05-20-2009, 10:56 AM
President Ostupid announced that there will be new C.A.F.E. mileage standards for all American manufactured autos.
These new standards will require the fleet average to be 35MPG by 2016. Increases of a minimum 5% per year are expected.
Now the problem here has just a few facets to it.
In order to make a vehicle achieve better fuel mileage there are several things that could be done.
1. Increase engine fuel efficiency (difficult and costly both to develop and manufacture)
2. Decrease vehicle weight. (fairly easy but may come at the expense of size and
gauge of materials)
Weight reduction will surely be the formula until there is no choice but develop new engine technology.
This means that vehicles will be built out of thinner materials to reduce weight BUT, this compromises vehicle crash worthyness. I'll bet Barack and his entoutrage figure that a few extra dead people are well worth "saving the planet". I mean, why not? They're probably smokers who will put a drain on the health care system later anyway!
Size reduction not only shares some of the same factors mentioned above but also carries the limitation of cargo and passengers that it can carry.
Let's do a little math here. In order to produce vehicles that get 35 mpg they must be pretty darn small. (Think smaller that Ford Festiva, GEO Metro etc) Now these vehicles would only seat 2 average sized adults COMFORTABLY and two more cramped in the back. Ok, the statement "But the rest of the world does it!" will appear here but, THIS ISN'T THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!! We have, with the exception of urban/suburban dwellers, greater distances to traverse to access what we need and little if any public transportation available. (Public transportation is another subject all together)
Now let's get to that math......shall we? A vehicle as described above will have the cargo capacity equal to about 1⁄3 of what my Plymouth Voyager mini van has if I remove the rear seat. This would of course be if the little clown car had only the driver in it, the Voyager could still seat 4 comfortably.
So the Voyager gets an average 22 mpg (pretty good for a BIG POLLUTING MONSTER, don'tcha think?) The clown car gets 35. It will take 3 trips to equal what the Voyager will do in one (bear in mind that the mini van will also accomplish this while retaing the 4 person seating capacity.)
Ok Mini van: one trip @ 22 mpg on a trip consisting of 23 miles to the store and return.
Total miles traveled: 46 MPG: 22 Total gallons used for the trip: 2.09
Clownmobile: 3 trips to the same place @ 35 mpg, Total miles traveled: 138 Total gallons used: 3.94
Convert this to the equivalent usage of a vehicle accomplishing the task in just one trip and you get...... 11.67 avg mpg.
This doesn't EVEN factor in that it will be 3 times the tire wear as well as other normal operating expenses (fluids, engine and drivetrain wear) and not to mention mileage devaluation of vehicle trade-in value. As well 3 times the risk of having an accident by virtue of triple the miles driven. It will also mean that it will take triple the amount of time and force you to split the store order into thirds.
Gas savings to "save the planet" and "reduce dependence on foreign oil"? Guess the math shows differently!
Let's examine "save the planet". Yep, burning more fuel to accomplish the task sure does that! (Idiot)
Global warming/climate change is just a vehicle for the powers that be to frighten the public enough into paying more taxes to "saave the planet". How the fuck will paying for carbon offsets save ANYTHING? Answer: It won't!
Guess the "man-made" climate changes THIS time is different from the ones in the past because before it was those damned T-Rexs and Velociraptors driving their SUV's. ::rollseyes::
A bit of biological and climatalogical history:
http://starkravingmad.messageforums.net/its-been-like-this-forever-eh_t278.html
"Reduce the dependence on foreign oil": It reduces the dependence on foreign oil by causing even more oil to be used.(Moron)
Want to reduce foreign oil dependence? LOOK DOWN AND DRILL ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!
How about persuing GM's (already in place by the way) Hydrogen car technology? All that's needed is for the support infrastructue to be put into place (hydrogen refill stations) and they already have a working agreement with Shell Corp. to do just that!
Fuck you libertard "greenies" with your child's eye view of the world. Grow the fuck up and grow a REAL set. All this shit will do is reverse the progress and standard of living achieved so far by a couple of decades. Further....what next? "You can't have that 50 inch TV....it's too big and we think it's wrong to have."? "Oh, you can't eat that. Eat dried beetle dung and rice instead of that nasty steak. It's good for you. If you eat that steak we will punish you by limiting the health benefits we will provide for you" (Thought it was supposed to be UNIVERSAL asshole!)
We already have them making trans-fats "illegal" to consume at fast food restaurants. Now am I against reducing trans fats in the diet. Not really but, don't fucking force me to not eat it by banning it and limiting my choices. ALLOW me to make that choice by providing information. If I chose to eat gobs of it then it's my fucking heart attack and I want it now.
But I digress. Returning to C.A.F.E. standards.
The Prez stated that the extra estimated $1,300 cost added to the vehicle could be made up by the consumer in gas savings over 3 years of ownership. This ASS U MEs of course that you would pay the car off in 3 years and maybe keep it a little longer before making the next vehicle purchase. (Like THAT happens on average!)
Ok....let's see......lower gas consumption (hahahahahahaha) would result in lower tax revenue from fuel taxes. OH NOES!!!!!! Gotta raise the fuel taxes to make up for it. So much for the extra $1,300 being made up!
This shit will only, in the end, line the pockets of politicians
(from both sides of the aisle)
and their lobbiest's cronies. ::fuck::
These new standards will require the fleet average to be 35MPG by 2016. Increases of a minimum 5% per year are expected.
Now the problem here has just a few facets to it.
In order to make a vehicle achieve better fuel mileage there are several things that could be done.
1. Increase engine fuel efficiency (difficult and costly both to develop and manufacture)
2. Decrease vehicle weight. (fairly easy but may come at the expense of size and
gauge of materials)
Weight reduction will surely be the formula until there is no choice but develop new engine technology.
This means that vehicles will be built out of thinner materials to reduce weight BUT, this compromises vehicle crash worthyness. I'll bet Barack and his entoutrage figure that a few extra dead people are well worth "saving the planet". I mean, why not? They're probably smokers who will put a drain on the health care system later anyway!
Size reduction not only shares some of the same factors mentioned above but also carries the limitation of cargo and passengers that it can carry.
Let's do a little math here. In order to produce vehicles that get 35 mpg they must be pretty darn small. (Think smaller that Ford Festiva, GEO Metro etc) Now these vehicles would only seat 2 average sized adults COMFORTABLY and two more cramped in the back. Ok, the statement "But the rest of the world does it!" will appear here but, THIS ISN'T THE REST OF THE WORLD!!!!!!!! We have, with the exception of urban/suburban dwellers, greater distances to traverse to access what we need and little if any public transportation available. (Public transportation is another subject all together)
Now let's get to that math......shall we? A vehicle as described above will have the cargo capacity equal to about 1⁄3 of what my Plymouth Voyager mini van has if I remove the rear seat. This would of course be if the little clown car had only the driver in it, the Voyager could still seat 4 comfortably.
So the Voyager gets an average 22 mpg (pretty good for a BIG POLLUTING MONSTER, don'tcha think?) The clown car gets 35. It will take 3 trips to equal what the Voyager will do in one (bear in mind that the mini van will also accomplish this while retaing the 4 person seating capacity.)
Ok Mini van: one trip @ 22 mpg on a trip consisting of 23 miles to the store and return.
Total miles traveled: 46 MPG: 22 Total gallons used for the trip: 2.09
Clownmobile: 3 trips to the same place @ 35 mpg, Total miles traveled: 138 Total gallons used: 3.94
Convert this to the equivalent usage of a vehicle accomplishing the task in just one trip and you get...... 11.67 avg mpg.
This doesn't EVEN factor in that it will be 3 times the tire wear as well as other normal operating expenses (fluids, engine and drivetrain wear) and not to mention mileage devaluation of vehicle trade-in value. As well 3 times the risk of having an accident by virtue of triple the miles driven. It will also mean that it will take triple the amount of time and force you to split the store order into thirds.
Gas savings to "save the planet" and "reduce dependence on foreign oil"? Guess the math shows differently!
Let's examine "save the planet". Yep, burning more fuel to accomplish the task sure does that! (Idiot)
Global warming/climate change is just a vehicle for the powers that be to frighten the public enough into paying more taxes to "saave the planet". How the fuck will paying for carbon offsets save ANYTHING? Answer: It won't!
Guess the "man-made" climate changes THIS time is different from the ones in the past because before it was those damned T-Rexs and Velociraptors driving their SUV's. ::rollseyes::
A bit of biological and climatalogical history:
http://starkravingmad.messageforums.net/its-been-like-this-forever-eh_t278.html
"Reduce the dependence on foreign oil": It reduces the dependence on foreign oil by causing even more oil to be used.(Moron)
Want to reduce foreign oil dependence? LOOK DOWN AND DRILL ASSHOLE!!!!!!!!!!
How about persuing GM's (already in place by the way) Hydrogen car technology? All that's needed is for the support infrastructue to be put into place (hydrogen refill stations) and they already have a working agreement with Shell Corp. to do just that!
Fuck you libertard "greenies" with your child's eye view of the world. Grow the fuck up and grow a REAL set. All this shit will do is reverse the progress and standard of living achieved so far by a couple of decades. Further....what next? "You can't have that 50 inch TV....it's too big and we think it's wrong to have."? "Oh, you can't eat that. Eat dried beetle dung and rice instead of that nasty steak. It's good for you. If you eat that steak we will punish you by limiting the health benefits we will provide for you" (Thought it was supposed to be UNIVERSAL asshole!)
We already have them making trans-fats "illegal" to consume at fast food restaurants. Now am I against reducing trans fats in the diet. Not really but, don't fucking force me to not eat it by banning it and limiting my choices. ALLOW me to make that choice by providing information. If I chose to eat gobs of it then it's my fucking heart attack and I want it now.
But I digress. Returning to C.A.F.E. standards.
The Prez stated that the extra estimated $1,300 cost added to the vehicle could be made up by the consumer in gas savings over 3 years of ownership. This ASS U MEs of course that you would pay the car off in 3 years and maybe keep it a little longer before making the next vehicle purchase. (Like THAT happens on average!)
Ok....let's see......lower gas consumption (hahahahahahaha) would result in lower tax revenue from fuel taxes. OH NOES!!!!!! Gotta raise the fuel taxes to make up for it. So much for the extra $1,300 being made up!
This shit will only, in the end, line the pockets of politicians
(from both sides of the aisle)
and their lobbiest's cronies. ::fuck::
![[Image: alcatraz-prison-picture2-1.jpg]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b78/lktraz/Sigs%20and%20Avs/alcatraz-prison-picture2-1.jpg)
![[Image: what_manner.gif]](http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b78/lktraz/Sigs%20and%20Avs/what_manner.gif)
![[Image: Zy3rKpW.png]](https://i.imgur.com/Zy3rKpW.png)
