| Author |
Message |
    
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:29 am: | 
|
CAFE needs to be increased to stop other people from doing what they wish?
odd -- and here I thought I was on Badweb, the home of a politically and socially conservative rider --
better go check that URL
seems to me the "moms" driving gas guzzlers are already self-taxing, in the form of the greater prices per mile -- me, I don't want to tell anyone else what to do, as the logical extension of that is that they get to tell me to stop riding my motorcycle round creation every sunday
hint -- behavior does not change until one of two things happens:
first -- the old behavior has to hurt, alot
thing the second -- the new, desired behavior has to feel good, a lot better than the old
a combination of the two acts most quickly, and yields the longest lasting behavior change |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:36 am: |
|
Watched a little PBS docudramentory last night on Enron. All I have to say about gas prices is:
"The emperor has no clothes".
'scuse me now, just took the studded tires off the mountain bicycle last night, will probably be putting them back on next winter if gas hits $5/gallon. off to research some of those work at home schemes and residual pyramid plans/schemes.
I need to go get in shape now.....
|
Ducxl
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:16 am: |
|
Bomber,there is NO need for a 10mpg behemouth in the hands of a domestic user period.They even endanger users of sub-compact cars when in accidents.
Put another way....Myself,and some here have been screaming for a 160hp Buell superbike.Whenever it's mentioned on this board they come outta the woodwork exclaiming "there's no need for a bike that we'd never use to it's limits"
So if you can regulate MY desire for a superbike why can't i regulate in the same manner the wasteful use of a 10mpg gas guzzler that contributes way too much greenhouse gas and WASTES fuell??? Why?? |
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:35 am: |
|
Lots of good suggestions, however none will do the trick.
Raise CAFE standards: Great, except that is just a game that the OEM's play with the Gov't. Sure the overall average went up, more sub-compacts, better gas mileage in fleets, better gas mileage in rentals. Nothing to impede your average soccer mom, rap star or global warming hypocrite from getting his/her Escalade.
Increase Gas Taxes: Consumption taxes (e.g. on gasoline)affect the lower and middle classes disproportionately. Unlikely to see the Democrat congress enact something like that. "Progressive" gas taxes, impossible to enact. Plus, will demand really drop, or will we just move a greater portion of our wealth out of our pockets into the government's hands?
Gas Rationing: Only necessary if there is a real or perceived shortage. Demand is pushing the price up, but there is plenty of supply to meet the demand.
Unfortunately, what is really needed is what has worked in the past. Individuals deciding to use less. Some of the most hated social engineering of the '70's is what brought consumption down. Remember the 55 MPH speed limit? Does your bike get better mileage at 55 than 80, mine sure does. Carter took a lot of ridicule for his 68 in winter 78 in summer, but it saves fuel. So does turning off a light when you don't need it. This is probably not going to happen. The days of a united USA selflessly pulling together to accomplish a goal are long gone. The divisions of the '60s & '70s are perfect harmony compared to today. We'll wait for someone else, or perhaps the government to fix the problem until its too late. |
Mikej
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:38 am: |
|
quote:Bomber,there is NO need for a 10mpg behemouth in the hands of a domestic user period.They even endanger users of sub-compact cars when in accidents.
Consider the atypical soccer mom arriving at the soccer field with 9+ kids piling out of said behemouth versus 3 soccer moms arriving at the same soccer field with 3 kids jumping out of each 30+mpg commuter minicar, which scenario is the more efficient use of resources? Comparing 10mpg x 1 behemouth to 30mpg divided by 3 30mpg minicars equals out to the same, but if you believe the EPA and smog interpretors I'm fairly certain that those 3 minicars put out more gross pollutants than the one behemouth.
And as to the traffic accident endangerment issue, to apply your logic, then all "large" vehicles should be regulated off the roadways, buses, trucks, delivery vans, FedEx/UPS/U.S.Mail trucks, dump trucks, and so forth. Or perhaps we should have minicar hours where only cars smaller than some arbitrary gross vehicle weight limit are allowed on the roadways, then other hours where all bigger rigs are allowed. The traffic accident issue is fairly mute and comes down to driver competancy, same with motorcycle crashes I'm thinking.
Granted that I could do better today than driving my 15mpg pickup to work, so if you'll buy it from me I'll gladly go find a more ecnomical vehicle to drive during bad weather or on days I have to haul more than a Buell Messenger bag can carry.
Shoot, here I am getting sucked back into a political discussion, I should know better by now.
Bye.
|
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 10:47 am: |
|
I wasn't aware of any regulation that would keep Buell from making and selling a 160 HP motorcycle. If there is, why doesn't it apply to the Japanese manufacturers? Buell doesn't make a 160 HP bike either for business or technical reasons, or both. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 11:38 am: |
|
What was the news clip about UPS -- they implemented a program that only allows the drivers to make right turns - becuase they are safer. But they also saved alot of money on wasted fuel. Not sure why.
Point is we have the brain power and computers that can increase MPG's. Perhaps a ECU that is linked with GPS to alter maxium power output based on location... Or electronic speedsigns that could control the auto max speed.
Lots of options on the table: we just don't have to use them "now" but at some point we will be forced to use them.
But my neighbor (soccer mom who doesn't hual 10 kids around) did change her mind about buying a new SUV when she had to fill up her husbands Ford truck... Which he doesn't drive to work becuase its too costly.
The fact is Energy prices will not decrease. The choices you make today might COST you a LOT of money a few years from now. So buy that gass guzzler, get that big house, and buy it at least 30 miles from work, BUT don't complain about it. |
Bomber
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:29 pm: |
|
Duc -- I (emphasis on I) have no desire to regulate your habits in any way shape or form -- ya want a 160rwhp scoot, have at it (I think you may be confusing a high level of defensiveness for the Brand with an attempt to regulate, but I've been wrong before)
me, I want folks to leave me to make my own choices (like, and underpowered, not well-known motorcycle {grin}) --
laws don't alter behavior much, in my opinion -- neither do they make technology appear like magic, nor make new technology inexpensive -- your opinions clearly differs from mine, and you wish the right to dictate to others wrt their vehicular purchases -- no foul there, as people disagree all the time |
Sparky
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 12:53 pm: |
|
Make the kids walk to soccer practice. They'll play better in the long run (ha ha, bad pun, sorry). |
Ducxl
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 02:08 pm: |
|
I love this place...you guys' are alright. |
Rainman
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 02:52 pm: |
|
2003 Blast! averaging 66 mpg in stop-and-go daily driving and 73 mpg at 70 mph on highway rides.
Live 5 miles from work.
Back up vehicle is 2004 Toyota Corolla, 25 mpg in strictly city driving, 38 mpg at 73 mph on the highway.
And I'm still torqued about the gas prices, which rise and fall based on oil commodity investors who buy reserves in anticipation of possible hurricanes, refinery shutdowns and wars, then reap the benefits when the costs do go up or sell off when not enough disasters occur to make their profits worth tying up the money.
Oh, well. Gotta do what ya gotta do. |
Midknyte
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:05 pm: |
|
What was the news clip about UPS -- they implemented a program that only allows the drivers to make right turns - becuase they are safer. But they also saved alot of money on wasted fuel. Not sure why.
My guess is less idling waiting to make those left turns and not gunning it to get thru / out of the way (when traffic is tight) |
Tramp
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 04:26 pm: |
|
please don't encourage any more numbnuts to take up motorcycling than the hobby already labours with- i find the average motorcyclist out there to be far more dangerous to my life and limb than the average car river.
keep these dipsh*ts in their 4-wheeled microclimates, and away from our pursuit, please. |
Johnnylunchbox
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 08:37 pm: |
|
MikeJ - I see your point, but the reality is most soccer moms are not filling their SUV's/vans up with kids. They are still using them to drive one or two kids around - a job that would be better left to a smaller more efficient vehicle.
Tommy Black Shark said "What is incredible is that we DID start to conserve. Our consumption went down (per capita) and things were headed in the right direction. Less demand, price goes down and wham! everybody needs a V8 truck or SUV.
The time is long past for the US to find alternative sources (nuclear or something else) for our electricity and then use our own petroleum to run our bikes and cars."
Remember the 80 cent/gallon fuel of the late 80's - easrly 90's? All of a sudden V-8's were in vogue again and SUV's started to become accepted as daily commuters. Remember when only the contractors drove pick-em-ups? We began to reap the benefits of a decade of conservation, and we began to piss it all away again.
Alternative energy sources are not to be jumped into headlong without serious forethought. I'm not even going to get into some of the farces that some people would have you believe will solve our dependance on petroleum.
The bottom line is conservation, population growth restraint, and sprawl control. We are all part of the problem. We need to consider what we can each do to help. There are a million ways. I am not a rabid enviro-terrorist. Believe me, these changes can be made without radically altering our lifestyles. |
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:21 pm: |
|
IMHO, current speculation about higher gasoline prices has a everything to do with last Friday's inventory report. For week 3 of April our domestic gasoline inventory is down about 6 million barrels over the same time last year. In fact you would have to go back to April of '01 to find it at a lower point for the same week. However, and heres the big "IF" the trend over the last 15 years that I looked at indicate that more or less in the mid to end of April, inventories get to a low point. This is indicative of a seasonal change in fuel blends marking the rundown in "winter" gas. In any event from the low inventory levels steadily increase and level off through the summer months, dropping in the fall and staying low until the new year. It should be noted that inventory levels were unusually high in Jan-Feb of '07 (remember our brief flirtation with $1.95/gal.) What does any business do when inventory is too high? I am not at all convinced that gas is going way up. I'll check the inventory numbers this Friday and let you know. |
Ryker77
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 25, 2007 - 09:24 pm: |
|
To add to Johnny, we can either do small steps now and ease into the changes or wake up and be forced to change overnight--- Another Katrina along with some Iran crap and prices will shoot through the ozone! |
Bomber
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 09:57 am: |
|
having re-read my posts, I wish to add that I believe that conservation is a wise choice, that 98 pound drivers in Hummers LOOK silly, even if they're not acting silly, and that we really should be getting our acts together around energy use
all that said, I am still firmly against any further legislation regarding vehical choice/use, with the possible exception of an extension of the gas guzzler tax downward, in terms of minimum mpg
i simply do not trust large groups of humans (read, Congress) to make good decisions |
Midknyte
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 12:11 pm: |
|
can we do away with having to have 397 different blends of gas from our refineries?
back to this, which has always yanked my chain
I firmly suspect and believe that the biggest factor is beauracracy. Each individual state having committees, contracts, studies & numbers, payoffs - times 50...
Honestly we someone ought to out this and raise a big stink. There's no reason I can imagine this can't/shouldn't be homogulated down to a handfull of blends. If there is, go ahead and set me straight. |
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 01:19 pm: |
|
Well its not quite 397 blends, but it is pretty ridiculous. Here is the abstract from the GAO's findings in 2005 regarding special gasoline blends.
Although there is no consensus on the total number of gasoline blends used in the United States, GAO found 11 distinct special blends in use during the summer of 2004. Further, when different octane grades and other factors are considered, there were at least 45 different kinds of gasoline produced in the United States during all of 2004. The 11 special blends GAO found are often used in isolated pockets in metropolitan areas, while surrounding areas use conventional gasoline. EPA models show that use of special gasoline blends reduces vehicle emissions by varying degrees. The extent of reductions remains uncertain, because they rely, at least in part, on data regarding how special blends affect emissions from older vehicles, and these estimates have not been comprehensively validated for newer vehicles and emissions controls. Regarding air quality, EPA and others have concluded that improvements are, in part, attributable to the use of special blends. The proliferation of special gasoline blends has put stress on the gasoline supply system and raised costs, affecting operations at refineries, pipelines, and storage terminals. Once produced, different blends must be kept separate throughout shipping and delivery, reducing the capacity of pipelines and storage terminal facilities, which were originally designed to handle fewer products. This reduces efficiency and raises costs. In the past, local supply disruptions could be addressed quickly by bringing fuel from nearby locations; now however, because the use of these fuels are isolated, additional supplies of special blends may be hundreds of miles away. GAO evaluated pretax wholesale gasoline price data for 100 cities and generally observed that the highest prices tended to be found in cities that use a special gasoline blend that is not widely available in the region, or that is significantly more costly to make than other blends. There is general consensus that increased complexity, and higher costs associated with supplying special blends, contribute to higher gasoline prices either because of more frequent or severe supply disruptions or because higher costs are likely passed on at least in part to consumers.
When the above is translated to English it means that they are pretty sure that special blends of gasoline reduce emissions, but they can't say for sure how much. They were also able to reach consensus that this raises the price, and causes supply difficulties.
Locally (North Georgia Mountains) I have been told that the gas price du-jour depends on where the truck came from. If it comes from Atlanta it is more expensive "Atlanta" gas, if it comes from Chattanooga it is less expensive. My neighbor owns four stations locally and he sets the prices for them based on the supply point. No he doesn't give me a discount, but I get free coffee with a fill-up. (So does everybody else.  ) |
Tommy_black_shark
| | Posted on Thursday, April 26, 2007 - 01:32 pm: |
|
i simply do not trust large groups of humans (read, Congress) to make good decisions
Congress cannot be trusted to act in the best interests of the people of the United States. Both sides of the aisle, liberal or conservative they are a bunch of Bozo's that can't even act on simple things for the benefit of the country. Spend a little time visiting the web-sites of the rank and file. Their main issues are all tied to their local economy. How much pork can I bring home? What can I do to satisfy local business interests? I wonder how much lower our taxes would be, or how much better we could treat our veterans and seniors if Congress wasn't wasting so much?
Rant over, just my $.02  |
|
