| Author | Message | ||
     Mikej |
Case in point:  Some of you traveling to Homecoming will have to navigate some of the closures as they are in the middle of rebuilding this interchange. | ||
| Lowflyer |
"in theroy communism is better." I never thought I would hear that from a Marine?!  Blake, We need a POW/MIA flag icon. | ||
| Ryker77 |
come one the Marines is all about communism. You are told what to wear and how to wear it. Nearly everything you do is based on getting the job done at the lowest possible cost. "IPOD" I don't need an IPOD but does the market really need 30+ different kinds of small music devices. Does the market realy need 30+ kinds of paper towels? at some point things turn to waste. At what point? I don't know. | ||
| Blake |
Dolphins, the intelligent swimming mammalian kind, might just have the best sociological philosophy. I could be wrong. No clothes, no stuff of any kind, no home, no doctors, no insurance, no problem. They live, in the grocery store and all the produce is as fresh as it gets. Only real drawback is that they have to put up with us. | ||
| Lowflyer |
"does the market really need 30+ different kinds of small music devices. Does the market realy need 30+ kinds of paper towels? at some point things turn to waste." The market bears what it will. The beauty of 30+ different kinds of devices is that every minute difference between each device presents an opportunity for incremental technological advancement. Many of these advancements spread across many industries. | ||
| M2nc |
If you want to invest money back into the economy, use Alcohol! A real solution is F85. We need to push for flex fuel cars and trucks that can burn alcohol. The US is still a major player in the oil market. If the American consumer shifted to say 50% alcohol, it would have a major impact on oil prices. The US uses so much oil that reducing its consumption to half by changing to alcohol would push down global consumption dramatically and then economic forces of supply and demand would force prices down. If the US government would legislate all new cars to be Flex-Fuel capable and a mandate that all gas stations must offer F85 or some equivalent, that alone would be enough of a shock wave through the markets to push prices down. If the federal government changed the country from lead gas non-convertered vehicles to Unleaded only, EPA friendly vehicles, it could do the same for changing to alcohol. As a matter of fact, alcohol burns cleaner so you kill two birds with one stone. Brazil already has done this. Invest in American farmers. Here in North Carolina when Clinton was still in office, there was a federal government push to convert tobacco farmers to sweet potato farmers. Four refineries were to be built in North Carolina to produce methanol for fuel. Bush got into office and the plan was killed. I wonder why! It is a doable alternative. We have to face the fact that India and China will be as big or bigger players in the consumption of natural resources. Oil is not the only thing that is allot more expensive because of China's and India's economic boom. Steal prices have jumped up too. At our plant we had to make changes to the budget because steal prices increase so much that just the increase in the price cost us an additional $800,000. All building materials are going up because we have two new and very hungry markets that are tipping the economic balance in the favor of the suppliers. I have a Suburban. It is my alternate transportation if for some reason I do not ride the bike to work. I ride year round, but do have a geographical advantage over most. It does get cold in the winter, but for the most part it only snows a couple days out of the year. I rode this morning to work, it was 34°F, so if you average my MPG to work and back overall and I ride the bike more often than I drive the truck, means 30mpg+ or a good economy car. | ||
| Brucelee |
"come one the Marines is all about communism. You are told what to wear and how to wear it. Nearly everything you do is based on getting the job done at the lowest possible cost." Well, not really. You have a choice to join, or not join the Marines. And, you decide every so often if you still want to be a Marine. I don't think that is the way it works in China these days, but hey, who knows! "IPOD" I don't need an IPOD but does the market really need 30+ different kinds of small music devices. Does the market realy need 30+ kinds of paper towels? at some point things turn to waste. At what point? I don't know." Well, I don't NEED an IPOD but I have one. The neat thing is, I vote with my credit card. Ditto paper towels. We decide, not the party! As Austin Powers would say, "Its about Freedom, baby!" | ||
| Brucelee |
This is worth repeating! An oil 'crisis'? Aug 23, 2005 by Thomas Sowell ( bio | archive | contact ) Email to a friend Print this page Text size: A A With oil prices passing the record-breaking $60 a barrel level and heading even higher, the word "crisis" is now being used and all sorts of political "solutions" are being proposed. Is there really a crisis? One of the dictionary definitions of a crisis is "the point in the course of a serious disease at which a decisive change occurs, leading either to recovery or to death." Is that where we are when it comes to oil? Are we either going to solve the problem of oil or see it destroy us economically? Political and media definitions of "crisis" are much looser than the dictionary's definition. In political semantics, the word "crisis" has come to mean any situation that someone wants to use to justify doing something that will be called a "solution." Crises are a dime a dozen by political and media definitions. Almost as common as crises are conspiracy theories. Whenever the price of gasoline shoots up, California's Senator Barbara Boxer can be depended on to demand an investigation of the oil companies. The fact that previous investigations have found no conspiracies is no deterrent. Why, then, are oil prices so high? There is no esoteric reason. It is plain old supply and demand. With the economies of huge nations like China and India developing more rapidly, now that they have freed their markets from many stifling government controls, more oil is being demanded in the world market and there are few new sources of supply. What should our government do? We will be lucky if they do nothing. But, with Congressional elections coming up next year, that is very unlikely. Candidates for Congress next year, and politicians hoping to run for President in 2008, are virtually guaranteed to come up with all sorts of "solutions." These "solutions" will be packaged as brilliant new ideas, courageous and far-seeing. But most will be retreads of old ideas that remain untested or which have been tested in the past and found wanting. Price controls, arbitrary new higher gas mileage standards for cars, "alternative energy sources," and other nostrums are sure to surface once again. The last time we had price controls on gasoline, we had long lines of cars at filling stations, these lines sometimes stretching around the block, with motorists sitting in those lines for hours. That nonsense ended almost overnight when President Ronald Reagan, ignoring the cries of liberal politicians and the liberal media, got rid of price controls with a stroke of the pen. What happened is what usually happens when government restrictions are ended: There was more production of oil. In fact the 1980s became known as the era of an "oil glut" and gasoline prices declined. Today production is being held back, not by price controls, but by political hysteria whenever anyone suggests actually producing more oil ourselves. Organized nature cults go ballistic at the thought that we might drill for oil in some remote part of Alaska that 99 percent of Americans will never see, including 99 percent of the nature cultists. People used to ask whether there is any sound if a tree falls in an empty forest. Today, there are deafening political sounds over oil-drilling in an empty wilderness. Nor can we drill for oil offshore, or in many places on land, again for political reasons. Nor can we build enough refineries or even build hydroelectric dams as alternative sources of power. Many of the same people who cry "No blood for oil!" also want higher gas mileage standards for cars. But higher mileage standards have meant lighter and more flimsy cars, leading to more injuries and deaths in accidents -- in other words, trading blood for oil. Apparently the only things we can do are the things in vogue among nature cultists and the politicians that cater to them, such as windmills and electric cars. That is why we would be better off if the government did nothing and let people adjust their own energy consumption individually in their own ways as the prices of gasoline and fuel oil rise. But that is also politically unlikely. Thomas Sowell is the prolific author of books such as Black Rednecks and White Liberals and Applied Economics. | ||
| Brucelee |
Now if I were God, we would: License nuclear powerplants by the basket Issue bonds and permits for Coal based syn fuel Issue permits for oil drilling in Alaska Issue permits for natural gas drilling Issue permits to build more refineries Change CARB to allow diesel cars and motorcycles There may be more but you get the picture. | ||
| Chainsaw |
Ask big brother why we can't drive this 60mpg can in the USA Big Brother says: "Because the car isn't available ANYWHERE yet" "The Polo, manufactured in Pamplona, Spain, will have its market introduction in Switzerland, Austria and Germany in the summer of 2006." This of course must be George Bush's fault.  | ||
| Ryker77 |
no chainsaw.. That new model isn't on the market. And the Polo aka US version Golf has been as IS sold in America right now. Anything else you'd like to point out. BUT VW's has been selling the Lupo for over 5 years and that car gets 60-80MPGs! http://www.usatoday.com/money/consumer/autos/mareview/mauto497.htm And that ain't Shrubs fault. He is trying to use terror to stop terrorist. I doubt a VW car is on his mind. | ||
| Lowflyer |
It's probably some combination of environmentalist wacko, DOT, or liberal product liability legislation that prevents VW from attempting to penetrate the market with that product. Or, it could be that it is a piece of shit that just won't sell here. | ||
| Ryker77 |
E85 is a joke. Unless the feds force it upon us it will now work. WHY? Becuase e85 creates less MPG. Due to the fact that e85 has less BTU's per gallon. So the consumer would have to buy more fuel and fill up there tank 25-30% more often. } | ||
| Ryker77 |
Lowflyer.. mmm. VW has been selling Golf, Jetta, Bettle, and passats in America for over 10 years. All with 40+mpg TDI's. New models have to deal with new EPA. It mostly boils down to the EPA. But they are currently lowering the standards for light diesel cars and trucks. To allow a phase in period so the car makers can adapt to the new rules (Message edited by ryker77 on March 23, 2006) | ||
| Lowflyer |
"Lowflyer.. mmm. Polo is what the car is called overseas. In America its called the Golf." Umm...the article you referred to and on which I was commenting was for the Lupo 3L. So, I guess what I say is not "knocked down." | ||
| Buellbozo |
Ryker, And guess who controls most of the raw material (corn) for E85? Archer Daniels Midland. Surprise. I was gonna join Cynics Anonymous, but...  | ||
| Brucelee |
You guys crack me up! Face it, we have met the problem and it is us! The most popular car of the last decade has been the 15 MPG SUV. This was not LED by Detroit or BIG BUSINESS, fact is that people LOVE BIG SUVS. Less so now, now that the gas is $3 per gallon. That is why PRICE is such a wonderful device. Relax, no corporation or big business is doing it to us, WE are doing it to us. Ain't life grand! | ||
| Swampy |
New EPA Regulations! New production diesel engines are required to run EGRs and CATs, The consumers of these are finding higher initial, and maintenance costs, plus the added benefit of much reduced fuel economy! | ||
| Lowflyer |
That is part of a vast kook-fringe conspiracy to artificially drive up demand for petroleum thereby raising fuel prices. They have it covered on both ends. They restrict supply, then they legislate strict guidelines for auto manufacturers, factories, and power plants causing reduced fuel economy by choking engines and adding unnecessary environmental controls. When that doesn't work well, they modify child restraint laws to require larger, more cumbersome child safety seats. This requires a larger, less fuel efficient vehicle for the average family. I think kooks just love to bitch about everything under the sun. They also believe that there is some concerted effort to make their lives miserable, but they refuse to accept the notion that they have anything to do with it. | ||
| Chainsaw |
no chainsaw.. That new model isn't on the market. And the Polo aka US version Golf has been as IS sold in America right now. Anything else you'd like to point out. Yes Ryker, I would like to point something else out: First you say IT'S NOT sold here, VW says IT'S NOT AVAILABLE ANYWHERE, now you say IT IS SOLD here. Have you forgot to take your medication or something?  | ||
| Ryker77 |
No, the weather is cold so not ridden my bike in a few days. Built up aggression. Sorry. I edited that post as soon as I posted it. The Polo and Blue motion Polo are models that are not sold in the US. Not to sure about the frame of the bluemotion Polo. But the Polo is offered in Germany with a 100,130, and 150hp TDI engines and the option of all wheel drive. In America we get the Golf version in only 90hp (old) and 100hp (new) TDI engines. | ||
| Ryker77 |
New production diesel engines are required to run EGRs and CATs, The consumers of these are finding higher initial, and maintenance costs, plus the added benefit of much reduced fuel economy! Swamp. Diesel cars have been using EGR's and scrubbers for over 7 years. Both my wife and I own diesel cars with EGR and scrubbers and we never get less than 43mpg's. So where is the "much reduced fuel economy"? The new EPA rule i was talking about it The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is making minor amendments applicable to light-duty diesel vehicles under the Tier 2 standards. The alternative compliance options will last for only three model years (MY)—2007 through 2009—during which time advancements in diesel emissions control technologies will be further developed. The two voluntary compliance options would relax a very limited set of standards for nitrogen oxides (NOx), including only high altitude and high speed/high acceleration conditions. These temporary alternative compliance options are designed to be environmentally neutral, as manufacturers choosing them would be required to meet more stringent requirements in other aspects of the Tier 2 program including tighter particulate matter standards and a longer regulatory useful life. http://www.epa.gov/tier2/amendments/420f06027.htm | ||
| Brucelee |
Instead of posting here on the diesel engine issues, perhaps we should be emailing to our so called elected reps on how they can help govt get out of the way and let folks take actions to reduce their use of gas. Getting some more diesel refineries built would not be a bad idea either. See my suggestions above. Now, if only I were God. | ||
| Bomber |
I beleive I read that the energy required to produce E85 far outstripped that required to produce gasoline -- I'll pass on the opportunity to do an extensive search and post numberous citations, though ;-} environmentalist wacko, DOT, or liberal product liability legislation that prevents VW from attempting to penetrate the market with that product. wow -- way to cover all the bases ;- I guess the overwhelming popularity of low MPG cars and trucks is confined to liberal areas -- sheesh }Or, it could be that it is a piece of shit that just won't sell here. I'ts a POS cuz why exactly? again, I am surprised (though I spose I shouldn't be) at the former Grizzly Adams, Death Before Dishonor, Patrick Henry wannabes now whining for increasing government regualation surrodind energy prices and transportation modes -- what happened to small government, stay outa my life, let me make my own decisions ah, well -- It's like the man sez -- consistancy is the Hobgoblin of small minds -- no small minds here ;-} | ||
| Brucelee |
OK. These guys are monitoring our emails I guess! Who is stunned, I am! EPA to Relax Diesel Regulations To Encourage Fuel-Efficiency By LAURA MECKLER March 24, 2006; Page A2 WASHINGTON -- The Environmental Protection Agency is relaxing certain emission standards for diesel cars in an effort to get more of these fuel-efficient -- but still relatively dirty -- vehicles on the road. The EPA said that over time, the new standards will be better for the environment because auto makers that opt for the exemption will be required to engineer their cars to stay clean longer. Diesel manufacturers praised the move, calling it a narrow exception that will give a boost to a promising technology. "It's another option that allows another design on the market, thus increasing the amount of diesels eligible to be in the United States," said EPA spokesman John Millett. But environmentalists complain that the change allows diesel cars, which produce more pollution than gasoline-powered cars, to spew more smog-causing nitrogen oxide, at least at the beginning. They also argued that the rule change sets a bad precedent by allowing cars that use one particular technology to meet different standards. Diesel cars are considered promising by policy makers concerned about U.S. dependence on oil because they get significantly better mileage than their gasoline counterparts. Manufacturers have struggled to develop the emissions-control technology comparable to that long used for gasoline-powered vehicles, a problem made tougher by the high levels of sulfur in diesel fuel. Beginning with the 2007 model year, the EPA will require auto makers to meet tougher emission standards for all vehicles, including diesel-powered ones. But yesterday, the EPA said it would make it easier for light-duty diesel vehicles, which include cars as well as sport-utility vehicles, to pass its emissions tests for model years 2007 to 2009. Write to Laura Meckler at laura.meckler@wsj.com | ||
| Lowflyer |
Bomber, Read the effing article that Ryker posted. It says pretty plainly that the Lupo 3L is a POS. "wow -- way to cover all the bases ;- I guess the overwhelming popularity of low MPG cars and trucks is confined to liberal areas -- sheesh" No, I was referring to the liberal product liability laws -- liberal in the sense that they allow anyone to file suit with or without just cause; not liberal in the sense that 'liberals' are responsible for it. Yes, enviro-whackos and safety hacks are partly to blame for the strict EPA and DOT regulations that prevent such strides in fuel economy as 60mpg micro-cars. "again, I am surprised (though I spose I shouldn't be) at the former Grizzly Adams, Death Before Dishonor, Patrick Henry wannabes now whining for increasing government regualation surrodind energy prices and transportation modes -- what happened to small government, stay outa my life, let me make my own decisions" WTF are you babbling about here? I am arguing in favor of relaxed EPA and DOT regulation in order to allow cars like the 60-mpg VW into the country. | ||
| Bomber |
LF -- er, you mistakenly assume that you or your comments are the sole topic of the post in question -- I read the effing article, thanks, and it, combined with my personal experience with the car, tells me that it's nowhere as near as bad as might be imagined -- have you had any personal experience with the car? was your experience different than mine? would be interesting to hear of it the last part of my screed was in regard to the people calling for the government to control energy costs, and/or to divert public funds from highway construction to public transportation despite the public's clear preference for highways lastly, the product liability laws have little if anything to do with the introduction of high MPH cars/trucks into the US -- you and I are in complete agreement wrt Product Liability law as it stands (i.e., it's so FUBARed we'd be better off deep-sixing all of em and starting from scratch) -- in fact, tort reform has been blocked religiously by lobbyists from both sides of the isle for decades -- as you initimate, but do not state outright, the EPA/DOT laws in force today have evolved due to the non-elected folks working in the EPA/DOT for decades, all with the tacit approval of the electorate at large -- it's easy to get cranky at the bureaucrats (and they certainly deserve it), but we bear responsibility for the gubmint we got, IMO | ||
| Lowflyer |
"er, you mistakenly assume that you or your comments are the sole topic of the post in question" I make no such assumption. "have you had any personal experience with the car?" No, and if you read my original post again, my comment merely suggested that perhaps the car is a POS that may not sell well in the US. I never said that it is a POS. "lastly, the product liability laws have little if anything to do with the introduction of high MPH cars/trucks into the US" That is an inaccurate statement. PL has much to do with every aspect of the design of a car. High-MPG cars are generally made lighter and smaller and, so far, they lack the inherent safety in larger, heavier vehicles. Besides, you can't have airbags covering every square inch of interior surface, steel-reinforced crash bars, 5-mph bumpers, crumple-zones, offset-impact protection, and airbags for your airbags and still expect the car to be lightweight. | ||
| Ryker77 |
If all cars were smaller and lighter then PL wouldn't be an issue. But in America when that 6000lbs SUV hits you -- you'll sure wish that your were also in a larger car. But hey we ride motorcycles. So I'd say a lightweight car is safer than a bike. And how many bikes are sold in the US market | ||
| Lowflyer |
I agree on both points. However, bikes long ago established a precedent for being inherently unsafe. People most generally regard motorcycling as an extremely dangerous activity. While lacking a reasonable expectation for inherent safety, motorcycle OEMs are still vulnerable to ridiculous lawsuits, but they are not as at risk as an automobile manufacturer. Most Americans think that it is one of their inalienable rights to ride in a car while being completely impervious to any potential threat to their own safety. If they get hurt, the first thing they want to do is call a lawyer. The lawyer will not only work to recover damages for the individual, but will subsequently look for ways to make it a class action against the OEM. (Message edited by lowflyer on March 24, 2006) |
