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

[Rico]

See RepiV, there's two things here:

1) I am not American

2) I have driven motorcycles before.

3) I am an engineer.

But obviously, as always, you really don't care about having a discussion. From reading all of your past posts, you're just some guy whose life revolves solely around his motorcycle (yet you claim it has "Opened your mind" hehe). This thread had nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing. It says cars and US how do motorcycles and Europe fit into it? Was Barack Obama elected there too?

I can picture you with each of your posts, foaming at the mouth. Calling people names, dismissing their posts that are on topic, unlike most of yours. What exactly is your argument here? Do you have one? I'd love to know.

Sulkdodds:

The point is, what are people losing by getting more fuel efficient cars? Did someone say "the car must get 50 MPG and it must go no faster than 40MPH"? Where is this even coming from?

The appearance of hybrids on the market didn't all of the sudden eradicate all gas guzzlers fro mthe roads. I saw a stretch Truck Limo the other day... and I still see tons of sports cars on the road. People are just voting with their wallets, and favoring vehicles with better MPG because of the rising costs of oil/energy.

The fact of the matter is, unless some MAJOR DEVELOPMENT took place, there is not going to be some magical way of reducing energy consumption or even pollution. We still use coal, oil, etc, to power everything. But there is no reason people should oppose small steps simply because they are small.

I'm not a "green" person, but I do try and do what I can from time to time, specially if it doesn't cost me ANYTHING.

RepiV I'll say it once and I'll say it again: Don't like it, you can leave the country. Oh wait, you're not even in it, so why are you so riled up about it?

Oh and another thing: I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods but if you weave through cars like that at ANY speed in the US or in Venezuela you are most definitely at fault for causing the accident. I explained why already, yet you seem not to listen. That's alright, like I said it'll hurt you more than the other drivers, but you'll still be placing innocents at risk so maybe I'll repeat it one more time...

People in cars have blind spots, and do not react well to seeing unexpected things just pop up where they are. If someone is driving a car and a truck is right beside him, the logical thing to assume is that nobody will be passing you on that side. Yet some dude on a motorcycle goes right through, possibly clipping your side mirror at the very least.

Doing that is definitely illegal here, and any insurance or authority figure anywhere will most definitely find you at fault for causing an accident if one were to happen. One of my friends was in a car when some idiot on a motorcycle slammed into her car while trying to weave through traffic like that. Thankfully, nobody died, but her mirror is busted and the dumbass on the bike had to go to the hospital. This happened in traffic, going less than 30MPH.

But whatever, you're on the other side of the world, won't affect me. But it's good to know that getting someplace fast/having fun is more important to you than not killing people out of sheer recklessness.

PS: Laws are there for a reason. They are not just haphazardly in place. How is someone to know that you're some kind of godly motorcycle driver? Do we take your word for it when the cops pull you over? Do you honestly believe that even the worst drivers out there think they suck at driving? Of course they don't, everyone thinks they're great, as do you. But I won't place my safety in the assurance that "you're a good driver", I think I'd rather bank on something more reliable like say, a law, meant to minimize danger to all of us.

 

[Minister]

I can picture you with each of your posts, foaming at the mouth. Calling people names, dismissing their posts that are on topic, unlike most of yours. What exactly is your argument here? Do you have one? I'd love to know.

Pot, kettle, black?


Have you truthfully read the rest of this thread?

He's having an argument/discussion with Virus about the reduction of speed limits.

I'm finding it to be quite the spectator sport.

 

[Kula Meenur]

^Wanna share some popcorn mate?


Motorcyle riding rules.
Rule Number 1: Don't try to understand cagers; they're all a bunch of demented, uneducated cunce who are always trying to kill you.

Rep, you're absolutely correct and i back your posts 100%. Rico, just because you've ridden a motorcycle doesn't mean you know shit, so listing your "qualifications" means 7/8ths of **** all in any case. Head to the track, an advanced course or maybe even actually spend a few hours on a ****ing bike and you'll truly find out what riding is.

 

[repiV]

See RepiV, there's two things here:

1) I am not American

So then perhaps you should reevaluate your tirades against filtering motorbikes, since the only place in the free world that it's illegal is the US. And where are you from anyway?

2) I have driven motorcycles before.

Yet clearly your experience on that front is rather limited.

3) I am an engineer.

That could mean anything. If you're an aerospace engineer it doesn't make you an expert on roads engineering.

But obviously, as always, you really don't care about having a discussion. From reading all of your past posts, you're just some fool whose life revolves solely around his motorcycle (yet you claim it has "Opened your mind" hehe).

I've been posting here since long before I'd even ridden a bike. I really don't see what your problem is, or why being passionate about motorcycling makes me a fool. There are far worse pastimes to base your life around.

This thread had nothing to do with it, absolutely nothing. It says cars and US how do motorcycles and Europe fit into it? Was Barack Obama elected there too?

It has everything to do with it. Fuel economy/emissions legislation and speed limits affect bikes just as much as cars. If not more so, as the light weight of bikes makes anything except your standard petrol engine currently unworkable, and the small engines need to be very highly tuned to make them quick.

Besides which, I object to restrictions on cars just as much. As I originally stated, but my primary frame of reference is bikes so of course that's the point of view I'm going to put across the most.

I can picture you with each of your posts, foaming at the mouth. Calling people names, dismissing their posts that are on topic, unlike most of yours. What exactly is your argument here? Do you have one? I'd love to know.

I'm a very polite person, the vast majority of the time. You're extremely rude and you got what you deserved. I don't call anybody names without good reason.

RepiV I'll say it once and I'll say it again: Don't like it, you can leave the country. Oh wait, you're not even in it, so why are your panties in a bunch?

So where are you every time CptStern makes a thread about America? And what is so specific about the ideas being thrown around here that they can only be applied to the US?

 

[Kula Meenur]

See RepiV, there's two things here:

1) I am not American

2) I have driven motorcycles before.

3) I am an engineer.

See RepiV, there's two things...

there's two things

two things

two

I lol'd. Also; your arguments are invalid, you cannot count.

 

[repiV]

Nice edit...

Oh and another thing: I don't know how it works in your neck of the woods but if you weave through cars like that at ANY speed in the US or in Venezuela you are most definitely at fault for causing the accident. I explained why already, yet you seem not to listen. That's alright, like I said it'll hurt you more than the other drivers, but you'll still be placing innocents at risk so maybe I'll repeat it one more time...

People in cars have blind spots, and do not react well to seeing unexpected things just pop up where they are. If someone is driving a car and a truck is right beside him, the logical thing to assume is that nobody will be passing you on that side. Yet some dude on a motorcycle goes right through, possibly clipping your side mirror at the very least.

Doing that is definitely illegal here, and any insurance or authority figure anywhere will most definitely find you at fault for causing an accident if one were to happen. One of my friends was in a car when some idiot on a motorcycle slammed into her car while trying to weave through traffic like that. Thankfully, nobody died, but her mirror is busted and the dumbass on the bike had to go to the hospital. This happened in traffic, going less than 30MPH.

But whatever, you're on the other side of the world, won't affect me. But it's good to know that getting someplace fast/having fun is more important to you than not killing people out of sheer recklessness.

Filtering is like any other maneuvre - it can be done safely, and it can be done dangerously. The video I posted is an example of filtering done safely, which is why I specifically chose it.

If someone is filtering carefully between two lanes of stopped or slow traffic, and some idiot decides to change lanes without looking, he could be looking at a custodial sentence if he kills the biker. If the biker was filtering like a moron, that won't be the case.

There are idiots on bikes and there are idiots in cars. I've seen plenty of suicidal maniacs filtering on the motorway at 100mph in traffic that's already travelling in excess of the speed limit, and eventually they will run out of luck.

That doesn't mean that everyone who filters on a bike is reckless. Indeed, if you come to Europe you will find that everyone on a bike filters. If you sat in the traffic car drivers would laugh at you and wonder why you bothered to own one. The nice drivers will even go out of their way to make room for us to come through, and they get a wave of thanks in return.

You will also find that the government promotes bikes as a means of congestion-busting in cities, precisely because they can filter and don't cause any congestion. Bikes aren't cars. They don't handle like cars, they don't have the same performance characteristics as cars, they require a very different approach to driving a car. So it's ridiculous to expect a bike to behave like a car.

By the way, it's also legal in California, just so you know.

 

[VirusType2]

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.

I'm spacing it out to make it clear and easy to read since it was something like 1000 words and I don't know if anyone is even going to read it or if I just wasted an hour or two of my life again.

If the format is uncomfortable, then it had the opposite of my intended effect.

I'm not touching the child part.


that last sentence made me lol

:frog:

 

[repiV]

^Wanna share some popcorn mate?


Motorcyle riding rules.
Rule Number 1: Don't try to understand cagers; they're all a bunch of demented, uneducated cunce who are always trying to kill you.

Rep, you're absolutely correct and i back your posts 100%. Rico, just because you've ridden a motorcycle doesn't mean you know shit, so listing your "qualifications" means 7/8ths of **** all in any case. Head to the track, an advanced course or maybe even actually spend a few hours on a ****ing bike and you'll truly find out what riding is.

I had to do a double take at your username there.

What can you do, eh. I have to say I don't think I'd want to ride a bike in America, attitudes towards them are...less than enlightened, to say the least.

 

[VirusType2]

Come on, that's several times now you insult all of America over one guy who is not even from America!

 

[Rico]

I lol'd. Also; your arguments are invalid, you cannot count.

Oh dear lord, you caught me, I made a mistake in my post, therefore everything I said is invalid!

You guys are too smart for me, and your posts are too backed up by logic and facts. Clearly, you must be declared the winners. That's it, Barack Obama will now reverse all US legislation dealing with cars in the US

In your post correcting me I see:

Incorrect use of semicolon.
Use of a nonexistent verb "lol'ed".
Improper capitalization.

You win!

I hope all of you careless "cool" drivers crash into the side of a building, instead of an innocent motorist, when you inevitably find out that you're not superhuman and that the laws of physics and chance also apply to you.

Oh and yes, everyone driving cars IS out to get people on bikes. Watch your asses, or we'll run them over! We're just so jealous of you!

 

[Kula Meenur]

^i knew we'd get to you sooner or later, now kindly **** off


Every where you go Repiv mate; human beings being the unintelligent, prejudicial ****wits that they are.

 

[repiV]

Come on, that's several times now you insult all of America over one guy who is not even from America!

It was more of a general observation. I understand from people I've spoken to that bikers filtering in America, even in areas where it is completely legal, are often subjected to torrents of abuse if not attempted murder from narrow-minded people who are irate that they're "jumping the queue". Even though the bike getting through the traffic doesn't inconvinience them in any way, and in fact makes that queue of traffic one vehicle shorter.

And that there is no provision for bikes at all in the transportation system, as they're not even seen as a valid form of getting around.

 

[repiV]

^i knew we'd get to you sooner or later, now kindly **** off


Every where you go Repiv mate; human beings being the unintelligent, prejudicial ****wits that they are.

Let he who is without sin cast the first stone and all that.

 

[VirusType2]

It was more of a general observation. I understand from people I've spoken to that bikers filtering in America, even in areas where it is completely legal, are often subjected to torrents of abuse if not attempted murder from narrow-minded people who are irate that they're "jumping the queue". Even though the bike getting through the traffic doesn't inconvinience them in any way, and in fact makes that queue of traffic one vehicle shorter.

And that there is no provision for bikes at all in the transportation system, as they're not even seen as a valid form of getting around.

Well, I've rarely seen filtering, but it's illegal in my state.

Honestly, stuck in rush hour and not moving, I don't mind if a guy goes in between on a bike.

Bikes are getting more common here all the time, probably due to the gas crunch.

I often see or hear a line of between 3 and 25 bikers go past my house. At least once a week here in the summer.


The way I treat bikes is - I increase my following distance, I brake 3 times earlier than with a car, meaning I keep my distance. I keep an entire cars length behind them when stopping for a light, just general respect and space.


also,
On a two lane one way highway, I've often seen them a little weary of passing me when I'm just cruising in the slow lane, so when I see one coming in my rear view, I go a little further away, towards the outside line. That immediately signals that I know they are there.

 

[Rico]

I personally enjoy clipping bikes. Like if I see one driving next to me, I will try and see if I can tap him just lightly enough so that he wipes out and lands in a ditch.

I mean, all of us box drivers love causing accidents and all, and we're all blowhards who don't enjoy having fun or thrills. We just drive safely and obey the laws because we're just so darn square!

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

You're insufferably self-righteous, ignorant, obnoxious and judgemental. Why would I be civil to you?

Oh lord.

I'm enjoying the hell out of this thread. However, as Sulk quite clearly said (and I am paraphrasing here) - Keep it civil, mother****ers.
I'm behind on my monthly infraction quotas. Don't give me a reason.

 

[Kula Meenur]

hurr hurr i am the ultimate smartarse

Nice.

 

[VirusType2]

That's boring and any idiot can twist a throttle. I don't specifically go out to be fast.
...
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.

But you ride a breed of racing motorcycle. There can be any type of car or truck on any road at any time.

I notice this ALL THE TIME in my sporty car: It could be perfectly safe for you, in fact feeling a little slow, but not for the majority of drivers. These cars are made for passengers and cargo, and designed to adhere to speed limits.

In fact, the equipped tires on many of these cars are not rated for over 80MPH and they can get too hot and blow out. I know what I'm talking about.

These common cars and trucks have horrible balance, acceleration and cornering ability. Their suspension is designed for comfort.

The word comfortable never comes into the equation on our vehicles.

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.

Well, in addition to what I wrote above, I don't see why bikes shouldn't be allowed to travel a bit faster. But on the other hand, the problem is if you are out of line (turning) while braking. I'm not a rider, but I understand how tire grip works completely, and you said yourself that you can't brake -at all- when you are in a corner. You said that you should accelerate. I suppose you meant to accelerate on the exit of a turn?

Anyway. I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where you are at speed, turning and suddenly a dipshit cuts you off. You can't brake. I know you said that any accident over 30MPH is deadly for you, so whats the difference, but I know people who were lucky and survived with a couple broken bones in an accident at 80MPH, Certainly you'd rather be in the same accident at - say 55 MP rather than 90.

I said I don't see those theoretical gains in reality.

OK you are on a race bike. While crouching as low as you do at speed, it has a very small footprint cutting right into the air resistance.

Now, back to the topic here, imagine the front of a pick-up truck; it's like driving a wall. It's wide, it's squared. Absolutely horrible aerodynamics. It's just not intended to be speeding down a highway. It's a utility vehicle.

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.

Well, again, you ride a race bike, its so much different than cars, trucks and vans. When it comes to the wind resistance, the difference is a wall (truck) compared to a knife (race bike).

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?

I don't believe that because traffic, pedestrians, lights, and stop signs lower our cars and trucks fuel economy, we should overlook the highway, an area that gets probably 90% of the miles cars and trucks make.

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

See this is frustrating, because it's like you accept that people murder other people, and it's too hard to catch them, so lets just forget it.

No, they will enforce it, and they will develop new technology to make it easier.

My state, #8 in The US on the 'most ticketed' list.

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?

This isn't just about fuel, this is also about pollution.

Honestly, I don't have a great response to something like this. What can I say?

The way I see this is it's just another one of the same things you guys keep repeating, that we shouldn't bother fixing things when there are other things to fix too.

I say, fix the things you have a solution for, and keep trying for things you don't. It's so obvious, it's a little painful to me to have to say it to you guys. You know it's true, but you're defending your ways.

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.

Brilliant, but again, there isn't one fix to fix the world's problems. We shouldn't drop ideas that are easy and work just because there are harder ones to tackle. You think we can just ask them to make cars last longer nicely?

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.

And sometimes people don't learn their lesson because they die.

I was in jail with a guy who killed someone when his speeding car lifted at the top of a hill, crossed the lane, and struck an oncoming motorcyclist. He got only 2 years.

I was fortunate many times...

Long ago, I was driving at night on an unfamiliar road with my girlfriend and her friend, and I was showing off a little.

I was going only a little faster than the speed limit. however an unexpectedly very sharp turn came, and it just kept getting tighter. I couldn't brake or I would loose grip. I managed to hold the speed as a vehicle passed in the oncoming lane.

I could have killed us all. If she would have died because of me, I would have NEVER forgiven myself. I still feel terrible about putting her life in danger like that.

Was I driving reckless? No. I was just driving a little faster than the speed limit.

I've actually seen places where the speed limit is probably a little too high.

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.

Lawlessness is chaos. If everyone did as you and drove as fast as they felt like, it's going to be chaos. A speed limit is not arbitrary restriction of liberty. Speeders break the law and infringe on other peoples right to safe travel.

Don't take this as getting carried away, but I see cars as capable of being weapons. They are essentially guided missiles. If you can't see that, have a look around youtube of people driving into crowds of people.

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.

But passenger and cargo vehicles on the road today are automatically doomed. There is entirely too much friction.

Electromagnetic rail trains that do not touch any friction surface are where it's at. It's a massive investment in infrastructure, but in places like Japan they have fairly quick ones.

I've learned that they have the technology - engineers believe - to build these capable of going from California to New york in about 20 minutes. They can have tracks that go over or under water.

I'll start a thread about these when I get some more time.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

20 minutes? 3000 miles? 9000 miles per hour? I'm not sure people would survive the ac/deceleration.

 

[repiV]

Well, I've rarely seen filtering, but it's illegal in my state.

Honestly, stuck in rush hour and not moving, I don't mind if a guy goes in between on a bike.

Bikes are getting more common here all the time, probably due to the gas crunch.

I often see or hear a line of between 3 and 25 bikers go past my house. At least once a week here in the summer.

Yeah. I suppose it hasn't caught on in the US in quite the same way because you don't have quite the same premium on road space as we do and the kind of distances you have to travel on a regular basis you need more comfort than a bike can offer.

A lot of people in the south east who say, work in London, but live in one of the outlying areas with bad public transport links, are only able to commute to work by bike because it simply wouldn't be feasible by any other method. It saves so much time, and you always know how long your journey is going to take, give or take a few minutes either way.

The way I treat bikes is - I increase my following distance, I brake 3 times earlier than with a car, meaning I keep my distance. I keep an entire cars length behind them when stopping for a light, just general respect and space.

also,
On a two lane one way highway, I've often seen them a little weary of passing me when I'm just cruising in the slow lane, so when I see one coming in my rear view, I go a little further away, towards the outside line. That immediately signals that I know they are there.

You rock.

There are two sides to every story, a lot of people on bikes do admittedly ride like total dicks. Sit right up the arse of the car they want to overtake, go hooning past in the face of oncoming traffic and complete the pass without dying more by luck then judgement. Then slam on the brakes at the next bend because they're too shit at riding to actually carry any corner speed. I don't like having these idiots sitting behind me either, they make me very uncomfortable and they're completely unpredictable unlike a car.

I always keep a respectful distance and clearly visible in either the left or right hand mirror, and when the opportunity comes to make a clean pass I'll have overtaken before they even realise I was intending to go.

 

[VirusType2]

20 minutes? 3000 miles? 9000 miles per hour? I'm not sure people would survive the ac/deceleration.

Ah, that's a 'too tired to find source' It was probably two hours

It was like 1400 miles per hour, IIRC, and it's hypothetical - on paper.

Point is - fast. The future of transport


last post, zzz

 

[CyberPitz]

Speaking of fuel economy, my car get's the max at about 60 MPH in 6th gear. Anything more/less than that, it starts to dip. I have hit 28.4 MPG *Which is great for a car rated 23/24*...it's just too bad the speed limit is 70, and if you're actually driving, 75-80.

OK, back to my lawn chair with my beer and popcorn.

 

[repiV]

But you ride a breed of racing motorcycle. There can be any type of car or truck on any road at any time.

I notice this ALL THE TIME in my sporty car: It could be perfectly safe for you, in fact feeling a little slow, but not for the majority of drivers. These cars are made for passengers and cargo, and designed to adhere to speed limits.

Which is one of the reasons we should be entrusted to decide ourselves what the most appropriate speed is. And that's exactly what we have to do, on the many country roads we have where it's physically impossible to attain the speed limit. The limit is 60mph whether the road is dead straight for miles on end or very dangerous with dodgy off-camber bends and hairpins. A lot of our more rural roads are only wide enough for one car yet carry two way traffic. Many of them have very tight bends, and the speed limit is still 60mph. One of the main roads round my way is quite fast, with sweeping bends that are comfortable at 60, but the road frequently narrows into single-track in the middle of corners with not much warning!

Anyone who has negotiated these roads successfully without crashing has proven their ability to select a safe speed for the conditions. Why should we then take that ability away on faster roads?

In fact, the equipped tires on many of these cars are not rated for over 80MPH and they can get too hot and blow out. I know what I'm talking about.

Jesus. I'm pretty sure you won't find a car sold with <80mph rated tyres over here.

Well, in addition to what I wrote above, I don't see why bikes shouldn't be allowed to travel a bit faster. But on the other hand, the problem is if you are out of line (turning) while braking. I'm not a rider, but I understand how tire grip works completely, and you said yourself that you can't brake -at all- when you are in a corner. You said that you should accelerate. I suppose you meant to accelerate on the exit of a turn?

Yeah, you have to be bloody careful in corners on a bike. I was exaggerating slightly when I said you can't brake, you can brake a little bit very carefully but you certainly can't stop if you need to. Not only is it a grip issue, but due to the way bikes work (I don't really understand why), braking force causes the bike to sit back upright so if you don't exceed the tyre grip, you'll run off the road instead.

No, I meant you should accelerate all the way around. Only very slightly, just enough to weight the rear of the bike to stabilise it. "Slow in, fast out" they say.

Anyway. I'm sure you can imagine a scenario where you are at speed, turning and suddenly a dipshit cuts you off. You can't brake. I know you said that any accident over 30MPH is deadly for you, so whats the difference, but I know people who were lucky and survived with a couple broken bones in an accident at 80MPH, Certainly you'd rather be in the same accident at - say 55 MP rather than 90.

Yeah, hence I don't commit to a corner until I'm sure it's safe to do so. On twisty rural roads (remember we drive on the left) it's usually best practice to ride on or near the centre-line for a left-hander, and very close to the edge of the road for a right-hander. Then turn in at the last moment and hold the outside line, for the best view of what's around the corner.

EDIT: The technique is well illustrated by the guy in this video, on one of my local hunting grounds.

Clicky

It's cool they do stuff like this, actually.

It all depends how you crash really. You can't really predict the severity as you can in a car, assuming you're wearing leathers to stop road rash, you can come off at 140mph and you likely won't get injured as long as you don't hit anything as you slide. But you can go head or chest first into a Range Rover at 30 and suffer probably fatal injuries.

I hit a tree at 60, and I broke my leg in six places, dislocated my ankle and hip. If that had been my upper body I would have certainly died at the scene.

OK you are on a race bike. While crouching as low as you do at speed, it has a very small footprint cutting right into the air resistance.

Now, back to the topic here, imagine the front of a pick-up truck; it's like driving a wall. It's wide, it's squared. Absolutely horrible aerodynamics. It's just not intended to be speeding down a highway. It's a utility vehicle.

True.

Well, again, you ride a race bike, its so much different than cars, trucks and vans. When it comes to the wind resistance, the difference is a wall (truck) compared to a knife (race bike).

Point taken. I bet the aerodynamics of a sportscar are far better than any bike though.

I don't believe that because traffic, pedestrians, lights, and stop signs lower our cars and trucks fuel economy, we should overlook the highway, an area that gets probably 90% of the miles cars and trucks make.

I suppose it's a little different here because most of us don't travel such vast distances on a daily basis. The last time I used a motorway was in March.

See this is frustrating, because it's like you accept that people murder other people, and it's too hard to catch them, so lets just forget it.

No, they will enforce it, and they will develop new technology to make it easier.

My state, #8 in The US on the 'most ticketed' list.

Well, the vast majority of people don't commit murder, and they also believe that murder is wrong. Virtually everyone breaks the speed limit. If the majority of people break the law, then in my opinion the law must be wrong. That's what democracy is all about after all.

This isn't just about fuel, this is also about pollution.

Honestly, I don't have a great response to something like this. What can I say?

The way I see this is it's just another one of the same things you guys keep repeating, that we shouldn't bother fixing things when there are other things to fix too.

I say, fix the things you have a solution for, and keep trying for things you don't. It's so obvious, it's a little painful to me to have to say it to you guys. You know it's true, but you're defending your ways.

Brilliant, but again, there isn't one fix to fix the world's problems. We shouldn't drop ideas that are easy and work just because there are harder ones to tackle. You think we can just ask them to make cars last longer nicely?

If we're going to look at solutions for pollutions (ha!...) and the shortage of oil, lets find ones that don't criminalise millions of ordinary people.

And sometimes people don't learn their lesson because they die.

Very true. Far too often, in fact. But no speed limit is going to stop that. Better education will have a massive effect, and the rest is youthful exuberance which has always taken the lives of the young throughout history in many ways, and this will never change. On the flipside, youthful exuberance also gives those who survive their youth some of the best memories and experiences of their lives.

I was in jail with a guy who killed someone when his speeding car lifted at the top of a hill, crossed the lane, and struck an oncoming motorcyclist. He got only 2 years.

I was fortunate many times...

Long ago, I was driving at night on an unfamiliar road with my girlfriend and her friend, and I was showing off a little.

I was going only a little faster than the speed limit. however an unexpectedly very sharp turn came, and it just kept getting tighter. I couldn't brake or I would loose grip. I managed to hold the speed as a vehicle passed in the oncoming lane.

I could have killed us all. If she would have died because of me, I would have NEVER forgiven myself. I still feel terrible about putting her life in danger like that.

Was I driving reckless? No. I was just driving a little faster than the speed limit.

I've actually seen places where the speed limit is probably a little too high.

Unintentionally, you've just illustrated the folly of speed limits. It sounds like you were still using the speed limit as a guide as to how fast you could travel that road, whether or not you were strictly obeying it. But no limit can tell you a safe speed. I would suggest the possibility that if there was no speed limit, you would have been reading the road more accurately and slowed down more for that particular bend.

We have corners like that everywhere here, and the roads are all 60mph limits. There's one particularly nasty one that's a sharp left-hand bend, quite steep uphill (must be a 10-15% gradient), but half-way around it tightens up into practically a hairpin and also gets nearly twice as steep. First time I took that bend I went in at around 30mph and even leaning the bike as far over as I physically could, I still ended up right on the other side of the road.

Lawlessness is chaos. If everyone did as you and drove as fast as they felt like, it's going to be chaos. A speed limit is not arbitrary restriction of liberty. Speeders break the law and infringe on other peoples right to safe travel.

Careless driving and dangerous driving are already illegal. Why then criminalise driving that is fast but safe?

Don't take this as getting carried away, but I see cars as capable of being weapons. They are essentially guided missiles. If you can't see that, have a look around youtube of people driving into crowds of people.

No, I totally agree. I just don't see that speed limits are the best way of dealing with the danger posed by vehicles. The experienced and sensible 90% of drivers will drive at a safe speed regardless of the limit. The novice few and the reckless few will not. The reckless few will ignore the limits anyway, and the novice few can use them as a guide. So why restrict everyone else?

But passenger and cargo vehicles on the road today are automatically doomed. There is entirely too much friction.

Electromagnetic rail trains that do not touch any friction surface are where it's at. It's a massive investment in infrastructure, but in places like Japan they have fairly quick ones.

I've learned that they have the technology - engineers believe - to build these capable of going from California to New york in about 20 minutes. They can have tracks that go over or under water.

I'll start a thread about these when I get some more time.

Yeah, ultimately cars aren't the best way of getting long distances quickly. But they do give you the freedom to go exactly where you want, when you want.

 

[Minister]

Ah, that's a 'too tired to find source' It was probably two hours

It was like 1400 miles per hour, IIRC, and it's hypothetical - on paper.

Point is - fast. The future of transport


last post, zzz

Is that the MagLev? I think they're testing them out in Germany, and possibly even began to implement some in Japan.

Definitely the future of transport, engineering magnificence if I may say so myself

 

[Kadayi]

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.

Petrol Cars = Dinosaurs

The electronic/information age is upon us to the degree that the necessity for people to commute to the extent that they presently do will become increasingly redundant as time goes on.

The big areas to work on will be public transport links like trains/trams etc

 

[Escaep]

1) I am not American

I live in Texas,

Say what now?

 

[repiV]

Ah, Rico lives in Texas does he? Hehe, filtering is likely to become legal there very soon. Good luck to him. :thumbs:

Petrol Cars = Dinosaurs

The electronic/information age is upon us to the degree that the necessity for people to commute to the extent that they presently do will become increasingly redundant as time goes on.

Working from home en masse is a nice idea, but I don't see it catching on any time soon if ever. I've worked from home out of necessity and I couldn't stand it, and I wasn't as productive either. The benefits to everyone of having colleagues and actually going to a place of work each day can't be underestimated, from both a personal point of view and a business point of view.

If anything, people are commuting from farther and farther away than they used to. Our chairman commutes from Barcelona to Bristol...

Plus, there are many other reasons for travelling besides commuting.

The big areas to work on will be public transport links like trains/trams etc

Trains are great for getting from one city to another, or from the suburbs of a big city to the centre. They're useless for anything else. And as it stands, they're far too expensive by orders of magnitude. A return from Exeter St Davids to London Paddington not purchased in advance costs £196!! Ignoring the sea voyage for a moment, I could pretty much get from here to Italy and back on £196 worth of petrol.

Devon has excellent public transport as far as rural areas go, and it's still useless for most.

Also the psychological benefits of being able to go wherever you want to go, when you choose to, in your own space and time, cannot be underestimated. And you end up going and seeing all these places you would never have gone to otherwise. Amazing how many Londoners never leave London. Neither did I before I had a bike. As a direct consequence I now live hundreds of miles away.

 

[Kadayi]

Working from home en masse is a nice idea, but I don't see it catching on any time soon if ever. I've worked from home out of necessity and I couldn't stand it, and I wasn't as productive either. The benefits to everyone of having colleagues and actually going to a place of work each day can't be underestimated, from both a personal point of view and a business point of view.

If anything, people are commuting from farther and farther away than they used to. Our chairman commutes from Barcelona to Bristol...

Working from home at least part of the time has a hell of a lot of appeal for working professionals, esp if they have children and can save on not only the travel but also the nursery costs. Day to day High def video conferencing is already coming into play with some of the larger multinationals. This technology will eventually trickle down and become far more widely used.

The necessity to be in a particular place to carry out a particular task that isn't specific to that place is becoming increasingly redundant. On average the UK commuter spends an hour travelling too and from work everyday. So if they work a 7 hour day and a 5 day week, every 7 days they've effectively spent another workday (which costs you time & money) travelling. Most people doing the London commute are doing double that.

Frankly if your Chairman commutes everyday between Barcelona and Bristol he needs his head examined.

Trains are great for getting from one city to another, or from the suburbs of a big city to the centre. They're useless for anything else. And as it stands, they're far too expensive by orders of magnitude. A return from Exeter St Davids to London Paddington not purchased in advance costs £196!! Ignoring the sea voyage for a moment, I could pretty much get from here to Italy and back on £196 worth of petrol.

I'm afraid you can't call the future based upon present infrastructure. Fact of the matter is the idea that people live 2 hours away from where they work and travel in daily is in the grand scheme of things an indulgence of our time, not a irrefutable necessity. If you add up the man hours lost collectively getting from A to B because of decentralisation its quite mind boggling tbh.

 

[repiV]

Working from home at least part of the time has a hell of a lot of of appeal for working professionals, esp if they have children and can save on not only the travel but also the nursery costs. Day to day High def video conferencing is already coming into play with some of the larger multinationals. This technology will eventually trickle down and become far more widely used.

That's very true. On the other hand, the business benefits from the coming together of people in the office, and workers benefit from the social side of the office. Maybe not everyone's like me but I'd get very lonely working from home. And then it would suck because there's no separation between work and home.

Difficult for members of staff to learn from each other if they don't physically work together, for example.

I don't like this trend for the world to become an increasingly disconnected and disassociated place. People need to be involved with each other more. I tell you what, the people down here are wonderful. So welcoming and generous, nothing is too much trouble even when they barely know you. BIG contrast with suspicious, cold, unfriendly Londoners...because there's still a sense of community down here. If you take the workplace out of the equation, how many people will no longer really belong to any community at all?

The necessity to be in a particular place to carry a particular task that isn't specific to that place is becoming increasingly redundant. On average the UK commuter spends an hour travelling too and from work everyday. So if they work a 7 hour day and a 5 day week, every 7 days they've effectively spent another workday (which costs you time & money) travelling. Most people doing the London commute are doing double that.

Yeah I know. My London commute (Stanmore to Southwark) was an hour each way, and that was by motorbike. By tube it made me want to commit suicide (almost). Nowadays it's a 20 mile round trip, takes about 40 minutes in total. But that's fine, it's just about right. I like having that time and space to myself. It's just a hassle being in the village because I inevitably have to go straight back into Exeter again whenever I go out or need to get anything. Hence I'm moving in a couple of months...but I'll miss the commute!

Frankly if your Chairman commutes everyday between Barcelona and Bristol he needs his head examined.

Not on a daily basis. He works usually Monday to Thursday and then flies back, then flies in on a Monday morning. Stays in a flat near the office during the week. Only takes him a couple of hours to get home, believe it or not.

I'm afraid you can't call the future based upon present infrastructure. Fact of the matter is the idea that people live 2 hours away from where they work and travel in daily is in the grand scheme of things an indulgence of our time, not a irrefutable necessity. If you add up the man hours lost collectively getting from A to B because of decentralisation its quite mind boggling tbh.

Thing is, not everywhere is the south east of England. In Exeter, decent jobs are very hard to come by, and you can't go out and find the exact type of job you want - you kinda just have to take what you can get. And yet it's the centre of industry for the whole of Devon, Cornwall and Somerset (south of Bath/Bristol etc).

Being in telesales down here for the last nine months, by now I've either spoken to or am familiar with pretty much every company in the West Country. Whenever I meet someone new I instantly recognise the company they work for. It's a very small world.

People around here don't really have any option but to commute, and in Cornwall...well, I don't know how they get by. There's just no money and no opportunity there at all. Outside of tourist season it's a very depressing place (Cornwall, not Devon). And you rarely see a car newer than 20 years old.

Truth is, most of this country is actually pretty poor. The average wage down here is something like £14k. So what can you do? Especially if you want quality of life. The great places to live are usually shite places to find work, and vice versa. And it's very expensive to live in or around Exeter (not a great deal cheaper than outer London prices, but the wages are like half), so people aren't necessarily able to move closer by in any case, even if they would want to. Same story all over the UK I imagine.

 

[Rico]

Say what now?

You must be thick. I won't explain it to you, I'll let you figure it out, consider it homework.

How can someone live in a country, yet not be from that country?

A real noggin-scratcher right there!

No stalkers please, I already have enough adoring fans.


Kadayi:

I agree with you, telecommuting is a great tool that companies should encourage more. As it stands my team allows for us to work one day from home, but sometimes that needs to be waived due to meetings.

People slack off regardless of whether they are at work or at home working. It is far more beneficial to me, to say, work from home for 4 very productive hours with the reward of knowing that the next 4 hours can be spent relaxing at home, than it is to sit at a desk for 8 hours while goofing off sporadically.

I have never seen a person work for 8 straight hours like they are supposed to, specially in my line of work. It can be quite taxing, like doing math for 8 hours straight.