A question to settle a discussion
From : budd cochran mrd150 preciscom spam net
Q: on sun 29 jan 2006 044754 gmt tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote it is not a matter of driving skill it is a matter physical size and it not fitting. my truck just fits into my garage length wise and it is a standard cab long bed. a crew cab long bed would not fit and a mega-cab long bed would be almost two feet longer than that. i can see how much farther my truck sticks out in a parking space than many of the cars around it and my buddies crew cabs stick out even farther. this mega-cab would stick out another two feet beyond the length of a crew cab long bed and would probably get its nose or tail clipped by other vehicles unless you parked it out in the boondocks taking up two spaces and the turning radius would probably suck as well. then you could add to that the possible negative public opinion of such a huge unnecessary vehicle when we are already in trouble with our current fuel consumption that could kill sales and their investment in this new model which may happen anyway. g neither of the usas big two are in so much trouble that they are being forced into chapter 11 . . . yet! . . . despite the fact that one of gms big pushes this year will be for its big suvs. lol are you so sure of that ford is letting go between 30 000 and 40000 employees and closing 13 to 14 plants. not exactly the picture of health. gm otoh is thinking about eliminating or significantly reducing its dividend and has sold a significant amount of gmac perhaps to force a bankruptcy again not exactly the picture of health. both have lost considerable market share and are continuing to do so. and i already park out in bf at the malls and shopping centers where i can take up two spaces so the front end doesnt stick out. only tough place is the parking garage at the navy hospital where they dont have head to head parking slots ;- and if they came out with the mega-cab long bed you would not be able to park it there at all. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
Replies:
From : beekeep
the fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars. false. this takes into account the amount of waste by trains moving rolling stock to where it is next needed. on top of this is the fuel used by the average commuter just getting from home and back to and from the station. if trains were more energy efficient than cars they could easily compete with the cost of running a car as an alternative. they do here in the states. they would not even need fuel that was subsidised in the uk to a tenth of the price of car fuel and neither would they need huge amounts of public money on top. not that cars ever receive government funding in the form of roads signalling road maintenance rest areas and emergency services right this is a reference to us energy efficiency which does not take account of rolling stock logistics which is well known to be a significant amount of traffic which demands energy which is 0% efficient. in other words it should be added to energy use figures for fuel used per passenger mile. http//www.lafn.org/dave/trans/rail/railenergy.html your document isnt much help at all. while it discusses theory and physics it never comes up with an actual fuel usage versus the automobile. however it is telling that the conclusion is summed up as follows thus one may say that passenger trains are potentially energy efficient but in actual practice such trains turn out to be little more energy-efficient than the automobile. what institution changes are needed to realize the potential of rails inherent energy-efficiency are not clear. thus even the author realizes that trains have the ability to be energy efficient compared to autos. however since no solid numbers are put forth only application of theory with no actual testing it is impossible to say either way based on this document. http//www.transportation.anl.gov/pdfs/rr/261.pdf this document suggests that freight rail can move at up to 400 ton-miles per gallon. trucks and autos will never touch that level. ships will do much better. http//www.atlintracoastal.org/wwfacts.htm about halfway down this page youll find a table noting emmissions from various freight hauling methods. notable is the fact that trucks are a distant third to trains and waterway transit. http//www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mim1215/is9203/ai92284635 this railway age article suggests that ton miles per gallon are much higher at over 700. in the end it appears you did little studying on this issue and with figures suggested such as 400 ton-miles per gallon id say your ship is sunk. a car would have to travel 200 miles on a gallon of fuel to match that. -- max there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote even in the range rover they would cost only 440 or 110 each which is cheaper than the same four would travel by train. you are confusing personal cost with energy efficiency. until you figure out the difference you wont see the error of your thinking. further you seem to be more interested in insulting others rather than thinking about facts. the fact is that trains use more fuel per passenger mile than cars. this takes into account the amount of waste by trains moving rolling stock to where it is next needed. on top of this is the fuel used by the average commuter just getting from home and back to and from the station. if trains were more energy efficient than cars they could easily compete with the cost of running a car as an alternative. they would not even need fuel that was subsidised in the uk to a tenth of the price of car fuel and neither would they need huge amounts of public money on top. this is a reference to us energy efficiency which does not take account of rolling stock logistics which is well known to be a significant amount of traffic which demands energy which is 0% efficient. in other words it should be added to energy use figures for fuel used per passenger mile. http//www.lafn.org/dave/trans/rail/railenergy.html huw .
From : tbone
rachel easson wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. budd i think america let them -- japan they gave technology to -- but japan was already getting german technology -- but the americans bought from them -- i agree it needs to be built here -- not assembled here -- and owned by north americans -- actually in all industries here we need to be doing that whenever we can -- canada too -- we all have plenty of resources but we sell them cheap before we even look at using what we need first and then selling them cheap to our neighbours we need to keep all our industries for ourselves. sorry rachel but that includes canada. gm ford and dc/chrysler need to cut the bonds and let each country fend for themselves. i think there are way too many fat executives at d-c who have forgotten about the average guy -- especially the ones who are going hungry working on their lines -- these guys are having a hard time buying gas or paying for the bus pass -- they really dont care about performance as long as it runs. dc/chrysler was the first in america to offer gasoline subsidies for new owners. its curious that many performance cars from the 60 and early 70s got as god or better economy than the overweight underpowered crap called a automobile today. my 68 road runner 383 auto 3.23 3700 pounds when my mom drove it got 24 mpg highway and 18 mpg around town. my 72 charger 400-2bbl auto 3.23 4100 pounds got 22 highway and 17 around town after i tuned it to 1968 specifications. and i managed to squeeze 41 mpg out of a slant six in a 2400 pound 1964 valiant. all had carburetors not fuel injection. imagine what a decent fuel injection cold have done . . . . the vw bug has had a great comeback. did d-c completely forget about the k car we havent. cheap and reliable cheap parts guarantee all the body and major parts will not change over the next 10 years unless there are faults or necessary improvements to be made hey they have been at this long enough that 90s technology in something like that is a no-brainer -- and use existing common parts already being manufactured here wherever they can. make it in 2 models with interchangeable body panels -- all with bench seats -- 2dr 2 seater club with 3 belts cab hatchback with fold-down seats in the back these should be equipped with lap belts with two sets of hookups for baby carriers auto trans optional awd unless they can do this cheap on all models no power accessories-- 4dr 4 seater with 6 belts hatchback station wagon with rear fold-seats and optional identical fold-down seats with same belts found in the 2dr with optional factory roof rack with built-in extension bars auto trans optional awd optional 4wd luxury editions can have power options -- and call it simply the chrysler k k station wagon k 4x4 -- gotta love those old amc eagles as the epa is allowed to gain power realiability economy and performance will suffer. i never figured out how a car getting 10 mpg and 10% less emissions thats a ten percent reduction of the remaining emissions after the advent of the pcv valve was better than a car getting 25 mpg. btw chrysler ford and gm engineers couldnt figure it out either back in 72. the epa ignored inquiries about it. put their most reliable components in them and build them or begin moving that way yep update the slant six get rid of all the environmental crap that reduces economy and performance and put it in a solid sturdy car. hey .. . . that sounds like my old valiant. this car helped build their reputation -- and how about designing them so the driver can see all four quarters i think minivans are on their way out -- at least in canada recently there was a discussion about vehicle safewty and the mini-van suv factor was ignored. a larger vehicle is simply put a larger hammer in an accident. i wonder if my opponents to s tronger car for jhighway accidents drive minnis or suvs . . . they are doing this in other industries -- what about buy nine get one free -- business incentive -- lets see the police drive around in them grn -- actually was thinking the parking police too but they dont deserve vehicles at all except to get away when someone is trying to assault them vbgrn hmmm must be quebecois gendarmes . . . .vbg how about reducing prices period instead of rebates how about getting the monetary systems of the major world countries back on a precious metal supported system my dad drove his k-car until it turned from beige to pink. his buddys teased him about his mary-k car while many drove expensive cars. he said he never worried about someone dinging him in the park
From : tbone
budd cochran wrote no its about getting america to get off its lard butt and take back its industry but that would mean unions taking wage cuts and the epa being told to shut up and suck on a pine tree. if you want to buy american it needs to be owned and built here. you buy the crap ford and gm puts out. why is it my patriotic duty to subsidize car manufacturers who have contempt for their buyers japan and germany didnt lose ww ii they just waited and bought us off. what does war have to do with it! .
From : ace
ok folks a friend and i were discussing the first generation chrysler electronic ignition. he says you can use one as a transistor ignition module by connecting a set of points to pin # 4. i disagree. theres a 12 pack of pepsi one riding on who is right. thanks folks! if you connect a set of points to pin 4 then you have effectively bypassed the electronic ignition and turned it back into a standard point type ignition since pin 4 is what the big transistor actually controls so you are correct budd. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .
From : budd cochran
just curious. ed .
From : budd cochran
tbone wrote lol what makes you think they are not. some of the countries are poor and cannot afford subsidies for their core export manufacturers. some do subsidise somewhat. an example is the usa some 18 months ago which subsidised their steel industry against perfectly legitimate unsubsidised imports from elsewhere. the us steel industry was/is inefficient but was pretected by import restrictions. this is no longer needed because the price of steel has risen drastically but at the time and when it suited the us it effectively protected its industry. huw .
From : budd cochran
at least my friends wont sting me in a heartbeat. vbg budd beekeep wrote on sun 29 jan 2006 214031 -0700 budd cochran mr-d150@preciscom spam.net wrote ok folks a friend and i were discussing the first generation chrysler electronic ignition. he says you can use one as a transistor ignition module by connecting a set of points to pin # 4. i disagree. theres a 12 pack of pepsi one riding on who is right. thanks folks! budd yeah right like werre supposed to believe you have any friends! beekeep .
From : beekeep
max dodge wrote so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! as i said travel isnt always based on best efficiency or lowest cost. you claimed a train wasnt the least costly or the most efficient and both were proven as assests of rail travel. yeah right. if you miss out most of the costs that i have included yes. if you happen to live and your destination is within walking distance of the station as well yes. otherwise only if you travel alone and in your dreams. in my example the car is only marginally more expensive than train if it carries only one person on the journey. what costs did you add that i did not none. your costs for car travel of 220 miles miles in the uk sounds odd to me..... are you one of the majority of americans who have never travelled outside your border the way you describe your driving conditions and your knowledge of elsewhere surely suggests it. are roughly 30 which seem low given the amount of fuel needed to travel that distance. 4.6 gallons at 50mpg and average for a mid size diesel family car on such a journey today. at uk4 per gallon times two is uk36.80 one thing i forgot with the train was the return journey. another 55 each which tilts the math very decicively in favour of the car even with only one passenger. however with your cost for parking you spend 60 vs. the train at 65. car pooling dewfinitely helps your example. im sure if i added three others to defray my costs i too could do the philly /dc run at about $15 total per person. however if you had 100 people to move cars would not be the efficient way to do it. of course it would be. 20 cars would give a huge financial saving. using two buses would be even more efficient and would yield a massive saving compared to either cars or train. the only disadvantage with 20 cars compared to the train would be the logistics of finding a parking space in european cities. huw once again you are putting personal cost above efficiency which is fine but it does not take away from the efficiency of the train. so how come the rebated fuel train which recieves massive govt subsidy is still more expensive than the humble motor car with our extremely expensive road fuel well you could say that most journies and methods of work could be modified to become more efficient. more home working for instance. it does not improve the maths for when you have to travel though. since your fuel is so much cheaper than ours i think the math works out even more favourably for the car where you are. sadly no it does not. my example was pretty clear. again you are arguing cost to the commuter rather than efficiency of mode of travel. trains are more efficient at moving large numbers of people than autos. if people were willing to spend a bit more and get a bit more service in return rail travel would become more popular. but again popularity is not a measure of efficiency. max dodge wrote no. the carriages of a train are much heavier in relation to payload compared to a five seater family car and a fully occupied family car will be more economical per passenger mile. even with tax rebated fuel and a massive government subsidy on top it is cheaper for five people to travel by car than by train. carriage weight has nothing to do with efficiency. a train is more efficient due to the roadbed and lack of rolling resistance. also a factor is the number of passengers per unit. a car hold six at best while a train is unlimited to a large degree. for me to travel from philadelphia to washington d.c. i must pay for fuel which would be approximately $15 assuming traffic was good. parking in d.c. would cost me $20 for the day if i was lucky. travel time would be four hours or so costing roughly $100 in productive time depending on pay rate/salary. meanwhile a ticket for amtrak would cost $40-$55 for a two hour ride. during the ride i could do paperwork or relax. so trains are a massively utilised transport form in america today yeah right! even with our fuel costs in the uk today and with a massively subsidised railway network it would cost only four people 7.50 each to travel the 220 miles to london. it would cost 55 each by train. parking in london would cost 30 per day while it would cost 10 at the train station but i would need to travel a 80 mile round trip by car to reach the station and come home on top. train 55*4=220 plus two days parking at 10 = 20 is a total of 240 plus getting to and from the station. car 30 and 60 parking = 90 total. that is a 150 saving for four people by car. i do not cost the depreciation and other costs for the car because it is needed to get to the station anyhow. three passengers can relax and do the paperwork while in the car and there are no drunken louts or other distractions to contend with. note i did not include the cost of maintainin