Spam: a possible CAFE revision
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737
Please help me understand what is meant by " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? Does it mean that low displacement cars will be forced to achive 30 mpg average while Ferrari trucksters could get away with 14? Or does it mean that 27.6 mpg would have to be achieved by the trucksters vs. current 21? Not an abstract question considering an already shitty gear ratios and throttle response on my 2005 Impreza. (Thank you Subaru, thank you very much). |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Body Roll wrote:
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 > > Please help me understand what is meant by > " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which we can drive a fleet of hummers". the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is questioned. this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall. > Does it mean that low displacement cars will be forced to achive 30 mpg > average > while Ferrari trucksters could get away with 14? > Or does it mean that 27.6 mpg would have to be achieved by the > trucksters vs. current 21? with the amount of detroit lobbying dollars floating about at the moment, particularly given the junk bond status of those companies and their bleating for government [read: "taxpayer"] support, i think you can expect a substantial amount of, er, "slack" to be cut to the interested parties. anything to avoid fuel efficiency or investment in technology. it's the same b.s. as when detroit kicked and screamed over california's clean air legislation - an absolute disgrace, particularly when it turns out to have been a substantial benefit and have provided and impetus for technology that we have then been able to export around the globe. > > Not an abstract question considering an already shitty gear ratios and > throttle response on my 2005 Impreza. (Thank you Subaru, thank you very > much). that's a whole different issue... |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Body Roll wrote:
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 > > Please help me understand what is meant by > " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which we can drive a fleet of hummers". the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is questioned. this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall. > Does it mean that low displacement cars will be forced to achive 30 mpg > average > while Ferrari trucksters could get away with 14? > Or does it mean that 27.6 mpg would have to be achieved by the > trucksters vs. current 21? with the amount of detroit lobbying dollars floating about at the moment, particularly given the junk bond status of those companies and their bleating for government [read: "taxpayer"] support, i think you can expect a substantial amount of, er, "slack" to be cut to the interested parties. anything to avoid fuel efficiency or investment in technology. it's the same b.s. as when detroit kicked and screamed over california's clean air legislation - an absolute disgrace, particularly when it turns out to have been a substantial benefit and have provided and impetus for technology that we have then been able to export around the globe. > > Not an abstract question considering an already shitty gear ratios and > throttle response on my 2005 Impreza. (Thank you Subaru, thank you very > much). that's a whole different issue... |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Body Roll wrote:
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 > > Please help me understand what is meant by > " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which we can drive a fleet of hummers". the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is questioned. this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall. > Does it mean that low displacement cars will be forced to achive 30 mpg > average > while Ferrari trucksters could get away with 14? > Or does it mean that 27.6 mpg would have to be achieved by the > trucksters vs. current 21? with the amount of detroit lobbying dollars floating about at the moment, particularly given the junk bond status of those companies and their bleating for government [read: "taxpayer"] support, i think you can expect a substantial amount of, er, "slack" to be cut to the interested parties. anything to avoid fuel efficiency or investment in technology. it's the same b.s. as when detroit kicked and screamed over california's clean air legislation - an absolute disgrace, particularly when it turns out to have been a substantial benefit and have provided and impetus for technology that we have then been able to export around the globe. > > Not an abstract question considering an already shitty gear ratios and > throttle response on my 2005 Impreza. (Thank you Subaru, thank you very > much). that's a whole different issue... |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Body Roll wrote:
> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 > > Please help me understand what is meant by > " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which we can drive a fleet of hummers". the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is questioned. this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall. > Does it mean that low displacement cars will be forced to achive 30 mpg > average > while Ferrari trucksters could get away with 14? > Or does it mean that 27.6 mpg would have to be achieved by the > trucksters vs. current 21? with the amount of detroit lobbying dollars floating about at the moment, particularly given the junk bond status of those companies and their bleating for government [read: "taxpayer"] support, i think you can expect a substantial amount of, er, "slack" to be cut to the interested parties. anything to avoid fuel efficiency or investment in technology. it's the same b.s. as when detroit kicked and screamed over california's clean air legislation - an absolute disgrace, particularly when it turns out to have been a substantial benefit and have provided and impetus for technology that we have then been able to export around the globe. > > Not an abstract question considering an already shitty gear ratios and > throttle response on my 2005 Impreza. (Thank you Subaru, thank you very > much). that's a whole different issue... |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Body Roll wrote: >> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >> >> Please help me understand what is meant by >> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? > > it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which > we can drive a fleet of hummers". > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class as a passenger car. To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. Mike |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Body Roll wrote: >> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >> >> Please help me understand what is meant by >> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? > > it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which > we can drive a fleet of hummers". > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class as a passenger car. To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. Mike |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Body Roll wrote: >> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >> >> Please help me understand what is meant by >> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? > > it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which > we can drive a fleet of hummers". > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class as a passenger car. To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. Mike |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... > Body Roll wrote: >> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >> >> Please help me understand what is meant by >> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? > > it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which > we can drive a fleet of hummers". > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class as a passenger car. To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. Mike |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message > news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Body Roll wrote: >>> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >>> >>> Please help me understand what is meant by >>> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? >> it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which >> we can drive a fleet of hummers". >> > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. > The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is > what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of > the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. > > There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that > needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class > as a passenger car. it's not method, it's fraud. an suv is not a tractor. and suv's can conform to both emissions and consumption standards - look at toyota's fleet. look at all the commercial vehicles in europe. > To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of > standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. don't agree. these guys should have been focused on this stuff 30 years ago. and they should have had an ongoing program of development. all these loopholes are for is to allow automakers to continue to produce gas guzzlers, and to avoid the tiresome task of catching up with their european and japanese competitors. it's unbelievably stupid. there was a time when we were exporting emissions and efficiency technology. but we don't any more, and that's because someone in detroit figured out that money invested in lobbying for loopholes today yielded greater short term returns than investing in technology for tomorrow. well, it's time to fix that mess. invest in technology. lead the world. reduce our economic dependence on a bunch of rag heads. is that unamerican? |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message > news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Body Roll wrote: >>> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >>> >>> Please help me understand what is meant by >>> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? >> it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which >> we can drive a fleet of hummers". >> > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. > The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is > what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of > the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. > > There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that > needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class > as a passenger car. it's not method, it's fraud. an suv is not a tractor. and suv's can conform to both emissions and consumption standards - look at toyota's fleet. look at all the commercial vehicles in europe. > To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of > standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. don't agree. these guys should have been focused on this stuff 30 years ago. and they should have had an ongoing program of development. all these loopholes are for is to allow automakers to continue to produce gas guzzlers, and to avoid the tiresome task of catching up with their european and japanese competitors. it's unbelievably stupid. there was a time when we were exporting emissions and efficiency technology. but we don't any more, and that's because someone in detroit figured out that money invested in lobbying for loopholes today yielded greater short term returns than investing in technology for tomorrow. well, it's time to fix that mess. invest in technology. lead the world. reduce our economic dependence on a bunch of rag heads. is that unamerican? |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message > news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Body Roll wrote: >>> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >>> >>> Please help me understand what is meant by >>> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? >> it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which >> we can drive a fleet of hummers". >> > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. > The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is > what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of > the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. > > There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that > needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class > as a passenger car. it's not method, it's fraud. an suv is not a tractor. and suv's can conform to both emissions and consumption standards - look at toyota's fleet. look at all the commercial vehicles in europe. > To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of > standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. don't agree. these guys should have been focused on this stuff 30 years ago. and they should have had an ongoing program of development. all these loopholes are for is to allow automakers to continue to produce gas guzzlers, and to avoid the tiresome task of catching up with their european and japanese competitors. it's unbelievably stupid. there was a time when we were exporting emissions and efficiency technology. but we don't any more, and that's because someone in detroit figured out that money invested in lobbying for loopholes today yielded greater short term returns than investing in technology for tomorrow. well, it's time to fix that mess. invest in technology. lead the world. reduce our economic dependence on a bunch of rag heads. is that unamerican? |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
Michael Pardee wrote:
> "jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message > news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.ne t... >> Body Roll wrote: >>> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >>> >>> Please help me understand what is meant by >>> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? >> it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through which >> we can drive a fleet of hummers". >> > That part has been in effect for a long time, possibly since the beginning. > The various weight classes establish entire sets of standards, and that is > what has given rise to SUVs. The Ford Excursion explicitly took advantage of > the 8000 lb GVWR class, and they made no excuses for it. > > There is method to the madness, of course. A business or individual that > needs to haul large loads should have a vehicle that isn't in the same class > as a passenger car. it's not method, it's fraud. an suv is not a tractor. and suv's can conform to both emissions and consumption standards - look at toyota's fleet. look at all the commercial vehicles in europe. > To have a company's CAFE governed by one set of > standards would be devastating to Mack or Kenworth. don't agree. these guys should have been focused on this stuff 30 years ago. and they should have had an ongoing program of development. all these loopholes are for is to allow automakers to continue to produce gas guzzlers, and to avoid the tiresome task of catching up with their european and japanese competitors. it's unbelievably stupid. there was a time when we were exporting emissions and efficiency technology. but we don't any more, and that's because someone in detroit figured out that money invested in lobbying for loopholes today yielded greater short term returns than investing in technology for tomorrow. well, it's time to fix that mess. invest in technology. lead the world. reduce our economic dependence on a bunch of rag heads. is that unamerican? |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:19:57 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote: >Body Roll wrote: >> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >> >> Please help me understand what is meant by >> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? > >it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through >which we can drive a fleet of hummers". > >the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the >NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current >technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, >uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is >questioned. > >this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most >amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since >microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. >there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to >fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof >collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing >occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall. Or the less dramatic but far more frequent equivalent; backing over them one at a time. |
Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 22:19:57 -0700, jim beam <nospam@example.net>
wrote: >Body Roll wrote: >> http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=3737 >> >> Please help me understand what is meant by >> " and establish different standards for different types of cars." ? > >it's real simple there guy. it means "establish a loophole through >which we can drive a fleet of hummers". > >the real laugh in that cite is "revise the annual increase if (the >NHTSA) concludes that the target cannot be reached with current >technology or without compromising safety.", i.e. another fud [fear, >uncertainty, doubt] loophole for suv's, just in case the first is >questioned. > >this "safe" label that's been attached to suv's is one of the most >amazing triumphs of shamelessly untruthful marketing propaganda since >microsoft convinced tech managers that win95 didn't need dos to boot. >there's nothing "safe" about a 4 ton vehicle flipping over due to >fundamental instability problems, killing it's occupants as its roof >collapses, then either killing the occupants of 3 more cars or killing >occupants of a local school as it blasts its way through a classroom wall. Or the less dramatic but far more frequent equivalent; backing over them one at a time. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:43 AM. |
© 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands