U.S. vs China: The future of efficient automobiles

[Kinslayer]

You know, it would be a lot more useful for engineers/chemists to work on a new type of fuel, or at least a substitute.

Shoving outdated battery technology under the hood (or in the trunk, whatever) isn't a great solution either, especially because it ends up wasting more energy in the production than it saves by being on the road in place of a gasoline vehicle. As well as using outdated battery technology.

Just go back to ****ing diesel. Much better gas mileage.

About the 50 speed limit: It wouldn't work. I live in the Washington Metro area, where speed is capped at 55. People go 75+. All it does is cause MORE danger, as those people who DO go at 55 are in more danger than those going 90.

For the stats people: There are about 250 million cars in the United States. Taking 3.5 million cars off the road would be a decrease of...1.4%. **** YEAH, AMERICA! SAVING ENERGY WITH LIGHTBULBS. Seriously, you have to put stats in context before you try to base any real point off them.

On the topic from the OP, this is ridiculous. All it will end up doing is making car manufacturers put out the same model smartcar design car with low production in 10 different formats to get the average to 42. It won't change anything.

This is like the "clean coal" argument. It isn't ****ing clean, the waste products are just filtered into another medium. It just makes people feel better.

Only problem I have with repiV right now is that people who filter on motorcycles are ****ing douchebags. Obey the rules of the road like everyone else. I'm always tempted to open my door until traffic moves when I see someone do it. Pisses me off. Then again, Virus is arguing like a total arrogant dick as well.

 

[Raziaar]

And this guy? Highly qualified.

All it takes is ONE... I repeat... ONE ****ing person to not pay attention and shift his vehicle for a pointless lane change that accomplishes nothing(which happens ALL the time). I don't care how talented you are, being that close to a vehicle you will have no reaction time if one of those people changes lines suddenly without paying attention. And you would be seriously injured if not killed as a result.

The whole idea of lane splitting goes completely against what you spoke of earlier about not putting yourself in potentially dangerous situations.

A good rider shouldn't ever have to react to something unexpected happening, because they wouldn't have let themselves get into that situation in the first place.

A large part of it is preparing yourself against the "unexpected". Don't travel alongside other vehicles on the motorway. Don't be the last vehicle in the queue - filter to the front so you can't get rear-ended (unfortunately you have retarded laws about motorbikes in the US, and this is illegal). Treat every single vehicle as a potential threat. Make sure you're only in the "killzone" for the smallest amount of time possible.

Don't travel alongside other vehicles on the motorway.

filter to the front

The driver in that video is only in control to an extent. His safety is not a guarantee. All the drivers around him that he's maneuvering past are variables that can perform an action faster than he can possibly react to when he is beside them.

 

[repiV]

Only problem I have with repiV right now is that people who filter on motorcycles are ****ing douchebags. Obey the rules of the road like everyone else. I'm always tempted to open my door until traffic moves when I see someone do it. Pisses me off. Then again, Virus is arguing like a total arrogant dick as well.

I'm busy, so...I'll get back to the rest when I get a chance. Filtering isn't illegal in the UK, in fact it isn't illegal anywhere except in the US (except California), and there is no reason for it to be. In fact, you can fail your UK motorcycle test for NOT filtering if the traffic is really bad.

Why does it make us douchebags? Because you're jealous? Get a bike if you don't like it, every filtering bike is one car that's not on the road holding you up.

All it takes is ONE... I repeat... ONE ****ing person to not pay attention and shift his vehicle for a pointless lane change that accomplishes nothing(which happens ALL the time). I don't care how talented you are, being that close to a vehicle you will have no reaction time if one of those people changes lines suddenly without paying attention. And you would be seriously injured if not killed as a result.

You watch every driver in every vehicle very closely, and pass where they don't have an opportunity to change lanes (where the cars are side by side for example).

Almost my entire 34 mile round trip commuting in London was filtering through solid gridlock or slow moving traffic, and I managed not to get hit once, despite the ever-present lane changers. It's not due to my good luck.

The whole idea of lane splitting goes completely against what you spoke of earlier about not putting yourself in potentially dangerous situations.

Not really. It's only dangerous in America because people don't expect it. In Europe drivers will often actively make room for you to come through.

 

[Raziaar]

You watch every driver in every vehicle very closely, and pass where they don't have an opportunity to change lanes (where the cars are side by side for example).

Almost my entire 34 mile round trip commuting in London was filtering through solid gridlock or slow moving traffic, and I managed not to get hit once, despite the ever-present lane changers. It's not due to my good luck.

Except he was passing by numerous cars that had the chance to perform an entirely pointless lane change that I've seen happen all the time.

Just because you're skilled at something, even if you're the best person on the planet at what you do, does not mean things can happen that are out of your control.

I know it's not related at all, but Space Shuttle Columbia is a good example of how hundreds of people... the best people in their field, the best people at doing what they do, can still be susceptible to things that either slip past their notice, or are beyond their control.

All the hundreds of pairs of eyes observing and monitoring every aspect of the mission, way more closely than you'd be monitoring your surroundings through traffic, and they still missed the thing that caused the shuttle to breakup during re-entry.

Being aware doesn't make you immune, and you're not always going to notice absolutely everything that could do you harm. And even if you do notice it, that doesn't mean you're going to be able to solve the problem in time.

If that were the case, we would have no Space Shuttle Columbia disaster.




I think to say that every single motorcycle death is due to the riders own mistakes and that they caused their own death due to their lack of awareness is an insult. Many of those people died in situations that were beyond their immediate control as they happened too suddenly to be humanly capable of reacting.

 

[repiV]

I never said it was risk free. I said you can manage the risks, and if you've just had an accident I can guarantee that, with hindsight, it could have been avoided. It's not beyond your control.

Absolutely no ****ing point having a bike if you're not going to filter. You might appreciate that more if you lived here and realised it takes over 45 minutes by car to cross Exeter city centre in rush hour (that's about two miles, it's a small place).

I have to change my clothes constantly (in the winter, it takes longer to change in and out of my gear than it does to get to work), I have to get absolutely freezing cold to the point where I can't talk, I'm exposed to much higher risk and all the other disadvantages inherent in biking. In return, I get where I'm going on time and have a bit of fun. All these spiteful, jealous people should ride bikes if they don't like it.

 

[Raziaar]

I never said it was risk free. I said you can manage the risks, and if you've just had an accident I can guarantee that, with hindsight, it could have been avoided. It's not beyond your control.

Absolutely no ****ing point having a bike if you're not going to filter. You might appreciate that more if you lived here and realised it takes over 45 minutes by car to cross Exeter city centre in rush hour (that's about two miles, it's a small place).

I have to change my clothes constantly (in the winter, it takes longer to change in and out of my gear than it does to get to work), I have to get absolutely freezing cold to the point where I can't talk, I'm exposed to much higher risk and all the other disadvantages inherent in biking. In return, I get where I'm going on time and have a bit of fun. All these spiteful, jealous people should ride bikes if they don't like it.

My argument hasn't been against bikes or lane splitting/filtering.

It was your claim that there is nothing inherently dangerous about a motorcycle that I took issue with.

And I don't see how you can convince me otherwise.

Sure, a motorcycle is safe as long as you operate it in an entirely safe manner without flaw, as is the case with anything. But the instant something goes wrong, they are considerably more dangerous for the rider than an automobile is for the driver.

 

[repiV]

I don't dispute that. It's part of the attraction, after all...

However, in a study of police response drivers and police motorcyslists (both very highly trained in the UK), they found that the drivers had slightly more accidents per mile, and the motorcyclists slightly more injuries per mile. Averaged out, the risk was about the same. And you'd have to be some kind of riding god to keep up with a police biker.

But bikes don't suffer fools as well as cars.

 

[Krynn72]

Speed limits should be about safety and nothing else.

Whats that got to do with what I said?

 

[Saturos]

You know, it would be a lot more useful for engineers/chemists to work on a new type of fuel, or at least a substitute.

Shoving outdated battery technology under the hood (or in the trunk, whatever) isn't a great solution either, especially because it ends up wasting more energy in the production than it saves by being on the road in place of a gasoline vehicle. As well as using outdated battery technology.

Just go back to ****ing diesel. Much better gas mileage.

About the 50 speed limit: It wouldn't work. I live in the Washington Metro area, where speed is capped at 55. People go 75+. All it does is cause MORE danger, as those people who DO go at 55 are in more danger than those going 90.

For the stats people: There are about 250 million cars in the United States. Taking 3.5 million cars off the road would be a decrease of...1.4%. **** YEAH, AMERICA! SAVING ENERGY WITH LIGHTBULBS. Seriously, you have to put stats in context before you try to base any real point off them.

On the topic from the OP, this is ridiculous. All it will end up doing is making car manufacturers put out the same model smartcar design car with low production in 10 different formats to get the average to 42. It won't change anything.

This is like the "clean coal" argument. It isn't ****ing clean, the waste products are just filtered into another medium. It just makes people feel better.

Only problem I have with repiV right now is that people who filter on motorcycles are ****ing douchebags. Obey the rules of the road like everyone else. I'm always tempted to open my door until traffic moves when I see someone do it. Pisses me off. Then again, Virus is arguing like a total arrogant dick as well.

^Epic win

Kinslayer takes this argument hands down imo.
Exactly what I've been saying about hybrids all along in other threads:

"Hybrids are like adult diapers. They don't really accomplish anything, but they make people feel better about the mess they're making."


Maybe they do get better gas mileage, but they don't solve the pollution problem. All those pollutants are just stored in a battery, waiting to be tossed away in some landfill when it dies.

@ Everyone who thinks hybrids are environmentally friendly,

^Epic fail

Hydrogen fuel cells are where it's at. Car companies need to forget about shitty hybrids and focus more on hydrogen tech.
Honestly, some people really make me LOL. It's arguments like these when I feel like I'm the only intelligent being on the planet sometimes.

 

[Krynn72]

If it doesnt totally 100% solve the problem then its not worth doing amirite guise!

 

[Raziaar]

If it doesnt totally 100% solve the problem then its not worth doing amirite guise!

When Jesus turned water into wine, it wasn't a three step process!

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

I am from the planet Sometimes and I take offence to that!

 

[Eejit]

If it doesnt totally 100% solve the problem then its not worth doing amirite guise!

Exactly, we don't need to do anything until we've finished researching Future Tech 1, then we can have Workers clean up the pollution.

 

[Farrowlesparrow]

Nobody wants to play Civ with me since I used nuclear weapons.

 

[VirusType2]

@ Everyone who thinks hybrids are environmentally friendly,

Maybe they do get better gas mileage, but they don't solve the pollution problem.

Maybe they do get better gas mileage, but they don't solve the pollution problem.

Maybe they do get better gas mileage, but they don't solve the pollution problem.

Epic fail

Honestly, some people really make me LOL. It's arguments like these when I feel like I'm the only intelligent being on the planet sometimes.

Oh loorrrd.

I'm not done here, I'm taking a break from the chore of teaching fools. You know you can easily get 40-100mpg in hybrids? And the engine doesn't even idle, it turns off unless needed. Enjoy rush hour guys.

Yeah, I've got a friend that got about 8-10 mpg in his car. Well, I used to, and he used to, he died in a car accident from speeding into a tree.

He was only 18. Very sad funeral.

 

[repiV]

You don't even live in USA. I've never been to Europe and haven't seen any of the road systems there, so how could I even argue one way or the other for a speed reduction on highways. That's why I'M NOT. You are trying to regulate OUR highway speeds.

Your highways are much wider and straighter, with many more lanes and far less traffic than any you'll find in Europe. Which makes such speed restrictions even more ridiculous. None of our motorways are completely straight (indeed, they're designed not to be so as to keep people from falling asleep) and a few of them have fairly severe bends.

And the rule of 85th percentile speed still applies wherever you are in the world. Setting speed limits that are too low is dangerous, and this has been an accepted fact for decades.

I think that most people - once examining the facts, would go for this; grudgingly - it is a sacrifice. But it's irresponsible and stupid not to. Or else were all going to be paying three times what we pay now for fuel in our lifetimes. I seriously believe this would make all the difference. And not to mention the pollutants and deterioration of the quality of life on Earth. Especially once China gets in the game.

Everything we do uses oil. The travelling speed of motor vehicles is a mere drop in the ocean. You're also ignoring the fact that people don't obey speed limits that are too low. In fact many studies have shown a drop in the speed limit is followed by an increase in traffic speeds, because if the speed limit is considered roughly fair people will obey it. If not, they have no respect for the limit.

I'm also not remotely convinced that travelling at 60mph instead of 50 would give an extra 50% fuel economy. I've read numerous things over the years which suggest that the most efficient speed is between 56 and 75mph. Also, not only is the travelling speed of motor vehicles a drop in the ocean, the cruising speed of them on the motorway is doubly so. It's the most efficient kind of driving by far, even at 90+mph. City driving and rural roads are far less economical.

On top of all this, there's the (very important) liberty aspect. Speeding is a criminal offence. In this country, you can lose your license - which can easily ruin your life - for a few minor offences or one larger offence if they decide to prosecute. It isn't only financial.

This is unjust enough already, considering that there is no requirement to prove danger in a speeding case, let alone convicting someone of a crime because they didn't pay enough respect to fuel economy! An absurd situation.

They'd have to leave earlier - however, the way I see it, there would be less accidents - and less severe ones - to jam up traffic along the commute. I realize you argue that 10 MPH less is the deal breaker and is what will lose the brain's attention, but you've yet to prove that. Maybe you are speaking for yourself here. I've never had any problem maintaining my attention while driving, and I have ADHD.

I guarantee that there would not be less accidents. As I've explained multiple times, speed limits on motorways around the world vary wildly and so do the accident rates. Yet there is no correlation between them. Your highways are the most dangerous, and also the slowest, in the developed world. Go figure. If you need any further proof, check out the study of what happened when Montana got rid of daytime speed limits on highways altogether. Markedly less accidents!

I don't think 10mph less is necessarily the deal breaker, 60mph is far too slow as it is. I think we probably have a different definition of "attention". I observe every single driver of every single vehicle and have my mind on absolutely nothing except my riding. I would be incapable of holding a conversation at the same time. It would be impossible to maintain this level of concentration at a speed that was significantly too low for the conditions.

This doesn't mean I need to be going like a bat out of hell, 85-90mph is generally fine. Much higher gets physically and mentally tiring for long periods. The wind noise at 100mph is as loud as a pneumatic drill.

It's also not just about the alertness aspect, but the effect on traffic flow. Speed limits that are too low cause bunching, putting more vehicles in closer proximity to each other with no escape routes and increasing tailgating. Letting people travel at their own speed eliminates this problem, and most of the danger that is found on a multi-lane road.

I seriously can't believe some of the things you say. What universe are you from?

How much do you pay for fuel there? How much did you pay 10 years ago. How much do you expect to pay 10 years from now?

The stuff that comes out of the pump is the same stuff that powers your TV, manufactures your phone and generates the electricity for hybrid cars. Picking on cars alone is just ignorant.

If you take just one intercontinental flight in a year, you'll use more energy taking that one flight than I do for everything in that year. I haven't flown in a passenger jet since I was nine so I think I have more than a few "carbon credits" to use up.

I didn't ignore any rules.

If you want to avoid accidents, you did. You didn't demonstrate that travelling at a higher speed is dangerous, all you showed is that you didn't know when to slow down.

My point was simply, the faster you go, the greater the statistical chance of injury or death for you and everyone around you. There is gravity and physics here on Earth where I live. We are just bags of meat and water.

Your point is wrong. Driving is first and foremost about psychology, not physics.

I can't tell you much about foreign highways, but from a TV special on the Autobahn, it is said that it is the most advanced road system in the world - its monitored by a control tower and has computer controlled signs. There is a large number of safety measures. It's simply not practical for all roads to have this.

Some of our motorways are monitored by a sophisticated network and have computer controlled signs. These things are pretty irrelevant as far as being safer at speed goes.

Have you ever seen an Autobahn? They're very narrow, and there are only two lanes. So the speed differential between lanes is often approaching 100mph. Yet somehow they manage to be twice as safe as you guys on your wide slow highways. Because it's not about the speed, it's about the driving.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6CjyPpoqVg

With no speed limit there - at 200 MPH (a speed someone like you might dare obtain), 32 times more power is required to combat air drag.

It's consuming an exorbitant amount more fuel to do the same task - point A to point B. At one time in the world, this road system might have been a good idea to save time, but I think it will end up being driven much more slowly in the near future.

And if people were allowed to drive their vehicles at speeds that do them justice, maybe they wouldn't need to take so many flights.

I don't have any problem paying attention at 50 miles per hour, or at any speed.

People that can't pay attention at 50 mph because it's too boring? So you are saying that if everyone white knuckled and raced around everywhere, the roads would be safer?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't white knuckle or race around anywhere. There's a middle ground between driving like your grandma and being a boy racer.

And they wouldn't fall asleep if they were driving 10 MPH faster? Good luck proving that.

Less people would die if they were driving 10MPH slower and they fell asleep.

They wouldn't fall asleep or lose concentration if they were driving at a speed that demands their full attention, which will depend entirely on the individual but is highly likely in most cases to be a lot higher than 50mph.

You are seriously trying to convey that 10 MPH is the difference between getting somewhere in a hurry and going at a walking pace.

No. 60mph is also walking pace on a road of such calibre.

Whats that got to do with what I said?

There is nothing inherently unsafe about travelling in excess of 100mph, which suggests that your "pros and cons" argument is at least partially about other factors.

 

[Eejit]

Aren't speed limits more to do with the chances of fatality in event of a crash rather than just the likelihood of a crash happening?

 

[repiV]

It's a silly argument for speed limits, as the ultimate logic of that line of reasoning can only ever be to reduce speed limits so far that there is no possibility of ever getting hurt in the event of an accident. Which would defeat the point of having cars in the first place.

Travelling has never been safer than it is today, so why the need for all this restrictive nonsense. 3000 people a year die on British roads, it's an unbelievably low amount considering the amount of journeys made.

 

[Eejit]

That's a slippery slope argument. If the speed limits are determined by statistical analysis of the chance of fatality against different speeds there's no reason to think it would inevitably continue to decrease.

You don't think that perhaps the restrictive nonsense might have a role to play in having such a relatively low number of road deaths? It's certainly the intention.

 

[repiV]

That's a slippery slope argument. If the speed limits are determined by statistical analysis of the chance of fatality against different speeds there's no reason to think it would inevitably continue to decrease.

They're not, though. Speed limits in the UK are set by the 85th percentile speed - ie. the speed at which 85% of traffic does not exceed. The exception being that recently local authorities have been allowed to set whatever speed limit they feel like, and the national speed limit which was imposed as a kneejerk reaction to a spate of crashes in fog on the M1, and car manufacturers testing out their top speeds on the motorway. The 70mph limit was entirely arbitrary, and based on the top speed of the most popular car of the time.

If it was based on the chances of a fatality, then motorway and dual-carriageway speed limits would be far higher than they are, seeing as there is no chance of a head-on collision or impact with a tree. Rural roads account for 66% of fatalities, whereas motorways only 3%...

Personally, if we're talking hypothetical accidents, I'd sooner fancy my chances being clipped by a car going down the motorway at 90 and sliding down the tarmac than I would plowing into the side of a car turning across my path at 30.

You don't think that perhaps the restrictive nonsense might have a role to play in having such a relatively low number of road deaths? It's certainly the intention.

No. The low number of road deaths is due to the quality of our driving and driver training. Our speed limits have always been interpreted creatively until recently anyway, the NSL sign commonly understood to mean "no speed limit". And we were told as such when I did my BikeSafe day with the police riders, observe the posted limits but ride as fast as you like in the NSLs.

The downward trend in road deaths has halted since the introduction of speed cameras and all this "speed kills" bull. We have gone from having the safest roads in the world to being only 5th or 6th.

 

[Saturos]

If it doesnt totally 100% solve the problem then its not worth doing amirite guise!

Indubitably.

Half-assed tech pisses me off, and quite literally, hybrids are half-assed.

 

[Raziaar]

Indubitably.

Half-assed tech pisses me off, and quite literally, hybrids are half-assed.

I don't think he was being serious.

Technology doesn't usually go from 0-60 instantly.

 

[Saturos]

I don't think he was being serious.

Technology doesn't usually go from 0-60 instantly.

Research could go faster though if our world wasn't filled with a bunch of selfish, greedy humans who only care about money.

 

[gFrohman]

Research could go faster though if our world wasn't filled with a bunch of selfish, greedy humans who only care about money.

I agree.

Hybrids I believe are a step in the right direction, but right now there's not enough people in the government willing to spend on research for better, more efficient cars since big oil has it's hand in the pockets of our legislators.

As for the whole speed limit deal, we can only have the speed limits as high as the highways can take. It's a matter of physics - a road is built with a slight slope to accommodate fast-moving vehicles, up to a specific speed (otherwise they go flying); that's why you can go crazy fast on the Autobahn; it's built for those high speeds, unlike US highways, which can only accommodate up to about 80mph. In order to accommodate faster traffic, the roads would have to be redesigned to make it safer. But I seriously doubt that fooling around with the speed limits will solve the gas problem - all cars behave differently and have different gas mileages and older cars might not be able to keep up with higher speeds, creating a new hazard (after all, a slow driver is just as hazardous if not more than a fast driver). We have to build cars that are more fuel-efficient or move to a new fuel system altogether.

Or build transporters. Or jetpacks - that would be awesome.

 

[Stigmata]

I support hydrogen fuel cells. The common counter-argument is "But you have to get all that energy from power plants that are bad for the environment!" The solution is to move to clean power across the board. And then the slight loss of energy in the transfer from power-grid electricity to stored hydrogen is your only enemy.

Continue.

 

[repiV]

As for the whole speed limit deal, we can only have the speed limits as high as the highways can take. It's a matter of physics - a road is built with a slight slope to accommodate fast-moving vehicles, up to a specific speed (otherwise they go flying); that's why you can go crazy fast on the Autobahn; it's built for those high speeds, unlike US highways, which can only accommodate up to about 80mph. In order to accommodate faster traffic, the roads would have to be redesigned to make it safer.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense, high speed vehicles are not going to go flying out of control on the US highway or on any other straightish piece of road barring those with very severe gradients.

 

[VirusType2]

I support hydrogen fuel cells. The common counter-argument is "But you have to get all that energy from power plants that are bad for the environment!" The solution is to move to clean power across the board. And then the slight loss of energy in the transfer from power-grid electricity to stored hydrogen is your only enemy.

Continue.

Hydrogen powered? I'm intrigued. It's something I've heard almost nothing about.

 

[Raziaar]

Believe it or not, Bill O'Reilly of all people is standing behind this. Against most of his fellow conservatives.

He was arguing about it with Laura Ingraham on his show last night. At least the rerun of his show I caught last night anyway.

(I occasinally watch O'Reilly and Hannity just to say I balance myself out since I mostly watch MSNBC... Chris Matthews... Keith Olbermann... Rachel Maddow.

 

[Escaep]

Hydrogen powered? I'm intrigued. It's something I've heard almost nothing about.

When I was at the auto show two years ago the focus on new technology seemed to be fuel cell. This past January when I was there the focus shifted to electric and hybrid technology. Why? Its not that the technology isn't there, it is the infrastructure in the US that is lacking. We rode in a fuel cell car made by GM in the bottom floor of the Cobo hall, and it rode amazing. It was super quiet, and had a fairly good acceleration. The thing is, Hydrogen isn't exactly easy to pump. I don't remember the exact measurement but the guy told me that you need several thousand PSI to be able to pump hydrogen into the car. With this, you need to construct entirely new "gas" stations, and we are talking about millions of these. Maybe, if we started now converting tanks, we could have a usable number of stations converted in 10-15 years.

But, each car right now is upwards of $1m in price.

 

[Saturos]

There's a city in Oregon U.S. right now that has a bus-line who's entire fleet is completely hydrogen powered. Why not just build upon that technology? Also, the industry needs to quit being so damn lazy/greedy and start plopping hydrogen fuel stations across the map.

 

[xcellerate]

But, each [hydrogen] car right now is upwards of $1m in price.

You can get a honda clarity 36 month lease right now for $600/month.

 

[Rico]

If freedom of movement is a waste, and travelling is a waste - being one of the most valuable freedoms and one of the most enriching life experiences, then the whole of modern life may as well be a waste.

The car has contributed more to society than the television or the computer ever will. A true miracle of the modern world. Not only for mobility, but it allows the average person to be able to travel anywhere they like, easily.

I just can't understand the ridiculous anti-car mentality so prevalent these days. Nor can I understand why city dwellers seem to be directing transport policy.

The only mentality in this thread is your apparent lack of mental power at understanding a single basic point: Nobody in this thread is arguing for sports cars, or motorcycles, or any of the stupid crap you are interested in defending, to be banned. You came into a thread whining about PROGRESS being made towards more energy efficient cars. Hybrids and electric cars used to go mighty slow before technology advancements made them faster and better. It stands to reason that research will drive both ends of the spectrum, speed, and energy efficiency, forward.

The fact that your poor "mong" brain is too small to comprehend that efficiency/performance are not opposite sides of one coin, is what is causing people to look down at you. All you seem to talk about is your motorcycle, and how much better you seem to think you are compared to everyone else who doesn't drive one. Your posts reek of the kind of ridiculous egotistical BS of someone whose head is so far up their ass they're tasting last night's dinner.

Seriously. I love HL2.net, but every time I see one of your posts and the word "motorcycle" in them, I cringe in anticipation of the torrent of bullshit that will follow soon after it.

Have a nice day.

 

[Rico]

And this guy? Highly qualified.

M6 motorway

Highly qualified? Really? This guy, and you, if you look up to him, are the idiots causing the "high biker mortality rate" to begin with.

Let me put it in a way a nitwit like you can understand, as you claim to never have driven a car yet you seem to COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND everything about them and related to them in any way shape or form.

1) When someone in a car, with cars in front of him and trucks around him, is driving, you tend to notice things by seeing movements in your mirrors/corner of your eye. An object going at high speed passing between your car and a truck missing you by near INCHES is NOT good for driving. It startles the driver, possibly causing them to steer away from the object to avoid collision.

2) The closer you are to a moving vehicle, being piloted by a human being, who could at any point sneeze, cough, yawn, whatever, the more danger you face. This applies to any vehicle. How are you going to react if the guy in the truck has a wedgie and he swerves his truck just enough to the right to hit your bike? You will not only get hit by his truck doing this stupidity, but you will also be hitting the INNOCENT car to your right because of your idiotic need to get wherever you're going slightly faster. Way to go champ, you have potentially killed yourself and at least one other human being. But you looked damn cool doing it man!

3) You are a ****ing moron, I'm glad you're not driving your piece of crap crotch rocket near me, as you are a menace to anyone else driving around you. I only hope that when something major DOES happen to you, you don't kill anyone else in the process.

I'm sorry but that's nonsense, high speed vehicles are not going to go flying out of control on the US highway or on any other straightish piece of road barring those with very severe gradients.

Ignorance at its finest.

What facts fo you have to back up your statement? Do you live in the US? Have you driven a car in an US highway? Apparently in your world:

psychology plays a larger role in driving than do the laws of physics.

I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but in the US, without friction you're not going to be driving anywhere. Much to that effect, I drive through 3 major highways on my 45 minute commute to work every single day. Out of these 3 highways, 2 of them are a mess of potholes, road work and accidents. Added to that, these highways also change in number of lanes throughout my commute, so I can go from a 3 lane highway, to 2 lanes, to 4, back to 2, and so forth, all within 10 minutes. If the speed limit on these roads were higher than 60, we'd have a lot more accidents.

The other road which is 2 lanes throughout and paved smoothly and in a wide open space is a tollway, and the speed limit is 70MPH.


Speed limits are set by ENGINEERS who often times designed the road themselves. They know FAR MORE about the roads than your dimwitted skull will ever know about it, regardless of how much you drive on it. They use science and physics, you know, those things they used to build your bike, to decide what the speed limit should be on the road. The limits can later be adjusted, but they will never be set higher than a qualified engineer approves.

 

[Escaep]

You can get a honda clarity 36 month lease right now for $600/month.

Cool, they came down a lot in price. My dad drove one out at the Kennedy Space Center a while back, and it was worth over $1m.

 

[repiV]

The only mentality in this thread is your apparent lack of mental power at understanding a single basic point: Nobody in this thread is arguing for sports cars, or motorcycles, or any of the stupid crap you are interested in defending, to be banned. You came into a thread whining about PROGRESS being made towards more energy efficient cars. Hybrids and electric cars used to go mighty slow before technology advancements made them faster and better. It stands to reason that research will drive both ends of the spectrum, speed, and energy efficiency, forward.

The fact that your poor "mong" brain is too small to comprehend that efficiency/performance are not opposite sides of one coin, is what is causing people to look down at you. All you seem to talk about is your motorcycle, and how much better you seem to think you are compared to everyone else who doesn't drive one. Your posts reek of the kind of ridiculous egotistical BS of someone whose head is so far up their ass they're tasting last night's dinner.

Seriously. I love HL2.net, but every time I see one of your posts and the word "motorcycle" in them, I cringe in anticipation of the torrent of bullshit that will follow soon after it.

Have a nice day.

Hello, obnoxious prick. I'm not complaining about progress towards energy efficient vehicles, as long as that comes from development and not legislation. Don't know who put a cock up your arse but you really need to STFU.

Highly qualified? Really? This guy, and you, if you look up to him, are the idiots causing the "high biker mortality rate" to begin with.

Let me put it in a way a nitwit like you can understand, as you claim to never have driven a car yet you seem to COMPLETELY UNDERSTAND everything about them and related to them in any way shape or form.

Says he who is claiming to know everything about riding a bike safely.

1) When someone in a car, with cars in front of him and trucks around him, is driving, you tend to notice things by seeing movements in your mirrors/corner of your eye. An object going at high speed passing between your car and a truck missing you by near INCHES is NOT good for driving. It startles the driver, possibly causing them to steer away from the object to avoid collision.

That's because, if you watch the video, he's not passing at high speed, you stupid ****wit. Which would indeed be suicidal. He is in fact crawling past, in an entirely legal manner that any expert instructor would teach you.

2) The closer you are to a moving vehicle, being piloted by a human being, who could at any point sneeze, cough, yawn, whatever, the more danger you face. This applies to any vehicle. How are you going to react if the guy in the truck has a wedgie and he swerves his truck just enough to the right to hit your bike? You will not only get hit by his truck doing this stupidity, but you will also be hitting the INNOCENT car to your right because of your idiotic need to get wherever you're going slightly faster. Way to go champ, you have potentially killed yourself and at least one other human being. But you looked damn cool doing it man!

Oh, right, so in the unlikely event of your hypothetical situation occuring, that would be my fault for exercising my legal right to make progress and not the fault of the truck driving for hitting me.

Actually...no. The truck driver would be found to be 100% at fault.

3) You are a ****ing moron, I'm glad you're not driving your piece of crap crotch rocket near me, as you are a menace to anyone else driving around you. I only hope that when something major DOES happen to you, you don't kill anyone else in the process.

Like I said, filtering is entirely legal and not unsafe when done properly. So **** off. If it was unsafe I wouldn't do it, because believe it or not I like living. Hope you never have to drive in Europe, you'll be getting very angry every time a bike goes past you and you're stuck in an hour long traffic jam. Wouldn't want you to have a heart attack now.

Ignorance at its finest.

What facts fo you have to back up your statement? Do you live in the US? Have you driven a car in an US highway?

Cars don't just fly off straight roads from travelling at speed.

If that were the case, I and many others would have been forcibly ejected from many a 100 year old rural backroad by now. Fortunately such a phenomenon has never actually occured.

Apparently in your world:



I don't know how things work in your neck of the woods, but in the US, without friction you're not going to be driving anywhere. Much to that effect, I drive through 3 major highways on my 45 minute commute to work every single day. Out of these 3 highways, 2 of them are a mess of potholes, road work and accidents. Added to that, these highways also change in number of lanes throughout my commute, so I can go from a 3 lane highway, to 2 lanes, to 4, back to 2, and so forth, all within 10 minutes. If the speed limit on these roads were higher than 60, we'd have a lot more accidents.

I don't know any motorways at all which are a mess of accidents, not even the M25 London Orbital Car Park. Maybe you people are just utterly shit at driving, which would explain why you think anyone getting somewhere quicker than you is a dangerous menace because you are unable to relate it to your highly limited skillset.

The other road which is 2 lanes throughout and paved smoothly and in a wide open space is a tollway, and the speed limit is 70MPH.


Speed limits are set by ENGINEERS who often times designed the road themselves. They know FAR MORE about the roads than your dimwitted skull will ever know about it, regardless of how much you drive on it. They use science and physics, you know, those things they used to build your bike, to decide what the speed limit should be on the road. The limits can later be adjusted, but they will never be set higher than a qualified engineer approves.

Uhu, the 55mph speed limit back in the day was set by that president who is also an engineer.

You really are the worst possible example of an obnoxious American twat. Your manner is vile and you think because things are done differently elsewhere that the American way must be correct. You're an idiot and an unpleasant one at that.

 

[VirusType2]

Pot, meet kettle.

 

[repiV]

So how do you figure that then? I'm not obnoxious and I'm not ignorant either. You've ignored many valid points of mine supported by fact which you don't have an answer to. Rico doesn't even have any valid points in the first place.

More importantly, he acts like he's about 12.

 

[VirusType2]

RepiV,

The road is your playground. The thrill of speed is what you get your high on. You are an addict. Any remote threat of losing this addiction - even the discussion of it - makes you extremely defensive, protective and angry.

This is a normal human response.

We all know what happens when we discuss taking away video games from a video game addict. Look in any thread about Jack Thompson and you'll see that.


My addiction is sex. Try to take that away from me and you may be in for a fight to the death.




I won't claim to be the authority on cars, but let me say I've been driving cars for 18 years. I've been a racing fan since I was about 5 years old (about 30 years).
During that time, every car I've owned has been a sports car.

I've driven a large number of other vehicles like vans, pickup trucks, sedans, economy cars, and motorcycles, 3 wheeled and 4 wheeled ATV's, even go-karts


I'm a great driver; in my cars I drive with a combination of aggressive and very defensive techniques, probably much like you.

I've never been in an accident of any kind.





Stay with me now:

I've studied quite a bit about the physics involved in operating a car, including the physics involved when operating a car to its limits.

Many of these things I have learned can be applied to any tire based vehicle, however I don't claim to be an authority on all things with tires.





Being a motorcycle operator, obviously you have a very light vehicle.

Knowing that the vehicle's extreme light weight should make it extremely fuel efficient, you stated that you couldn't understand why you get such poor gas mileage.


When I explained it to you using proven formulas that are well known fact, you agreed at first - yes, 'my body completely ruins the aerodynamics of a bike', you admitted.



It is sometimes called air resistance. This is something you can feel. When you are speeding at 100 miles per hour on your bike, you can feel the wind holding you back. If you were to stand up, you would be blown right off your bike, regardless of the fact that you might weigh 180 lbs.

This is where your fuel is going. Wind resistance is sapping your power and fuel economy. Your bike requires many times more power and fuel to counter this force of air resistance.

You can feel this force is already quite powerful at 65 mph. Anyone who has put their hand out of the window of a car knows about aerodynamics, and the force of wind having its effects on your arm and hand.




After initially agreeing that air resistance (drag) is an important factor in fuel economy, later in the thread you disputed that it would make much of a difference.




Then you argued that the billions of cars on the road getting better gas mileage isn't even important at all, "it's a drop in the bucket", you called it several times, and that's about the time I realized I was talking to a brick wall - I felt like I was trying to explain evolution to a creationist.




Your posts are almost entirely conjecture or opinion. If you made "valid points supported" by fact, I never saw any. So that explains why I supposedly "ignored" them.




As you've said before, you RepiV, you ride as fast as you feel is appropriate, regardless of speed limits. You don't live in America. You don't even drive a car!

So then why on Earth would you be concerned about the speed limits of cars in America?


The answer to that is in the very first paragraph.

 

[repiV]

RepiV,

The road is your playground. The thrill of speed is what you get your high on. You are an addict. Any remote threat of losing this addiction - even the discussion of it - makes you extremely defensive, protective and angry.

Not entirely fair, really...

Yes I like speed, but not in the sense of outright numbers on the speedo. That's boring and any idiot can twist a throttle. I don't specifically go out to be fast. I get my thrills through riding challenging roads accurately, skilfully and safely. The speed comes naturally when everything else is right. It's virtually impossible to break the speed limit on a lot of my favourite roads, because they're just too twisty.

Nonetheless, a largely arbitrary restriction on speed enforced in a way that's designed to raise the maximum revenue rather than ensure maximum safety, is just not right. It makes me angry because it's targeted at the lowest common denominator and those of us who dedicate time and effort into our driving shouldn't have to be nannied in such a restrictive way.

Speed limits (in the UK at least) were never designed to be rigidly observed and enforced, they were there in order to make it much easier to prosecute reckless driving.

I'm a great driver; in my cars I drive with a combination of aggressive and very defensive techniques, probably much like you.

I've never been in an accident of any kind.

Which is excellent.

Stay with me now:

I've studied quite a bit about the physics involved in operating a car, including the physics involved when operating a car to its limits.

Many of these things I have learned can be applied to any tire based vehicle, however I don't claim to be an authority on all things with tires.

Being a motorcycle operator, obviously you have a very light vehicle.

Knowing that the vehicle's extreme light weight should make it extremely fuel efficient, you stated that you couldn't understand why you get such poor gas mileage.


When I explained it to you using proven formulas that are well known fact, you agreed at first - yes, 'my body completely ruins the aerodynamics of a bike', you admitted.

It is sometimes called air resistance. This is something you can feel. When you are speeding at 100 miles per hour on your bike, you can feel the wind holding you back. If you were to stand up, you would be blown right off your bike, regardless of the fact that you might weigh 180 lbs.

This is where your fuel is going. Wind resistance is sapping your power and fuel economy. Your bike requires many times more power and fuel to counter this force of air resistance.

You can feel this force is already quite powerful at 65 mph. Anyone who has put their hand out of the window of a car knows about aerodynamics, and the force of wind having its effects on your arm and hand.

Yes, this is true. Certainly rolling off the throttle provides a far more violent deceleration response at higher speeds, which seems to indicate that the bike is really having to fight its environment to travel at that speed.

After initially agreeing that air resistance (drag) is an important factor in fuel economy, later in the thread you disputed that it would make much of a difference.

I said I don't see those theoretical gains in reality. I do tend to cruise at a set speed on the motorway on a long journey, and my experience shows that 100mph vs 80mph only really makes a small difference in how many miles I get to a tank. Maybe a little over 10%. What makes far more of a difference is the kind of riding I do, how long I leave it to shift up and the amount of harsh acceleration I use.

Why bother capping highway speeds to a level that's far too low when it's still more efficient than driving around the city anyway?

Thing is your collectivist approach to saving the nation fuel would never work anyway, as people won't keep rigidly to 50mph.

Then you argued that the billions of cars on the road getting better gas mileage isn't even important at all, "it's a drop in the bucket", you called it several times, and that's about the time I realized I was talking to a brick wall - I felt like I was trying to explain evolution to a creationist.

Motor vehicles make up only a fraction of the oil usage in any country. The difference between the amount of fuel used on the highway at one speed versus a potentially lower speed is a tiny fraction of that again. Hell, you know that the manufacture of a vehicle uses more fuel than it takes to power that car for its entire lifetime thereafter?

If you really want to be economical, get people and manufacturers to stop treating cars as disposable items. And you don't need to infringe on anyone's liberty in order to make that change, either.

Your posts are almost entirely conjecture or opinion. If you made "valid points supported" by fact, I never saw any. So that explains why I supposedly "ignored" them.

I was referring mainly to my points about road safety, not about fuel economy.

As you've said before, you RepiV, you ride as fast as you feel is appropriate, regardless of speed limits.

You say that like it's a bad thing. As fast as I feel appropriate means I'm actually making an informed judgement at all times, it doesn't mean I'm reckless at all. Granted, I did ride like a twat until I broke my leg but pretty much everyone does until they learn their first painful lesson.

To be both safe and fast, is surely what anyone who takes pride in developing their driving or riding should strive for. And a very different proposition from just being fast. You probably see lots of safe and fast people on bikes or in cars, but you don't remember them because they go on their way quietly and efficiently and not flamboyantly.

So then why on Earth would you be concerned about the speed limits of cars in America?

The same reason CptStern is concerned about domestic politics in America. It's something of personal interest to discuss on a discussion board.

The answer to that is in the very first paragraph.

I don't believe in any arbitrary restriction of liberty, in any walk of life. Where it directly affects me of course it bothers me.

I also think trying to restrict vehicle speeds is wrong from a technological progress point of view. The question shouldn't be "how can we slow people down?", but "aren't the cars we have today amazing, how can we harness their full capabilities in safety?". Just think how much more efficient everything would be if we could all travel between cities at 150mph. It would be a revolution in transport.

 

[Sulkdodds]

Please don't answer insults with insults, whether or not "he said it first". Nobody wants to read it except yourselves. If you want to be venemous it's possible to do so without making aspersions about the position and size of people's cocks, heads, arses, etc. Next one to do it gets big infractions.

Spacing out your argument and talking like your opponent is a child is not an infractionable offence, but it is very annoying, so stop doing it.

EDIT: repiV is probably right, although I'd like to see statistics about how much energy would be saved etc. Just sayin'.