Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Cheryl > wrote:
>
>> On 5/11/2011 6:21 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> Pete C. wrote:
>>>
>>>> The "Smart" imported to the US certainly doesn't get 60 MPG. If the
>>>> model there gets 60 MPG perhaps it does it at the expense of not
>>>> meeting US safety or emissions standards and thus can't be imported.
>>>>
>>>> The size thing is certainly an issue in those European cities with
>>>> medieval sized streets.
>>> I certainly wouldn't feel comfortable taking this around my local
>>> highways, forget the gas mileage, how about the Windex??
>>>
>>> http://i53.tinypic.com/2ex94m0.jpg
>> Seriously. That thing could fit in the bed of my modest pickup truck.
>
> I have every intention of purchasing one as soon as my mortgage is paid
> off (next year) and I can afford to make car payments again. I'm seeing
> more and more of them around here as more and more people wise up.
>
> If you have no kids, it makes perfect sense for one to be owned by
> single people or couples.
>
> Especially if your work commute is more than 20 miles.

I wonder why it doesn't get 60 MPG. My 2nd-gen Prius gets almost
60 in warm or hot weather.

--
Jean B.

On May 15, 8:09*am, "Pete C." > wrote:
> George wrote:
>
> > On 5/14/2011 11:55 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > > On Sat, 14 May 2011 20:11:12 -0700, Dan Abel wrote:
>
> > >> But where do you get hydrogen? *Our good friend George Bush got some
> > >> billion dollar appropriation passed for R&D for the production of
> > >> hydrogen -- from fossil fuels! * Big surprise! *As far as I know, all
> > >> commercial production of hydrogen is planned to be from fossil fuels for
> > >> the near future. *There is no other reasonable source at this time..
>
> > > Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe. *And we have
> > > plenty of it in the form of water. *And water power to make the
> > > electricity to the extract the hydrogen from the water.
>
> > It takes a non trivial amount of energy to break the strong oxygen
> > hydrogen bond of water.
>
> Yep, which is why the energy to do so would have to come from an
> abundant clean source such as nuclear or tidal generation in order to
> make the significant losses in the separation and compression of the
> hydrogen acceptable.

Those pesky laws of thermodynamics! Every conversion is lossy.

--Bryan

On 5/14/2011 3:09 PM, Bryan wrote:

> Very true. My favorite car that ever came into the USA is the early 2
> seater Honda Insight, followed by the Geo Metro LSI convertible. I
> want a a 50+ mpg car. I would have bought an Insight had we not been
> in babymaking mode at the time, and our newest car at the time was a
> Jeep Wrangler with no back seat, air conditioning or any other
> goodies.
> From Wikipedia: "The 2000 Insight ranks as the most efficient United
> States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) certified gasoline-fueled
> vehicle ever, with a highway rating of 61 miles per US gallon (3.9 L/
> 100 km; 73 mpg-imp) and combined city/highway rating of 53 miles per
> US gallon (4.4 L/100 km; 64 mpg-imp)."
>
> IMO, the government should provide incentives for plug in hybrids that
> are sold with minimal batteries as standard equipment, the vehicle
> should have the capacity to add batteries that can be made by various
> competing manufacturers, and the batteries should be standardized as
> to size and voltage to fit all the cars that are eligible for the
> incentive. Low upfront cost and the capacity to extend the range at
> the customer's discretion would make the plug in hybrid very
> attractive. Neither the all electric Leaf, nor the Chevy Volt, nor
> the Prius conform to that standard, and are therefore less than
> ideal. The Chevy is absurdly expensive, and from what I gather is not
> expandable, and the Prius, which is the best candidate for that does
> not have banks to hold additional batteries, or a plug in option.
>
> The best platforms for city cars of that sort are the Fiat 500, and
> the Toyota Aygo. Fiat has the cutting edge Twinair engine, and is
> working on ways to incorporate that engine into a hybrid that can
> operate as an electric assisted conventional drive train, which
> combined with the optimized low end torque capacity of the Twinair
> could provide real pep, serious acceleration capacity when needed, and
> the ability to operate fully hybrid when torque demand is low. Toyota
> has the advantage of years of experience with the Prius, and merely
> downsizing the powerplant commensurate with the lower vehicle weight
> of the Aygo--or even the Yaris--would be relatively easy. Again, plug
> in capability with *optional* additional batteries added for extended
> range would meet the needs of many motorists.

I love Fiat. Most Americans think the name means "Fix It Again Tony"
rather than Fabbrica Italiana Automobili Torino but they've always made
driver's cars rather than appliances even though they were priced like
appliances. The Twin-Air system is, as far as I know, the first computer
controlled valve system available in an automobile - which has always
been a dream of engine designers. Whether the system will be adopted by
other manufacturers remains to be seen but Fiat was always innovative in
a practical, usable way.

Hybrids are mostly an intermediate step towards fully electric cars - at
least that's what I figure. The idea of standardized battery packs is a
good one and my guess is that it will be adopted. The thing about fully
electric cars is that it greatly simplifies the automobile and this
might turn cars into generic appliances. No Chevy small blocks, no V8s,
no Hemis, no DOHCs, no turbos. Just kilowatt and voltage and amp
ratings. Well, it sure was fun while it lasted. :-)

>
> There are some smart folks on this NG. Can you find fault with these
> ideas. If so, please correct me. Please show me that there is
> something better, and I'll happily admit that I was incorrect. Then I
> can adopt *your* ideas, and will thank you for making me more correct.
>
> --Bryan

Omelet wrote:
>
> In article . com>,
> "Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Yes, and that's how they are supposed to look, it's called "crumple
> > zones" and it's a protective crash energy absorbing technique that your
> > beloved "smart" car is too tiny to take advantage of.
>
> But the human body cannot take that kind of "crushing". We don't have
> that advantage either.

Obviously you are technologically challenged. Suffice it to say that a
larger car with crumple zones has been well proven to be vastly safer
for the occupants than a tiny car without crumple zones.

On Mon, 16 May 2011 04:20:12 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:

> On Sun, 15 May 2011 18:54:09 -0400, blake murphy wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 May 2011 11:56:38 -0500, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> You want Green - how much greener can you get? I believe hydrogen is
>>> the most abundant in the universe for a reason. When the aliens come
>>> to annihilate us next week - guess what will be in THEIR fuel tanks?
>>>
>>> (I hope they offer to hold a press conference first. I'd like to know
>>> the Whole Story)
>>
>> that would be something like:
>>
>> (ahem) you're screwed.
>
> They'll have to do it in 31 different languages including sign.
> Invoke the Emergency Broadcast System, etc... There's a lot of
> logistics to think about.
>
> It's not all that cut and dried.
>
> -sw

gort did pretty well:

<http://www.freewebs.com/gortindustries/gort_lg.jpg>

your pal,
klaatu

Dave Smith wrote:
>
> On 15/05/2011 9:11 PM, Pete C. wrote:
>
> >>> I've seen no shortage of rolled cars. As I've said, all drivers need to
> >>> be properly trained, and most are not. That is the root of the problem,
> >>> there is no issue with any particular vehicle.
> >>
> >> No one said that cars never roll. Not only have I seen that an
> >> inordinate number of SUVs have rolled, I provided the stats to prove it.
> >> There is nothing to suggest that car drivers have more training than SUV
> >> drivers. It is reasonable to assume that their training and experience
> >> is, on the average, equal. Yet, SUVs and pickups are involved in a far
> >> greater percentage of such incidents in cars. I am still waiting for
> >> you to explain why it is that the drivers these supposedly safer
> >> vehicles require more training if the vehicles are safer, as you claim
> >> they are.
> >
> > I've already explained it three times bozo. Per insurance company
> > statistics you are less likely to be injured in an accident if you are
> > in a larger vehicle. Even if there are more accidents due to poorly
> > trained drivers in larger vehicles, they are still less likely to be
> > injured so the vehicles are safer. If all drivers had actual training,
> > the accident rate wouldn't be higher either.
>
> Yes... BOZO, You have referred to those uncited insurance company
> statistics.

Picy one, they all have the same statistics.

>
> You keep saying that those things are safe and that drivers need to be
> properly trained, but you keep failing to say why it is that the SUV
> drivers need to be better trained while the car drivers have so many
> fewer rollovers with the same level of training.

The same reason that semi drivers need better training.

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> In article .com>,
> Pete C. > wrote:
> >
> >Steve Pope wrote:
> >>
> >> Pete C. > wrote:
> >>
> >> >What exactly does your beloved city provide that I don't have? I've been
> >> >to plenty of cities and haven't seen a single thing that I don't have
> >> >available within 10 minutes of me.
> >>
> >> Culture?
> >
> >Got it within 10min.
> >
> >> Events?
> >
> >Got it within 10min.
> >
> >> I go to between 50 and 70 concerts / musical
> >> performances per year and have been doing so since the 1970's.
> >> It would be almost impossible to do this satisfactorily without living
> >> in a city, or traveling to cities very frequently. Especially if you
> >> also need to work.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >
> >Got it all within 10min
>
> Not credible.

Continue living in your dream world, cities have nothing to offer but
filth, crime and overcrowding. I've got every single worthwhile thing
you have in your beloved city within 10 minutes of me and none of your
city filth, crime or overcrowding.

Pete C. > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> Pete C. > wrote:

>> >Steve Pope wrote:

>> >> I go to between 50 and 70 concerts / musical
>> >> performances per year and have been doing so since the 1970's.
>> >> It would be almost impossible to do this satisfactorily without living
>> >> in a city, or traveling to cities very frequently. Especially if you
>> >> also need to work.
>> >>
>> >Got it all within 10min
>>
>> Not credible.

>Continue living in your dream world, cities have nothing to offer but
>filth, crime and overcrowding. I've got every single worthwhile thing
>you have in your beloved city within 10 minutes of me and none of your
>city filth, crime or overcrowding.

I don't know why I'm bothering replying, but my problem with your posts
is that they are simply repeated assertions of your conclusions, without
any explanation of how you got to those conclusions, much less any
facts that might persuade me (or anyone else) to alter my own
observations on the subject at hand.

IOW you seem intent on telling yourself this, but you're not communicating
anything.


S.

Giusi wrote:
> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
> "Giusi" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Please. How is that different from any other country in the world?
>>> Other
>>> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
>>
>> You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.
>
> I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine
> about gas prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone
> happy with this last round? Of course not. But it does sound
> strange to have the people who pay the least complain the most.

Look at a map.

It's a big country. Most of it is a lot less densely populated than most of
Europe. There is little public transportation outside of certain population
centers. This is partly because we are more spread out, making public
transportation less efficient, but we are spread out partly because public
policy has encouraged road-building and sprawl.

On 16/05/2011 6:08 PM, Janet wrote:
You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.
>>
>> I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine
>> about gas prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone
>> happy with this last round? Of course not. But it does sound
>> strange to have the people who pay the least complain the most.
>
> Look at a map.
>
> It's a big country. Most of it is a lot less densely populated than most of
> Europe. There is little public transportation outside of certain population
> centers. This is partly because we are more spread out, making public
> transportation less efficient, but we are spread out partly because public
> policy has encouraged road-building and sprawl.
>
>
Sure it's a big country, but that doesn't mean that everyone has to
drive long distances all the time.

Cheryl wrote:
> On 5/14/2011 3:10 AM, Pete C. wrote:
>
>> I enjoy mowing, what I don't like is when it rains so much that you
>> can't mow and stuff gets overgrown while you wait for the ground to firm
>> up.
>
> That was me over the past couple of days. My lawnmower is now on it's
> last legs. Last spring and summer I had a kid mow the lawn so I
> didn't inspect it in between for oil levels. By the time I started
> doing it again myself, the oil was almost completely gone. I had it
> serviced this spring and they warned about low oil. I see now that I
> have to add some before each mow. I think this one is just about
> dead. It used to handle the deep grass with it's 6.5 hp engine but
> now it bogs down too much.
>
> We're supposed to get rain every day this week so I can't imagine what
> it's going to take to mow the next time.
If it still runs well, sharpen the blades. It makes a huge difference.

Is it burning oil and smoking? If not, you have a leak - not an engine
problem.

On 5/12/2011 2:46 PM, M. JL Esq. wrote:

> There are some interesting examples of condos on large luxury ocean
> liners that travel various routes around the world.
>
> WHere one can live year round or use as a vacation home, choosing ones
> own length of stay or residency.
>
> http://www.residentialvessels.com/

That would for sure be my dream home. If only..........

Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> Giusi wrote:
>>> "sf" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>>> "Giusi" >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Please. How is that different from any other country in the
>>>>> world? Other
>>>>> than, arguably, a country whose only product is petroleum?
>>>>
>>>> You brought up the subject as if we're not hurting too.
>>>
>>> I posted a link to a news story. But I gotta say, Americans whine
>>> about gas prices that are half what everyone else pays. Is anyone
>>> happy with this last round? Of course not. But it does sound
>>> strange to have the people who pay the least complain the most.
>>
>> Look at a map.
>>
>> It's a big country. Most of it is a lot less densely populated than
>> most of Europe. There is little public transportation outside of
>> certain population centers. This is partly because we are more
>> spread out, making public transportation less efficient, but we are
>> spread out partly because public policy has encouraged road-building
>> and sprawl.
>
> Why are you telling Giusi, an American, about her own country?
>
> Janet UK

Because apparently she had forgotten some basic facts about it and therefore
was asking a stupid and somewhat obnoxiously-expressed question.

Unfortunately, I posted before looking at the rest of the thread. If I had,
I wouldn't have bothered.

On May 16, 9:47*pm, Omelet > wrote:
> In article . com>,
> *"Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > Omelet wrote:
>
> > > In article . com>,
> > > *"Pete C." > wrote:
>
> > > > Yes, and that's how they are supposed to look, it's called "crumple
> > > > zones" and it's a protective crash energy absorbing technique that your
> > > > beloved "smart" car is too tiny to take advantage of.
>
> > > But the human body cannot take that kind of "crushing". *We don't have
> > > that advantage either.
>
> > Obviously you are technologically challenged. Suffice it to say that a
> > larger car with crumple zones has been well proven to be vastly safer
> > for the occupants than a tiny car without crumple zones.
>
> The Smart Car has a crash cage that does not crumple. *It's built the
> same strength and structure that race cars are. *It has multiple air
> bags to make up for the lack of "crumple zones".
>
> If a larger car without a crash cage crumples enough, well, it'll
> crumple the humans inside of it too. *The structure of the Smart Car
> prevents that.

Your ignorance of physics is showing.

> --
> Peace, Om

--Bryan

"Janet" > ha scritto nel messaggio

> Because apparently she had forgotten some basic facts about it and
> therefore was asking a stupid and somewhat obnoxiously-expressed question.
>
> Unfortunately, I posted before looking at the rest of the thread. If I
> had, I wouldn't have bothered.

I have mistakenly been saying that the thing I don't like about Italians is
that they think they can do nothing about anything. They express political
helplessness too often. I must now go and apoliogize to all 60 million of
them, because the Amwericans I thought were "can do" characters are no
tougher.

A lot of poor decisions have been being made over many decades based on a
misperception that petroleum will last forever. Russia and China are big,
too, and Russians and Chinese just don't all have cars, let alone multiple
cars. You ought to be able to get from Florence, SC to Omaha, Nebraska
without a car. You just ought to be able to do that.

Lots of times public transport isn't convenient. If I want to spend a day
in Rome, I have to be on a train at 5:05. I do it. I have a car, but Rome
doesn't need another country mouse in her streets.

When I grew up in America, it was not considered obnoxious to question
political will or social issues.

On 5/16/2011 3:28 PM, Steve Pope wrote:
> Pete > wrote:
>
>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> Pete > wrote:
>
>>>> Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>>>> I go to between 50 and 70 concerts / musical
>>>>> performances per year and have been doing so since the 1970's.
>>>>> It would be almost impossible to do this satisfactorily without living
>>>>> in a city, or traveling to cities very frequently. Especially if you
>>>>> also need to work.
>>>>>
>>>> Got it all within 10min
>>>
>>> Not credible.
>
>> Continue living in your dream world, cities have nothing to offer but
>> filth, crime and overcrowding. I've got every single worthwhile thing
>> you have in your beloved city within 10 minutes of me and none of your
>> city filth, crime or overcrowding.
>
> I don't know why I'm bothering replying, but my problem with your posts
> is that they are simply repeated assertions of your conclusions, without
> any explanation of how you got to those conclusions, much less any
> facts that might persuade me (or anyone else) to alter my own
> observations on the subject at hand.
>
> IOW you seem intent on telling yourself this, but you're not communicating
> anything.
>
>
> S.
He has himself convinced that the tens of millions of folks who happily
choose to live in a city, have a career, raise a family etc all without
a forklift are either stupid or somehow he is totally superior to them.

On 2011-05-17, Omelet > wrote:

> gets 20 to 23 mpg. Mortgage is paid off November 2012.

Wow! Jes in time to have a joint mortgage burning and EOW party!!

nb

On 5/17/2011 6:57 AM, Omelet wrote:
>
> I'll have to check the Fiat crash on the laptop. My mac's old OS is not
> cooperating with some youtube videos. Almost time for me to give it up
> and switch to T-bird<g>.

The word on the street is that Apple don't do Flash. Oh that Apple!

As far as the Fiat crash video goes, it's pretty boring. The nimble Fiat
smoothly avoids the Smartcart and drives off. The Smartcar then crashes
into a concrete barrier at 60 MPH due to substandard brakes. All in all,
it's a poor showing for the Smartcart. Well, that's my interpretation of
what I saw...

>
> If I get the job I'm rooting for, daily commute will be 90 miles round
> trip, mostly freeway. Right now I drive a 1998 Chevy S-10 pickup that
> gets 20 to 23 mpg. Mortgage is paid off November 2012.

I hope you get the job. Sorry to hear of your long commute. My workplace
is about a mile and some change from here. My Hyundai would probably get
a little better mileage on your commute - about 26 MPG. On my commute,
it gets half that! The car has a trip computer and my cumulative average
speed for all trips is something like 11 MPH. Holy smokes!

>
> I'll make up my mind what to get at that point and hopefully, there will
> be more technology to look at at that point, but price will still play
> into it.
>
> I don't do much traveling so commuting and shopping are my main needs.
> Considering a good bicycle at this point for local shopping and I can
> use the exercise.<g>
>
> I plan to keep the truck. It has about 170K on it right now and has
> held up well with good maintenance and full synthetic oil.
>
> Cheers!

"Krypsis" schrieb :
> On 14/05/2011 7:30 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 13/05/2011 4:08 PM, sf wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>> That's why I will not own/drive a fog gray silver car. They are
>>> invisible. I am so scared of being in an accident with one because
>>> they come out of nowhere. It's not the driver's fault, it's the
>>> color. They blend in with the background here (which is usually fog).
>>> The best thing going for them *and me* are those always on headlights.
>>>
>>
>> Do you not have day time running lights there?
>> At one time red cars were supposed to be involved in more accidents than
>> cars of other colours. I did a little web searching and found sites that
>> gave the honour to different colour cars. Apparently silver cars are
>> involved in significantly few accidents than other colours.
>
> That's because owners of silver cars are much more conservative. Almost
> as bad as "accountant" grey!
>
<snort>
I'm driving a silver Z3. In April I was banned from driving in Germany
for being to fa^w conservative ....

> The colour which has the highest visibility is bright orange, especially
> in country areas.
>
The car which has the highest visibility is one with the lights on in fog.

Cheers,

Michael Kuettner

Giusi wrote:


> A lot of poor decisions have been being made over many decades based
> on a misperception that petroleum will last forever.

I fully agree.

>Russia and
> China are big, too, and Russians and Chinese just don't all have
> cars, let alone multiple cars.

Not because of a poitical/societal decision to have excellent public
transportation, though. As they can afford them, Russians and Chinese have
been acquiring all kinds of consumer goods as rapidly as they can.

>You ought to be able to get from
> Florence, SC to Omaha, Nebraska without a car. You just ought to be
> able to do that.

I'm sure that one can. There are trains, busses, and taxis.

> Lots of times public transport isn't convenient. If I want to spend
> a day in Rome, I have to be on a train at 5:05. I do it. I have a
> car, but Rome doesn't need another country mouse in her streets.

The same thing is true of Boston and NYC. It is usually more convenient to
use public transportation within them. It is not true of cities built around
the car, like LA.

> When I grew up in America, it was not considered obnoxious to question
> political will or social issues.

It's not obnoxious to question them. It IS obnoxious to use words like
"whine."

On 5/18/2011 12:17 AM, Omelet wrote:

> The truck is long paid for.<g> But I know what you mean about the EOW!
> It'll seriously **** me off in the afterlife if I pay off the house
> right before EOW on Dec. 21 2012!;-P

Actually, the EOW is 21 Oct 2011. The rapture with the world-wide
earthquake is 21 May 2011. But what time zone? Should we be
watching for the earthquake to start in Asia and gradually move west?

Watch out for those bodies being hurled out of their graves.


I'm just amused by those who put in full page newspaper ads about 21 May
2011.

Omelet wrote:
> In article >,
> Cheryl > wrote:
>
>> On 5/18/2011 12:17 AM, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> The truck is long paid for.<g> But I know what you mean about the
>>> EOW! It'll seriously **** me off in the afterlife if I pay off the
>>> house right before EOW on Dec. 21 2012!;-P
>>
>> Actually, the EOW is 21 Oct 2011. The rapture with the world-wide
>> earthquake is 21 May 2011. But what time zone? Should we be
>> watching for the earthquake to start in Asia and gradually move west?
>>
>> Watch out for those bodies being hurled out of their graves.
>>
>>
>> I'm just amused by those who put in full page newspaper ads about 21
>> May 2011.
>
> I wish I had their money... ;-)

Some enterprising souls have apparently started up
pet-sitting-after-the-rapture businesses and are collecting fees from
evangelicals expecting to be assumed bodily into heaven. Minus their pets.

Janet wrote:
> Omelet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Cheryl > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/18/2011 12:17 AM, Omelet wrote:
>>>
>>>> The truck is long paid for.<g> But I know what you mean about the
>>>> EOW! It'll seriously **** me off in the afterlife if I pay off the
>>>> house right before EOW on Dec. 21 2012!;-P
>>> Actually, the EOW is 21 Oct 2011. The rapture with the world-wide
>>> earthquake is 21 May 2011. But what time zone? Should we be
>>> watching for the earthquake to start in Asia and gradually move west?
>>>
>>> Watch out for those bodies being hurled out of their graves.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm just amused by those who put in full page newspaper ads about 21
>>> May 2011.
>> I wish I had their money... ;-)
>
> Some enterprising souls have apparently started up
> pet-sitting-after-the-rapture businesses and are collecting fees from
> evangelicals expecting to be assumed bodily into heaven. Minus their pets.
>
>
<much chortling here>

--
Jean B.