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.

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.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> 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.

What is needed is to re-classify what are cars and what are trucks and
then register and regulate them accordingly. SUVs should be
classified as cars and forced to meet car safety standards (e.g.
bumper height). There could be an EPA large car standard along the
lines of: at least 6 passenger and less than 220 horsepower. Cars
fitting this description would have a lower CAFE standard than regular
cars. (The 220 horsepower limit would prevent abuse of this
standard.)

For trucks:
Light trucks (i.e. three-passenger pickups and vans less than 8,000
GVWR) would have to meet milage standards based on load capacity.
The standard would be set to ensure that the vehicles perform as
trucks, meaning that the hp-limited top speed will probably not exceed
100 mph. Fast truck will be an oxymoron.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> 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.

What is needed is to re-classify what are cars and what are trucks and
then register and regulate them accordingly. SUVs should be
classified as cars and forced to meet car safety standards (e.g.
bumper height). There could be an EPA large car standard along the
lines of: at least 6 passenger and less than 220 horsepower. Cars
fitting this description would have a lower CAFE standard than regular
cars. (The 220 horsepower limit would prevent abuse of this
standard.)

For trucks:
Light trucks (i.e. three-passenger pickups and vans less than 8,000
GVWR) would have to meet milage standards based on load capacity.
The standard would be set to ensure that the vehicles perform as
trucks, meaning that the hp-limited top speed will probably not exceed
100 mph. Fast truck will be an oxymoron.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> 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.

What is needed is to re-classify what are cars and what are trucks and
then register and regulate them accordingly. SUVs should be
classified as cars and forced to meet car safety standards (e.g.
bumper height). There could be an EPA large car standard along the
lines of: at least 6 passenger and less than 220 horsepower. Cars
fitting this description would have a lower CAFE standard than regular
cars. (The 220 horsepower limit would prevent abuse of this
standard.)

For trucks:
Light trucks (i.e. three-passenger pickups and vans less than 8,000
GVWR) would have to meet milage standards based on load capacity.
The standard would be set to ensure that the vehicles perform as
trucks, meaning that the hp-limited top speed will probably not exceed
100 mph. Fast truck will be an oxymoron.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 06:02:26 -0700, "Michael Pardee"
<michaeltnull@cybertrails.com> wrote:

>"jim beam" <nospam@example.net> wrote in message
>news:fOCdnUx4m7LjZlvZnZ2dnUVZ_sCdnZ2d@speakeasy.n et...
>> 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.

What is needed is to re-classify what are cars and what are trucks and
then register and regulate them accordingly. SUVs should be
classified as cars and forced to meet car safety standards (e.g.
bumper height). There could be an EPA large car standard along the
lines of: at least 6 passenger and less than 220 horsepower. Cars
fitting this description would have a lower CAFE standard than regular
cars. (The 220 horsepower limit would prevent abuse of this
standard.)

For trucks:
Light trucks (i.e. three-passenger pickups and vans less than 8,000
GVWR) would have to meet milage standards based on load capacity.
The standard would be set to ensure that the vehicles perform as
trucks, meaning that the hp-limited top speed will probably not exceed
100 mph. Fast truck will be an oxymoron.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> > 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.

So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
cars?

Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
have larger engines than the old ones did.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> > 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.

So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
cars?

Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
have larger engines than the old ones did.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> > 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.

So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
cars?

Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
have larger engines than the old ones did.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:

> > 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.

So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
cars?

Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
have larger engines than the old ones did.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

Jim Mowreader wrote:
> In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
> should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
> cars?

clearly, you're not going to get the same fuel economy out of a 30 ton
big rig as you are a 2000lb car. but, and this is important, there's
absolutely no reason not to pursue economy improvements. example:
aerodynamics, while not a huge contributor to truck fuel consumption,
nevertheless make a difference, especially when you look at fuel
consumption on a national basis. peterbilt? joke. freightliner?
they're hardly up to the same standards as the european truck fleet, but
at least they're making some effort.

>
> Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
> the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
> Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
> 8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
> economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
> have larger engines than the old ones did.

q: who owns freightliner?
a: daimlerchrysler.

q: where does their improved consumption technology come from?
a: the europeans.

q: why?
a: because their environmental legislation has created massive incentive
to push the technology.

so, what are /we/ doing to get /our/ act together? i'm no tree hugger
and i'm definitely no fan of government regulation, but i gotta say,
anything that gets our technological ass back into gear, even if it's
b.s. from the epa, is a good thing. it's like the faa: completely
unnecessary bureaucracy from a business/technology viewpoint, but they
unarguably keep the players up to the game and that's a good thing for
anyone that doesn't want to be alligator food in a swamp in florida
courtesy of companies like valuejet. correspondingly, the epa are a
giant pita, but if they save us even one barrel of oil from festering
nightmares like the middle east, nigeria, etc., i say bring their b.s. on.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

Jim Mowreader wrote:
> In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
> should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
> cars?

clearly, you're not going to get the same fuel economy out of a 30 ton
big rig as you are a 2000lb car. but, and this is important, there's
absolutely no reason not to pursue economy improvements. example:
aerodynamics, while not a huge contributor to truck fuel consumption,
nevertheless make a difference, especially when you look at fuel
consumption on a national basis. peterbilt? joke. freightliner?
they're hardly up to the same standards as the european truck fleet, but
at least they're making some effort.

>
> Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
> the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
> Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
> 8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
> economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
> have larger engines than the old ones did.

q: who owns freightliner?
a: daimlerchrysler.

q: where does their improved consumption technology come from?
a: the europeans.

q: why?
a: because their environmental legislation has created massive incentive
to push the technology.

so, what are /we/ doing to get /our/ act together? i'm no tree hugger
and i'm definitely no fan of government regulation, but i gotta say,
anything that gets our technological ass back into gear, even if it's
b.s. from the epa, is a good thing. it's like the faa: completely
unnecessary bureaucracy from a business/technology viewpoint, but they
unarguably keep the players up to the game and that's a good thing for
anyone that doesn't want to be alligator food in a swamp in florida
courtesy of companies like valuejet. correspondingly, the epa are a
giant pita, but if they save us even one barrel of oil from festering
nightmares like the middle east, nigeria, etc., i say bring their b.s. on.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

Jim Mowreader wrote:
> In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
> should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
> cars?

clearly, you're not going to get the same fuel economy out of a 30 ton
big rig as you are a 2000lb car. but, and this is important, there's
absolutely no reason not to pursue economy improvements. example:
aerodynamics, while not a huge contributor to truck fuel consumption,
nevertheless make a difference, especially when you look at fuel
consumption on a national basis. peterbilt? joke. freightliner?
they're hardly up to the same standards as the european truck fleet, but
at least they're making some effort.

>
> Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
> the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
> Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
> 8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
> economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
> have larger engines than the old ones did.

q: who owns freightliner?
a: daimlerchrysler.

q: where does their improved consumption technology come from?
a: the europeans.

q: why?
a: because their environmental legislation has created massive incentive
to push the technology.

so, what are /we/ doing to get /our/ act together? i'm no tree hugger
and i'm definitely no fan of government regulation, but i gotta say,
anything that gets our technological ass back into gear, even if it's
b.s. from the epa, is a good thing. it's like the faa: completely
unnecessary bureaucracy from a business/technology viewpoint, but they
unarguably keep the players up to the game and that's a good thing for
anyone that doesn't want to be alligator food in a swamp in florida
courtesy of companies like valuejet. correspondingly, the epa are a
giant pita, but if they save us even one barrel of oil from festering
nightmares like the middle east, nigeria, etc., i say bring their b.s. on.

Re: Spam: a possible CAFE revision
 

Jim Mowreader wrote:
> In article <IrudnUGPIK7v51rZnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
> jim beam <nospam@example.net> wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> So what you're saying is that the companies that make Class 8 trucks
> should comply with the same CAFE standards as the companies that make
> cars?

clearly, you're not going to get the same fuel economy out of a 30 ton
big rig as you are a 2000lb car. but, and this is important, there's
absolutely no reason not to pursue economy improvements. example:
aerodynamics, while not a huge contributor to truck fuel consumption,
nevertheless make a difference, especially when you look at fuel
consumption on a national basis. peterbilt? joke. freightliner?
they're hardly up to the same standards as the european truck fleet, but
at least they're making some effort.

>
> Strangely enough, the heavy-truck companies are advancing faster than
> the car companies on the fuel economy front. A few years ago,
> Freightliner built trucks that got 6mpg. Now they build trucks that get
> 8mpg. That's pretty damn impressive--a 33 percent increase in fuel
> economy. That's like going from 30mpg to 40mpg. And new Freightliners
> have larger engines than the old ones did.

q: who owns freightliner?
a: daimlerchrysler.

q: where does their improved consumption technology come from?
a: the europeans.

q: why?
a: because their environmental legislation has created massive incentive
to push the technology.

so, what are /we/ doing to get /our/ act together? i'm no tree hugger
and i'm definitely no fan of government regulation, but i gotta say,
anything that gets our technological ass back into gear, even if it's
b.s. from the epa, is a good thing. it's like the faa: completely
unnecessary bureaucracy from a business/technology viewpoint, but they
unarguably keep the players up to the game and that's a good thing for
anyone that doesn't want to be alligator food in a swamp in florida
courtesy of companies like valuejet. correspondingly, the epa are a
giant pita, but if they save us even one barrel of oil from festering
nightmares like the middle east, nigeria, etc., i say bring their b.s. on.