Fuel Efficiency questions

[summit]

At what limit would freeway speeds allow the US to cut Arab oil imports by 50%? One person may well pay $10 to save an hour, but an entire driving nation could save how much military spending and human death in the Middle East if they all drove Xmph. Imagine an America where you didn't have to give a fuck about Arabic oil. That would be like, Freedom, or, Independence. Sound familiar?

Next time a US soldier loses his life in Iraq, tell his parents that when you go skiing on the weekend, you spend the extra 10 bucks to save an hour.

I get annoyed by the "if we act together, we can make a difference as a group" mantra as much as the next guy. But it is undeniably true. Lots of small things add up to big things

Oh for the love of...

If we cared enough we wouldn't have just voted to continue the ban on shale oil extraction... we wouldn't be blocking oil extraction around the nation... we would make it easier to build new refineries... and we would invest HEAVILY in electric/fuel cell research.

[Rideski]

[img]http://www.teamfitzgerald.com/69%20CAMARO%20WITH%20TORQ%20THRUST%20II'S.jpg
[/img]

edit: well that's a strange coincidence that whoever owns the pic of that Camaro changed the location or deleted it just yesterday.
Oh well I don't have time to fix it now.

[Bart T]

^^^ is there any reason (besides marketing) that americans feel the need to drive SUV's and full-size trucks, even full-size cars, to take the kids to school and pick up groceries?

yah, it's called lack of garage/parking space. if i had the space to park a little car, plus the extra funds to buy it, i'd consider buying a mini or whatever to putt around in. but with 3 kids and 2 big dogs, we need every sq. inch of our suburban, plus a box, to go on road trips.

also, at least for me, i work on the other end of the equation, by only driving 10 or 12000 miles a year I probably burn less gas than the average american even driving a beast.

get rid of your commute. you'll save way more gas than by driving a prius.

finally, junking an old car and buying a new one also consumes a helluva lot of energy.

[f2f]

<something huge>

to this, sir, i say:



235mpg from a single cylinder diesel engine. weighs ~500lbs sans driver.

[neck beard]

I guess America is about to get a whole lot smaller. Crude at 135, likely to hit 175, gas well above $4 by year end, no doubt about that. Like it or not, log range personal travel will cost you more, either in time or money (or pets and children to allow for a smaller family car). No free lunch, something has to give. And airlines cutting less popular flights like crazy to reduce costs. And thats based on economics before oil went above 120.

Hope the credit crisis plays out without too much more disruption.

Obama is going to have the worst fucking job on Earth pretty soon. Poor cunt.

[f2f]

I guess America is about to get a whole lot smaller.

if you elect somebody smart they can use the available labour during the recession to build a better and more robust network of transportation (trains, specifically) to move people and goods between places. population concentration should increase along the train lines like it did in the olden days and you'll kill two rabbits with one shot: no suburbs, and a suitable network for transportation.

look at russia for a bad example of how it works, and switzerland for a good example of how it works

canada, luckily, is much better positioned to survive the doom of private transportation: 95% of its population live within a earshot of the train tracks that cross the country longitudally.

ps: no, i'm not serious. mostly.

[mtcham]

A step in the right direction.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/auto...s/4217016.html

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6138972/

http://www.theaircar.com/acf/

http://www.mobilemag.com/content/100/354/C8115/

http://www.squidoo.com/carrunsonwater

[neck beard]

if you elect somebody smart they can use the available labour during the depressionto build a better and more robust network of transportation...

Fixed it for ya.

[philippeR]

yah, it's called lack of garage/parking space. if i had the space to park a little car, plus the extra funds to buy it, i'd consider buying a mini or whatever to putt around in. but with 3 kids and 2 big dogs, we need every sq. inch of our suburban, plus a box, to go on road trips.

also, at least for me, i work on the other end of the equation, by only driving 10 or 12000 miles a year I probably burn less gas than the average american even driving a beast.

get rid of your commute. you'll save way more gas than by driving a prius.

finally, junking an old car and buying a new one also consumes a helluva lot of energy.

Just a side note, but you don't need a 2.5 tons, 6 liters V8 truck to carry 3 kids and 2 big dogs. No one buy those outdated POS, but in the US and in the gulf.

[neck beard]

... and Iceland. I saw shit loads of them there, really took me by surprise.

[Nathan Explosion]

At what limit would freeway speeds allow the US to cut Arab oil imports by 50%? One person may well pay $10 to save an hour, but an entire driving nation could save how much military spending and human death in the Middle East if they all drove Xmph. Imagine an America where you didn't have to give a fuck about Arabic oil. That would be like, Freedom, or, Independence. Sound familiar?

Next time a US soldier loses his life in Iraq, tell his parents that when you go skiing on the weekend, you spend the extra 10 bucks to save an hour.

This is the most inaccurate and, well, hilarious thing I've read about the oil industry in a long damn time.

How, pray tell, do you recommend we become oil independent without any new drilling or exploration on our soil? This NIMBY idiocy has to stop somewhere. If you hate Arab oil, we need to drill, otherwise get used to it. Increasing fuel efficiency in vehicles is not enough to create independence, we need new sources in this nation. Unfortunately, the presidential candidates (yes, that includes McCain) have all fallen under the environmentalist bullshit spell. There is no immediate solution, there is no harmless answer. Oil plays a larger role in your life than your car. It's probably behind your electricity, it's in your plastics, it's in almost everything you use in your life in one form or another. Without exploration and drilling, we will run out in this nation, we are getting closer to that point every day that we refuse to build wells and refineries.

So, you tell me: Are we going to drill, or are we going to buy? Those are the extent of our "long term" options. Efficiency is important, but it is not the answer.

[neck beard]

Did you even read what I wrote? How can something be inaccurate when it contains no statements, only a question? "sir, your question is inaccurate because it doesn't suit my answer". When did I suggest America should not drill for oil?

As for an American saying "Efficiency is important, but it is not the answer". That's classic. The number one threat to America's (almost former) global position is that it needs more oil than it can produce and/or buy at an economically viable price in the long term. The only answer is reduce demand for oil (or kill your competition for it).

I am imperfect and can often be wrong, sure. But you are a dumb little cunt who says far too much. Go back to school and learn how to help the genuinely smart and hopeful young people of America solve the big problems of the future.

[Nathan Explosion]

Did you even read what I wrote? How can something be inaccurate when it contains no statements, only a question? "sir, your question is inaccurate because it doesn't suit my answer". When did I suggest America should not drill for oil?

You, sir, made the idiotic assertion that how I choose to spend my money is the equivalent of killing soldiers. You also made the assertion that lowering the speed limit, and increasing automobile efficiency is a means to an energy independent US. This statement, and sentiment is wholly wrong, and can be proven as such without any knowledge whatsoever of the oil industry as a whole, as I will address below. You fail to realize that your car is not the only source of oil consumption, and it is quite likely that it is not the largest consumer in your life today.

As for an American saying "Efficiency is important, but it is not the answer". That's classic. The number one threat to America's (almost former) global position is that it needs more oil than it can produce and/or buy at an economically viable price in the long term. The only answer is reduce demand for oil (or kill your competition for it).

I am imperfect and can often be wrong, sure. But you are a dumb little cunt who says far too much. Go back to school and learn how to help the genuinely smart and hopeful young people of America solve the big problems of the future.

Oh really? Oil is a finite commodity. Using less of it does not create more. It prolongs the inevitable. Efficiency is not the answer. Does that mean it's not the right thing to do? No, and I have never asserted that. But it is a mathematical certainty that efficiency is not the answer, unless you are proposing a degree of efficiency which actually suspends demand completely...

Oil consumption is a long term subtraction problem, eventually it will hit zero. We have to take measures to ensure that is a long time from now, if ever. Efficiency is not the answer, because there is no way to create enough efficiency in this nation to create any kind of long term energy independence. Efficiency and exploration are key, though, utilized together.

[neck beard]

Don't tell me what I fail to realise based on one question regarding efficiency and an implied association for American demand for oil and American deaths in Iraq.

>Oil consumption is a long term subtraction problem, eventually it will hit zero.

And then you say

>Efficiency is not the answer, because there is no way to create enough efficiency in this nation to create any kind of long term energy independence

Conclusion: you are fucked.

And that was the first and last time I speak to you.

[Nathan Explosion]

Don't tell me what I fail to realise based on one question regarding efficiency and an implied association for American demand for oil and American deaths in Iraq.

>Oil consumption is a long term subtraction problem, eventually it will hit zero.

And then you say

>Efficiency is not the answer, because there is no way to create enough efficiency in this nation to create any kind of long term energy independence

Conclusion: you are fucked.

And that was the first and last time I speak to you.

Yes, when you only read every other sentence, I could see how you could get that. I suppose I could make it clearer, and reiterate that I am not totally disagreeing with you. Increased fuel efficiency ALONE is not a solution. Is that better? We are fucked. Eventually the world will run out of oil, hopefully we'll be running on something else by then, which will be alot easier to achieve if the global economy is not in shambles. We can help ourselves by using our untapped domestic sources to decrease or eliminate our need for foreign oil, but there is no way to do so without drilling in this country.

Now be careful not to take offense. I am not solely addressing you, though it seems like you'd like me to be, but rather using your statements to extrapolate a larger point.

[Rideski]

Ok pop quiz:

Probably more than one way to solve this but presumably only one answer. Curious how you build the equation.

vehicle A is paid for, and gets 10mpg
vehicle B would be $10,000 and gets 20mpg

How many miles driven to break even?

(To make it simple, presume both take 87 octane, which is debatable in real world, also presume no financing required)

[AK47bp]

C is the answer


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[basinbeater]

Mpg difference is 10, so, $3.00/10=.3
$10000/.3= 33,333 miles.

sent from some fucking device using some fucking program.

[4matic]

You have to consider $10k earning 3% interest. About 100 gallons a year.

[Rideski]

Yes interest on the money, plus full coverage insurance instead of just collision, and in some cases higher octane gas. Setting that aside, interested to see how to do the equation, because two math nerd friends of mine are disagreeing on the answer. It appears Basin's 33 might be wrong.
I imagine a lot of the math nerds are in bed now, so I guess maybe we'll have to wait till morning.

[ill-advised strategy]

Roughly 70k at $3/gal. Without getting deep into the fine print.

[rod9301]

X is the number of miles.

X* 3/10-x*3/20=10000

X=10000/(3/10-3/20)= 10000/(.3-.15)=10000/.15=66,666 at 3 dollars per gallon

Sent from my moto g(6) using TGR Forums mobile app

[Rideski]

Each person built the equation different, but yeah 66k is the consensus. It's kinda mind blowing though right? Not super encouraging to ditch the old truck which still functions just fine.

[basinbeater]

I'm embarrassed. Don't do math on hydrcone and antibiotics. Strep throat got me down.

sent from some fucking device using some fucking program.

[Rideski]

Don't be, a senior level enginerd said 33, but then revised two hours later to 66.

And that sucks, get well soon.
Chicken soup from your own boiled bones ftw.
Well I mean boil chicken bones, not your own.