that in itself far outweighs their choice of vehicle. If everyone in the US who owned a large SUV or truck sold it in favor of a smaller one, we'd save less than 10% of our current gas consumption. If everyone in the US drove the minimum amount of miles they actually need to, we'd save more than 50% of our consumption.

Now, which factor is more important? Answer, please.




How do you merge onto highway traffic?
By acx on 2/27/2006 6:21:04 PM , Rating: 3
With a 0-60 acceleration of 20 seconds, how do you merge onto a high speed highway when the cars are going 65+ mph?




RE: How do you merge onto highway traffic?
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 6:27:18 PM , Rating: 3
You pray...thats how.


they got brakes
By tjr508 on 2/27/2006 6:43:12 PM , Rating: 2
lol, i don;t do much big city driving so i would do my part to support something like this. i've driven cars anywhere from a 115 HP corolla GTS to a 550hp 300zx tt, but realistically 20-50 is fine as long as you live in an area without too many hills.

Hope this doesn't ruin my chances at the oil company i'm about to interview with =)


By NoToRiOuS1 on 2/27/2006 6:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
my thoughts exactly. i want to say they should do something to change that 20 second time but im sure that will just had to the 13k price tag. though i suppose if they can lower than 20 second time to even like 13-15, i think it would justify a small bump in the price.


By APKasten on 2/27/2006 6:43:24 PM , Rating: 3
You don't. Americans always think everyone drives on the highway, while in Europe there's not nearly as much need to do so. And relatively few roads that require you to drive that fast. This is likely designed primarily for intracity driving. Besides that, gas and diesel costs something like 6 times as much over there (in Germany at least), so their need for fuel economy is much more severe than ours.

If you own one of these, chances are you'll be taking a train to go long distance. Trains have almost as broad a reach in Europe as highways do in the US.

http://www.smart.com/-snm-0158284268-1140197631-00...


RE: How do you merge onto highway traffic?
By sethhoyt on 2/28/2006 1:51:04 AM , Rating: 3
It's called an ON-RAMP!

How often do you need to go from *ZERO* to 60 on an on-ramp?

I hate to rant on this, but I would have to say about 2/3 of drivers in the US do not use on-ramps properly. Instead of accelerating continuously from beginning to end, they stay at a relatively constant speed until they reach the traffic lane. Then they act as if they are making a lane change, using their signal if they normally would (of course many wouldn't anyhow) and bypassing the remainder of the ramp without having reached the necessary speed for cruising. Even worse, many will *slow down* towards the end of the ramp, making it near-impossible to enter a busy road.

Most highway entrance ramps are plenty long enough to reach the cruising speed from one's initial speed upon entering the ramp (which should not be zero). Having reached the same speed as the existing traffic, it's pretty simple to insert yourself between the other vehicles.

In any case, if you need more space to reach a safe entry speed, you can always continue onto the highway shoulder (breakdown lane) for a way until you do.

**END OF RANT**


By rainman86 on 2/28/2006 2:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
What about metered on-ramps? You know, the ones with a light to limit the surge of vehicles getting on the highway at one time... (usually goes green every couple of seconds, 1 vehicle per green light)

Sounds like this vehicle needs 1/4 mile or more to just hit 60, I don't think I've seen many 1/4 mile onramps...


By Galloway1520 on 3/7/2006 2:00:31 AM , Rating: 2
It needs a propane injection system, ala Bullydog.com, for just a situation.
quote:
Propane acts as a catalyst for diesel fuel and results in almost
complete burning of the fuel. Hence efficiency is raised and
mileage/power improvements result.
from http://groups.google.com/group/alt.energy.renewabl...
0-60 in 14 seconds sounds much better, hmm? :)


Safety is more than just the car
By Gumby16 on 2/27/2006 8:51:04 PM , Rating: 2
"Safe" cars or trucks is a relative phrase. If everyone drove smaller, lighter cars, there may not be a difference in accidents/death tolls than if everyone drove heavy cars. I seems to boil down to: 1)heavy, inefficient vehicles will have to phase out (sorry all you people who need a big truck to make up for lacking in other areas) in favor of lighter, more efficient models because fuel is a finite resource, 2)accidents will happen as long as people continue paying more attention to other things than focusing on the road (eating, using phones, reading newspapers, playing musical instruments, sleeping, drinking, etc... all of which I have seen), and 3)accidents will keep happening as long as people continue driving 120 mph to save 6 seconds on their trip home, being inconsiderate on the road, and generally just being people. No new car can change behavior and until people change their bad driving habits, people will continue to have accidents and other people will die because of it.




RE: Safety is more than just the car
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 9:00:41 PM , Rating: 3
> "because fuel is a finite resource..."

Since when? Natural petroleum is a finite resource. Fuel-- including gasoline-- is not. Its a simple mix of hept/hex/pentane with a little heavier fractions. Trivial to synthesize from carbon and water...as long as you have a good energy source.

The Germans were making synthetic diesel in WW2. The cost was a bit high, but the basic chemistry of the reaction was no problem.

> "accidents will keep happening as long as people continue driving 120 mph to save 6 seconds on their trip home"

Anyone who only saves 6 seconds by driving at this speed must live within 500 meters of their office. Or were we not intended to take you seriously?



By cpeter38 on 2/28/2006 8:13:44 AM , Rating: 2
ROFLMAO!!!

Well Said!!!


RE: Safety is more than just the car
By triphop on 2/28/2006 4:30:23 PM , Rating: 2
You again :)

Sure fuel can be synthesized from CO2 and H2O but at what cost? Its just so much cheaper to pump it out the ground in the form of light sweet crude oil and crack it into the various distillations. And yes, the Germans were making synthetic fuels in WW2 but they still invaded the Caucasus looking for the real thing - OIL.



RE: Safety is more than just the car
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 6:45:47 PM , Rating: 2
At what cost? Higher than crude obviously...as long as crude is cheap and plentiful.

The point was that gasoline is not a finite resource. Cheap gasoline may or may not be...but gasoline itself is not.


RE: Safety is more than just the car
By triphop on 2/28/2006 7:02:22 PM , Rating: 2
>The point was that gasoline is not a finite resource. Cheap gasoline may or may not be...but gasoline itself is not.

Look - everything is finite. We live in a bounded universe. Sure, as long as we have energy inputs, we can synthesize gasoline, but as we start using lower grade feedstocks to produce gasoline, we are in effect running harder but not moving ahead as much as before. Eventually it will be put aside and new modes of transportation, plastics manufacture will need to be found.


RE: Safety is more than just the car
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 7:42:30 PM , Rating: 1
> "Look - everything is finite. We live in a bounded universe."

You need to study up on basic cosmology. This aside, gasoline is, for all intents and purposes, an infinite resource. With direct carbon synthethis and nuclear power supplying the energy, we can supply present needs for the next several hundred centuries. And that's only if we don't assume additional resources from outside the earth.

Gasoline will indeed "eventually be put aside", and long before we run out of it. But it'll happen only when better alternatives are present, and it won't present a crisis when it does. The sky isn't falling, so relax.


RE: Safety is more than just the car
By triphop on 2/28/2006 8:34:41 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You need to study up on basic cosmology.


Its a fair enough assumption. Its certainly not settled.

The point remains that, yes, of course we can
quote:
synthethis
gasoline - but with all this energy that we are spending to get the gasoline - it would probably be better to employ that. The energy losses to synthesize gasoline from low energy feedstocks are sizeable. And then there is the energy loss from the chemical reaction.

Gasoline only works with inexpensive high grade petroleum - when that goes away, we have to add more and more energy to get the benefit.


By masher2 (blog) on 3/1/2006 1:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
> " The energy losses to synthesize gasoline from low energy feedstocks are sizeable"

Of course. Which is why synthesis of gasoline (or hydrogen, or any other fuel) requires nuclear power or some other such cheap, abundant source of energy.

Direct synthesis of gasoline from CO2 and water also has a side benefit. The carbon sink from synthesis perfectly balances the carbon output of fuel combustion, and therefore driving a car would no longer contribute to greenhouse gas emissions.


WOW
By AnotherGuy on 2/27/2006 5:19:30 PM , Rating: 1
Thats fkn great... I want the GT... and it looks so cool




RE: WOW
By MrSmurf on 2/27/2006 5:26:01 PM , Rating: 4
It looks worse than the car Homer Simpson designed, lol. To each their own I suppose!


RE: WOW
By NFS4 on 2/27/2006 5:45:10 PM , Rating: 2
Looks better than the Prius, that's for sure :)


RE: WOW
By Jedi2155 on 2/28/2006 12:25:12 AM , Rating: 2
The Prius looks better IMO :)


RE: WOW
By littlebitstrouds on 2/28/2006 2:09:07 AM , Rating: 2
Back with that simpsons reference I see... :-p


RE: WOW
By Griswold on 3/6/2006 9:01:33 AM , Rating: 2
That was me


RE: WOW
By SunAngel on 2/27/06, Rating: -1
RE: WOW
By Xenoterranos on 3/9/2006 1:47:34 AM , Rating: 2
But it IS f'in great, It DOES look cool, and who the hell made you forum police!? I would love one of these for long trips where gas for my truck is just too much.


ho hum
By spwrozek on 2/27/2006 9:05:12 PM , Rating: 2
It is very cool that there is a car that has 157 mpg but it is not all sunshine and rainbows. If you look at hybrids and cars like this yes they get great mpg but in the end it is only good for a short time. If cars get better gas milage people buy less gas which makes gas stations have less demand and they buy less gas. Then OPEC is selling less fuel so they "have" to raise prices to make money. So in the end gas prices go up and you are not gaining anything, except less gas used total by the world.

I also could not imagine trying to put anything in that car, no trunk space. I have a truck because I have trailers. I am not going to be pulling a 5000 pound trailer on a 50 HP engine. Granted MANY people buy SUV's, Jeeps, and trucks and never take them off road but there are a lot of us who need them to survive (use them for work, like construction).




RE: ho hum
By acejj26 on 2/27/2006 10:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
try taking a simple economics course. if demand is lowered, the price is lowered. increasing price will only lower demand even more. price and demand are inversely proportional. always has been.


RE: ho hum
By czarchazm on 2/28/2006 1:30:44 AM , Rating: 2
Dude, stay away from personal attacks. So he misunderstood a concept. Big deal.


RE: ho hum
By spwrozek on 2/28/2006 7:51:44 AM , Rating: 2
I understand that concept but in the economics classes I have taken gas is pretty much a whole different animal. Mostly because you have to buy it. When we went to war look what happened to prices, they shot up like crazy. Basically people have to have this product and would pay anything fot it. So in the end they will pay more for it if they have to bt think they are getting a good deal because of the great MPG. This isn't the PS2 or X-Box which if people stop buying they lower the price and make money on games an accessories. Oil is all they have to sell. Businesses are going to make profit one way or another.


RE: ho hum
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 9:57:54 AM , Rating: 2
> Basically people have to have this product and would pay anything fot it..

That makes gasoline prices relatively inelastic, meaning price changes don't influence consumption greatly. However, this in itself means that small increases in production (or drops in demand) will lower prices much more sharply than normal.

Your argument about lowered demand raising prices would only be true in the extreme case of our cutting demand to a tiny fraction of one percent of current usage. In that case, economies of scale could no longer be applied, and we might well see a small price hike. Any reasonable lowering of demand, however, would lead to substantial price reductions.



Not out until '09
By CheesePoofs on 2/27/2006 5:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
"Unfortunately, you will have to wait until 2009 before you have the pleasure of possessing your own Loremo."

Oh well, at least its coming out. This is the kind of thing we need more of, not more suvs.




RE: Not out until '09
By on 3/3/2006 10:57:50 AM , Rating: 2
Notice that this is for Germany/Europe, home of the (original, VW Beetle (*sniff*, great little cars). I highly doubt this thing will be able to pass U.S. emissions standards (which killed the original Beetle in the U.S.) especially with a 2-cylinder deisel motor.


RE: Not out until '09
By Griswold on 3/6/2006 9:16:52 AM , Rating: 2
Most european states have emission standards that are at least as strict (if not stricter than, considering the average car in europe) the US counterpart.

The orginial beetle is WW2/1950's technology, so, no surprise it will have trouble in the US. In europe, on the other hand, the cars year of construction matters as far as emission standards are concerned. So, with an oldie like a beetle, you'd have no problem - with a brandnew car blowing the same amount of dirt into the air, you wouldnt get a permission.


RE: Not out until '09
By Galloway1520 on 3/6/2006 5:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
Not true about emissions. In July '06 US is forcing all Diesel fuels used for transportation to be low-sulphur, thus enabling more diesel powered autos & trucks. Europe has been using this form of diesel, with a bio-diesel additive, for many years, thus the greater number of diesel powered vehicles there. Also, I believe they have more restrictive emission standards.
New diesel engines, combined with the new fuels, results in diesel powered cars & trucks in USA that can pass EPA standards. Hopefully, more mfgs. will bring similar offerings to the table-- small trucks, suvs & minivans would especially see great benefits with diesel engines.


Hmm...
By ShadowBlade on 2/27/2006 7:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
I personally think its great that there is a vehicle that gets this kind of mileage, but why do they have to put such an ugly body on it?

I'd also like to see how this does in a crash test.




RE: Hmm...
By Tedtalker1 on 2/27/2006 7:44:51 PM , Rating: 2
The aerodynamics of the body is a main factor for it getting such great MPG.I think it looks really cool myself.Much better than all the boxy looking cars.This is what I'm drooling for http://www.cardesignnews.com/autoshows/2002/paris/... 113 MPG too!


Nice...Friggin...Car.
By KaerfSusej on 2/27/2006 9:13:03 PM , Rating: 2
Price might hurt tho.


I dont see...
By Ringold on 2/27/2006 7:38:25 PM , Rating: 2
... where it says it'll come to the US? Prices are in Euro's?

Like it's been mentione elsewhere, that may very well not be US street legal. Europe has much lower safety standards.

And to the person that said "Americans always assume" we have to take highways all the time.. well.. we do :) We're a big country full of people that don't live in shacks next to our jobs or, in my case, my university. I drive 40 miles there, and 40 miles back, 4 days a week, and any time I care to see my girlfriend except when we meet on campus, I drive 50 miles down to see her, and 50 miles back. Bought a Camry in early Dec almost new, and she's got 8,000 miles on her.

And speaking of the girlfriend, her dad drives to work 5 to 6 days a week driving across the state to his job, 60 miles each way. Forget going to the grocery, work alone averages 330 miles a week!

I really just wish comparisons to Europe didn't exist. Per-capita income difference widens due to culturual work ethic differences, transportation is totally different -- everything is totally different. Comparing them isn't just apples and oranges, they're at least similar, its more like apples and broccoli.




RE: I dont see...
By Ringold on 2/27/2006 7:40:20 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, and if I didn't take back roads, as I tried one time when I-4 and 417 both were jammed, it takes me nearly THREE HOURS to do what the 417 can do for me in 30 minutes, and is, not to mention, utterly confusing driving through the suburban sprawl.


RE: I dont see...
By Johnmcl7 on 2/28/2006 9:25:43 AM , Rating: 2
So what's your point exactly? Surely if you need to drive lots of miles then you'd welcome a fuel efficient car, I'm always puzzled by this justification (which may not be the case here) that because Americans generally drive lots of miles, they need gas guzzling cars.

Admittedly I may not understand the issue properly, my daily commute is a mere 120 miles and my weekend journey 320 miles. For this reason I have a fuel efficient diesel car (which is four star safety rated by memory)

Also kind of puzzled about the safety comments, you seem to be equating bigger to mean safer, which is only really the case for the driver of the larger vehicle. Having seen some of the wrecks some states allow on their roads legally, and also looking at the safety tests new cars have to endure (thinking of the 'bendy' Peugeot 407 in particular) I don't know how you can claim Europe has much lower safety standards.

John


SAFETY
By realist on 2/27/2006 8:23:10 PM , Rating: 2
Its great crumple zone and its stiff passenger cell make Loremo more than safe.

Loremo's linear cell structure meets all static requirements to crash safety and driving dynamics. This structure weighs only 95 kg and consists of only few sheets metal parts and can thus be produced at very low cost. The structure has been patented in many countries (patent no. PCT/EP98/01114).
Three solid longitudinal support bars have a low weight and a higher stiffness than would be the case if there were side doors in the middle. Even in the case of a side impact, they will provide excellent protection. The pyramidal transverse support bar does not only effectively increase the protection against side impact but also makes the structure torsionally stiff to a high extent. Loremo's innovative structure allows for a great crumple zone of 600 mm which extremely reduces passenger load.

The graphics show a 50 km/h collision with a static barrier having a 40 % overlap. The dashboard is deformed by approximately 150 mm only.
Thus, it is highly probable that it will also withstand the 65 km/h offset crash with a soft barrier without major deformations of the dashboard




RE: SAFETY
By masher2 (blog) on 2/27/2006 9:02:47 PM , Rating: 2
So this vehicle can "probably" withstand a 39 mph crash against a soft barrier target? Thats not quite as reassuring as they make it sound. It may well be safe in a single-car accident...but I'm not putting my family in one.


RE: SAFETY
By modestninja on 3/1/2006 4:02:02 AM , Rating: 2
Well it's a two person car, so there's not much chance of that anyway... Unless you're a family of midgets.


Nothing Special
By Merry on 2/27/2006 8:29:55 PM , Rating: 2
The new Fiat Punto can do about 60mpg , with a 1.3 multijet diesel (engine of the year i might add). Apparently they have good performance too. Dont know whether it'll ever arrive on your side of the pond though.

its infinatly more practicle, and more available than that concept car, which will probably never be made.




RE: Nothing Special
By Merry on 2/27/2006 8:31:56 PM , Rating: 2
I forgot to add about the 5 star euro ncap safety rating too.


RE: Nothing Special
By Johnmcl7 on 2/28/2006 9:21:32 AM , Rating: 2
The US and diesel cars don't seem to mix for some reason - I appreciate your point about fuel efficient diesel cars, I drive VW 1.9TDI powered car myself which returns great economy for the size of car.

John


20hp? Yer' kidding, right?
By xstylus on 2/28/2006 5:00:59 AM , Rating: 2
Hummers, Corvettes, and Vipers pass everything except a gas station.

However, at 20hp the only thing this car will be able to pass is a gas station. I feel sorry for anyone who needs to drive this car over any sort of hill greater than a driveway curb ramp.




RE: 20hp? Yer' kidding, right?
By DrKlahn on 2/28/2006 10:43:07 AM , Rating: 2
The current Corvette is the only 400hp car to not suffer a gas guzzler tax with its rated economy of 18/28. The 505hp Z06 model is the only 500+hp vehicle to not suffer the gas guzzler tax with its rated economy of 16/26. Though they won't qualify as high economy, they will go a lot longer between fill ups than the Hummer Me2.


RE: 20hp? Yer' kidding, right?
By 03Mini on 2/28/2006 8:38:20 PM , Rating: 2
If you get 28 MPG with your 'vette it should be taken away from you...

"Drive it like you stole it dude." ;-)

I have an 03 Mini S and it came with this sticker that says it's supposed to get 32MPG Highway.

But I usually drive like an ass and rarely get that.


Bye Bye Festiva
By breethon on 2/27/2006 6:17:06 PM , Rating: 2
Well, now I can get rid of my Ford Festiva. It gets 41mpg and looks like a total piece. But, it gets me to work for 2 weeks on $20, so I guess I can't complain. My kids tell me I look like Mr. Incredible. I may have to get me one of these...




RE: Bye Bye Festiva
By reactor on 2/27/2006 6:54:19 PM , Rating: 2
well, when you hit the on ramp your already doing what 30 mph?(im canadian so sorry i dont know what it is in miles...) plus about 10 seconds along the ramp before you merge so shouldnt be that much problem.

too bad this isnt coming out sooner, 2009 will probably see other things coming along, alternative fuels and transportation etc.


RE: Bye Bye Festiva
By reactor on 2/27/2006 6:55:53 PM , Rating: 1
ehem..lol supposed to be irt to the merging one...


Bicycle
By montgom on 2/28/2006 9:28:21 AM , Rating: 2
We already have these things, they are called bicycles. Heck ,if you car pool in your 30 mpg car, you instantly get 60 mpg if two riders. 90 mpg if you have 3 riders and so on. We already have the solutions, we (USA, EU, Asia, etc.) choose not to use the current solutions. We dram of some fantasy "slow as heck" (20 hp???) panacea to save us from our love of the car. Dream on.




RE: Bicycle
By masher2 (blog) on 2/28/2006 10:07:41 AM , Rating: 2
> "We already have the solutions, we...choose not to use [them]"

Just so. Probably because the "problem" isn't quite as bad as the sky-is-falling crowd wishes us to believe.


Clean Air
By RoadRunner on 3/8/2006 3:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
As far as pollution is concerned, I think that our government could help. There are thousands of people that could telecommute to work rather than drive. I work with about 150 people that could do their jobs from home. Maybe the government should give businesses an incentive for allowing people to work from home. I have High Speed DSL at home and an office in the basement. Everyone I know that I work with drives at least 25 miles each way.

Driving these fuel-efficient cars is great, but people are still using fuel. If I could work from home, I would be using zero fuel.




RE: Clean Air
By masher2 (blog) on 3/8/2006 4:25:23 PM , Rating: 2
> "Maybe the government should give businesses an incentive for allowing people to work from home..."

Those incentives already exist. There is the 1999 National Telecommuting and Air Quality Act (effective in only five cities), the Telework Tax Incentive Act, and additional incentives in Bush's 2004 Budget, and a few others...


No thanks
By exdeath on 2/27/2006 8:15:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'll stick with 700 RWHP and 0-60 < 3.5 seconds.

Man you'd have people in Kias, Geos, Scions, and Civics laughing at you in one of these things.




RE: No thanks
By Alexvrb on 2/28/2006 4:53:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, you know its bad when the L3 Metro walks all over you. Might as well do it Flintstones style. You get better mileage.


WIN
By thomasxstewart on 2/28/2006 5:56:16 AM , Rating: 2
In England in 1990 there was 96 m.p.g. vechile, 2 seater plus luggage, guessing several thousand pounds weight, made by Ford or GM? Edwards Air Force Base in Palmdale, Calif bought one & has it in hanger there. However, it never went public in U.S.A., So why would this "lightweight" get marketed here, especially with "wind" problems simply throwing it off road.Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.




RE: WIN
By johnsonx on 2/28/2006 6:42:29 PM , Rating: 1
Hey look, it's the 13-year old Dr. again. Fewer big words this time though. An actual M.D. would know no one else cares that he's an M.D. (or what his FULL name is), thus he proves by signing his post that way that he isn't one.


Nice but
By Staples on 2/27/2006 6:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
There is a reason you don't see cars on the road that weigh less than 1000 pounds. Government standards say that US cars have to have lots of protective armor on them in order to be street legal. Even the smallest US legal cars weigh near 2000 pounds.




0-60 in...
By bunnyfubbles on 2/27/2006 7:13:45 PM , Rating: 2
yeah, 20 seconds, just about enough time to drain your tank.

Saving gas is one thing, driving it on dangerous roads (any road with cars) is another.

Besides, this thing pretty much defeats the purpose of a car. Load up a passenger and any amount of luggage and you're going to lose dozens of gallons per mile of fuel efficiency.

I'll hold my breath for anti matter fuel, where we'll never have to refuel again :D




What about wind?
By Zerhyn on 2/27/2006 8:22:45 PM , Rating: 2
I wonder how well this vehicle would do against side wind. I commute on a freeway that nearly always has high winds. I currently have a Lancer and some times the gusts nearly throw me into the next lane. I am wondering if this thing is aerodynamic enough not to be blown away considering it is only 1000 lbs.




wow!
By Mitul89 on 2/27/2006 9:06:57 PM , Rating: 2
I want that car so bad.... It actually looks good too. Usually a car like that will look like shit but this thing is awsome.And the price is low, enough for me :)




Pure fantasy
By montgom on 2/27/2006 9:27:21 PM , Rating: 2
Will never arrive as advertised. 2009 will come and go, with nothing to show for it.




Hmm....
By Chadder007 on 2/27/2006 9:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
We make them ugly.....so no one in their right mind would actually buy one.




Wow lost of rplys about a car.
By smokenjoe on 2/28/2006 12:19:53 AM , Rating: 2
As much al you might like the idea of being able to get drunk in your big american truck or car and survive it does not save you from your own stupidity. I have seen a Expidition hit by an exscort the expidition flipped and the results were not good the escort survied and was I am sure scratching his head.

I am sure this is the first time that suv went off road only to be doing it top down.

Wait untill the cost of gas goses back to 4 bucks that car will look real nice.




Covered Motorcycle?
By sethhoyt on 2/28/2006 1:31:58 AM , Rating: 2
I am a fan of high-efficiency, but this might be a bit over the top right now in the US. I can certainly see this elsewhere, where other vehicles are smaller. In the US, you might as well drive a motorcycle for fuel-efficiency, because this thing is little more than a covered motorcycle.

But in all honesty, I would like to see more Americans drive lighter weight vehicles, especially when commuting solo. If such vehicles were built for only 1-2 people, at low cost, they could become popular with commuters. But safety will continue to be an issue as long as people are driving light trucks (SUVs, 4x4s, etc.) around as passenger vehicles.

The only way I see this changing is either oil becomes practically unavailable (which will happen relatively soon) without an equal energy/weight alternative, or if the US govt penalizes non-commercial light trucks through some kind of tax, and uses the proceeds to fund more fuel-efficient alternatives and pay for injuries due to these overweight monsters.




I'd own it, it wasn't so weak
By shaw on 2/28/2006 9:07:08 AM , Rating: 2
The gas milage is awesome, but the low HP sucks alot. 20HP is too low. It needs to level up some, 1D10 HP per level + Constitution bonus.




remember the Yugo?
By Dfere on 2/28/2006 1:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yugo for the new millenium. We americans hated the YUGO. Some will buy, most will not.

There are so many alternatives that will be cropping up. Ethanol, Hybrid's, pure electric that surpass this performance already. This is a tiny diesel engine in an ultralightweight car. Make the other options utlra light and you get simialr results with much better acceleration.

Regarding crashes- Don't fall for fancy physics, the end result is the total speed the OCCUPANT decelerates, and over what time period the deceleration occurs. (This is what crumple zones and air bags facilitate). Among the factors are also what parts of the body decelerate at what rates (i.e you can tolerate that your hand can take more of an instant deceleration than your head).




Great idea!
By Pythias on 3/6/2006 9:26:28 AM , Rating: 2
Nice, but I'm 6'5. I probably couldnt get my big toe into the thing.




"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller









botimage
Copyright 2012 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki