Stop whining!

He should mandate that all cars are fussion powered by 2015. Then the auto companies will just go out and make it using pixie dust and rainbows.

We had 40+ and even some 50+ mpg cars decades ago. (I keep thinking about replacing the transmission in my dads, 89 Sprint. That was a 45+ mpg car.) The problem is that people want to be able to hit a concrete wall at 80 mph and walk away with only minor injuries. The government starts heaping on regulations, requiring thousands of dollars in airbags that generally save more people than they kill/injure as just one example. (My anecdotal evidence points to them being a wash.)

What if all that money for airbags and other crap went into better passive safety systems and better road design? We paint ourselves into a corner when we require some things.

Or what if we accepted that we have to build cars to be less safe to get the mileage? Perhaps people will start learning to drive properly?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I just know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life is full of trade offs. You want a big heavy metal box protecting you, you are going to have to burn fuel to haul it around.

Crosshair: What if all that money for airbags and other crap went into better passive safety systems and better road design? We paint ourselves into a corner when we require some things.


And yet somehow Japanese auto manufacturers manage to do it and still kick our asses in the sales department.

Yes, that's what is keeping the mpg low, airbags.

Get to da Hydrogen!

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's strategy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions includes championing hydrogen. He topped off a Hummer modified to run on hydrogen at a special fueling station dedicated at Los Angeles Airport on Oct. 25, 2004. At right is GM Vice Chairman Bob Lutz.

I imagine the car companies are just waiting for another Govern to roll around that they can push around.

No matter what we do NAFTA chapter 11 will screw us on any evironmental laws we pass that foreign companies, that build in California, have a problem with.

Though really any large corporation is so entangled with, and dependent on, government control that this isn't the clear cut government meddling that some are portraying it as. It's really just the government doing what it typically does- expanding in a never-ending attempt to clean up its own shiat.

Crosshair: He should mandate that all cars are fussion powered by 2015. Then the auto companies will just go out and make it using pixie dust and rainbows.

We had 40+ and even some 50+ mpg cars decades ago. (I keep thinking about replacing the transmission in my dads, 89 Sprint. That was a 45+ mpg car.) The problem is that people want to be able to hit a concrete wall at 80 mph and walk away with only minor injuries. The government starts heaping on regulations, requiring thousands of dollars in airbags that generally save more people than they kill/injure as just one example. (My anecdotal evidence points to them being a wash.)

What if all that money for airbags and other crap went into better passive safety systems and better road design? We paint ourselves into a corner when we require some things.

Or what if we accepted that we have to build cars to be less safe to get the mileage? Perhaps people will start learning to drive properly?

I don't pretend to have all the answers. I just know that you can't have your cake and eat it too. Life is full of trade offs. You want a big heavy metal box protecting you, you are going to have to burn fuel to haul it around.

Maybe you wouldn't need a farking tank made of crumple points and airbags if everyone didn't insist on driving farking BEHEMOTH SUVs. Good god, I thought my parents old Blazer was a bit excessive, the god damn Suburban, to say nothing of the Escalade, Land Cruiser, and Hummer, is insane.

We can have cars that emit less emissions... but say goodbye to anything with some power to it.

And the airlines could charge less if we didn't regulate their safety too.

Crosshair: What if all that money for airbags and other crap went into better passive safety systems and better road design? We paint ourselves into a corner when we require some things.

I hate insurance companies. They will try to weasel out of paying out money any way they can. So when insurance companies say that their data show that airbags and other crap save lives, i believe them. Because if you don't die or are less seriously injured it's easier to deny your claim. I trust them to have only their own interest at heart. And they gain nothing by disagreeing with the auto industry.

Link goes to a CNN news article.....
Link (new window)

RemyDuron: Maybe you wouldn't need a farking tank made of crumple points and airbags if everyone didn't insist on driving farking BEHEMOTH SUVs.

Nice try, but SUVs are not a safety issue. If anything, they're safer than other vehicles.

is it a tumor?

Steve Zodiac: Crosshair: What if all that money for airbags and other crap went into better passive safety systems and better road design? We paint ourselves into a corner when we require some things.

I hate insurance companies. They will try to weasel out of paying out money any way they can. So when insurance companies say that their data show that airbags and other crap save lives, i believe them. Because if you don't die or are less seriously injured it's easier to deny your claim. I trust them to have only their own interest at heart. And they gain nothing by disagreeing with the auto industry.

Link goes to a CNN news article.....
Link (new window)

I could be wrong, but I think his point was not the stupidity of the particular policy but the stupidity of having a government-imposed, one-size-fits-all policy to begin with. If not, that's my point.

"I said, 'While you're whining, you should be creating new technologies. That's how you meet the date," Schwarzenegger told The Associated Press after meeting with members of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers.

i really wish more corporations were given that little dose of reality.

RIAA? while you're whining, you should be revamping your business model.

AHHHnold is proof positive that liberalism is a sexually transmitted disease. Can't really blame him, but that doesn't mean I have to take him seriously.

Churchill2004: RemyDuron: Maybe you wouldn't need a farking tank made of crumple points and airbags if everyone didn't insist on driving farking BEHEMOTH SUVs.

Nice try, but SUVs are not a safety issue. If anything, they're safer than other vehicles.

Safer for the driver of the SUV, not safer for anything involved in an accident with the SUV.

RoxtarRyan: We can have cars that emit less emissions... but say goodbye to anything with some power to it.

that's ignorance, pure and simple. gasoline does not have some magical monopoly of being able to properly fire a piston.

RemyDuron: Churchill2004: RemyDuron: Maybe you wouldn't need a farking tank made of crumple points and airbags if everyone didn't insist on driving farking BEHEMOTH SUVs.

Nice try, but SUVs are not a safety issue. If anything, they're safer than other vehicles.

Safer for the driver of the SUV, not safer for anything involved in an accident with the SUV.

and lets not forget all the SUVs that had a tendency to roll over due to high centers of gravity.

burndtdan: i really wish more corporations were given that little dose of reality

Yeah, because a politician is really the one to be giving a dose of "reality" to anyone. Particularly on energy.

Churchill2004: Nice try, but SUVs are not a safety issue. If anything, they're safer than other vehicles.

Safer for the people in the SUV, at best it's debatable, safer for everyone else on the road, absolutely not.

RemyDuron: Safer for the driver of the SUV, not safer for anything involved in an accident with the SUV

And what percentage of auto accident injuries/fatalities are caused by being hit by SUVs, that wouldn't have been caused by getting hit by a sedan at the same speed?

Churchill2004: burndtdan: i really wish more corporations were given that little dose of reality

Yeah, because a politician is really the one to be giving a dose of "reality" to anyone. Particularly on energy.

are politicians somehow not human beings? are they somehow different than you or me in some way other than their career?

and do you believe, looking back at arnold's life, people will identify him primarily as a politician?

and most importantly... do you even have a thing to say to agree or disagree with the point?

stop being defensive.

burndtdan: RoxtarRyan: We can have cars that emit less emissions... but say goodbye to anything with some power to it.

that's ignorance, pure and simple. gasoline does not have some magical monopoly of being able to properly fire a piston.

Show me a car (mass produced, not something a few genius high-schoolers rigged up) that has +300HP, AWD (or 4WD), and gets over 40MPG stock.

/seriously, I would buy one, just show me

burndtdan: are politicians somehow not human beings?

Debatable.

burndtdan: are they somehow different than you or me in some way other than their career?

They sure seem to think so. Who else claims such a right to violently compel others to do their will?

burndtdan: and do you believe, looking back at arnold's life, people will identify him primarily as a politician?

I honestly don't care, nor do I see the relevance.


burndtdan: and most importantly... do you even have a thing to say to agree or disagree with the point?

I do object to his presumption that the car companies exist to do what he tells them to do.

burndtdan: stop being defensive

What?

Churchill2004: And what percentage of auto accident injuries/fatalities are caused by being hit by SUVs, that wouldn't have been caused by getting hit by a sedan at the same speed?

How is anyone supposed to know that? Don't derail it by asking for statistics that are impossible to find. It's simple physics.

Churchill2004: I could be wrong, but I think his point was not the stupidity of the particular policy but the stupidity of having a government-imposed, one-size-fits-all policy to begin with. If not, that's my point.

From headlights to windshield wipers to taillights, all of these were campaigned against by at least some automakers at the time. Remember the exploding Ford Pinto? Some corporate lawyers figured it would be cheaper to pay out claims rather than a recall to fix the fuel tank. So excuse me if I don't believe the automakers here.

If gas DOES get up to 5-7 dollars a gallon, it would be cheaper to buy the fuel efficient car even if its initial cost is 2 to 4 thousand dollars more expensive. At $3.50 a gallon, 20 gallons a week it would cost $3640.00 a year, so at $7.00 it would be twice that, or $7280.00. If you save $3640.00 a year and the vehicle cost you an additional $4000.00 then you would start saving money in the second year. If gas is 'only' $5.00 a gallon it would take you 3 years. If you use more than 20 gallons it would take less time to cover the extra cost. No, you can't charge a lot more than current cars, but most people are not so stupid that they can't figure out a 3 year ROI. is to their benefit.

I can't believe no one posted this video. Ahnuld from Kindergarden Cop

Echoic: How is anyone supposed to know that? Don't derail it by asking for statistics that are impossible to find. It's simple physics

I'm not disputing that it's worse to get by an SUV than by a Beetle, I'm just questioning the assertion that SUVs are a major safety issue. If I had to guess (and since we're apparently all guessing), I'd say that the excess of injuries/deaths caused by SUVs that wouldn't have been caused by other cars in identical scenarios is relatively insignificant.

Steve Zodiac: From headlights to windshield wipers to taillights, all of these were campaigned against by at least some automakers at the time

You mean the government regulations requiring those things were campaigned against by the automakers.

Steve Zodiac: If gas DOES get up to 5-7 dollars a gallon, it would be cheaper to buy the fuel efficient car even if its initial cost is 2 to 4 thousand dollars more expensive. At $3.50 a gallon, 20 gallons a week it would cost $3640.00 a year, so at $7.00 it would be twice that, or $7280.00. If you save $3640.00 a year and the vehicle cost you an additional $4000.00 then you would start saving money in the second year. If gas is 'only' $5.00 a gallon it would take you 3 years. If you use more than 20 gallons it would take less time to cover the extra cost. No, you can't charge a lot more than current cars, but most people are not so stupid that they can't figure out a 3 year ROI. is to their benefit

That's exactly the kind of thing I support- people making their own decision.

You know how when you go out to your car after a long day in the sun? And it's like 140 degrees inside? How can that energy be utilized?
And why not solar panels on the hood roof and trunk of every car sitting in the sun in CA, AZ,TX,FL etc. The sun is free, renewable, consistent and comes to work every day. I know the cost of solar is prohibitive right now, but how about dumping some money into that technology? Especially in California. Right on, Arnold!

Cars can be modified to run on hydrogen. Somewhat less power and range, but no smog. Except the problem is that Hydrogen isn't exactly available at every gas station. That and the image of the Hindenburg.

But let us suppose gas stations had hydrogen. It still has to be 'made'. Zap water with electricity, breaks the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen.

But where the electricity comes from is a problem.

Dams mess up rivers
Windmills kill birds
Solar panels are expensive, don't work at night
Coal pollutes
Geothermal isn't very common
Oil is owned by Arabs
Nuclear has meltdown fears, waste, terrorists

We could alll go back the horse and buggy, and start kowtowing to the Amish. And get a shovel.

simpsonfan: Nuclear has meltdown fears, waste, terrorists

I would love to exaggerate on how that is a misguided problem, but I can't.. be back in a couple hours, if I remember, I'll jump on here.

simpsonfan: Nuclear has meltdown fears, waste, terrorists

There has never been a meltdown on US soil. Sure, Russia had one.. but they also never had the safety protocols (such as containment units) and measures like we had (hence, Three Mile Island was not a meltdown, but shutdown, as per the safety protocols). As for 3MI, according to the EPA, an "unknown" amount of radioactivity was released. Unknown being the key word. Could be tens of millions of tons, but it could also be zero. Unknown is just that.

The last reactor built in the US was (IIRC) in the 70's. Since then, technology has continued on the research of nuclear power to make it even more safe in case of a possible problem. Also, dealing with waste is becoming a non-issue. Average life-span of the waste in only around 10k years, and we're currently developing technology to reprocess the waste to use it again in the reactors.

And as for terrorists? Come the fark on... EVERYTHING is a possible terrorist target and weapon. Nuclear reactors are the least of our concerns. 9/11 did not go after a nuclear reactor; it used a couple of planes to take down skyscrapers. Should we stop building planes? Stop building skyscrapers? Absolutely not. Architects and engineers are designing skyscrapers that can take a hit like the WTC did and still stand, and (ideally) the TSA 'should' skim out the possible weapons used on board aircraft, and if they fail, you bet your ass every person on the plane would be willing to die fighting taking out any terrorist punks.

Tractor trailers can be used as weapons; fill 'em up with a crapload of explosives, and drive into a mall. Computers are the modern terrorist's weapon. They gather intel, communicate, and plan over networks using modern science.

Using terrorist attacks to not continue progress of anything sends signals that their tactics work to instill fear and paranoia into their targets. I say lets build the 300 nuclear reactors (enough to kill our dependency on fossil fuels to power the grids). With some upgrades to our cars, we can say to the terrorists "keep yer farking oil", and GTFO of the middle east for good.

simpsonfan: Cars can be modified to run on hydrogen. Somewhat less power and range, but no smog. Except the problem is that Hydrogen isn't exactly available at every gas station. That and the image of the Hindenburg.

But let us suppose gas stations had hydrogen. It still has to be 'made'. Zap water with electricity, breaks the molecule into hydrogen and oxygen.

But where the electricity comes from is a problem.

Dams mess up rivers
Windmills kill birds
Solar panels are expensive, don't work at night
Coal pollutes
Geothermal isn't very common
Oil is owned by Arabs
Nuclear has meltdown fears, waste, terrorists

We could alll go back the horse and buggy, and start kowtowing to the Amish. And get a shovel.

YOU SIR (OR MA'AM, I DON'T CARE) ARE WRONG!

Electrolysis of water is a complete waste of energy in making Hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas is produced commercially by the combustion of Natural Gas, and is therefore a waste of time.

There is no free way or cheap way to make hydrogen gas, unfortunately. Hydrogen is a waste of time. And in case I don't have you convinced, here's some science!

The hydrogen powered car produces water, yes? This is from burning H2 gas in O2, making H20. 2*H2+O2->2H2O

Electrolysis is breaking up two H2O molecules to make 2H2(g) and O2(g). 2*H2O->2H2(g)+O2

If you agree with both of those principles but somehow are in favor of H2 cells, you are a moron.

Put these two reactions together, and what do you get?
2*H2o->2*H2O. You have only wasted energy to break up water then put it back together.

Complete waste of time.

BetterThomas:
YOU SIR (OR MA'AM, I DON'T CARE) ARE WRONG!

Electrolysis of water is a complete waste of energy in making Hydrogen gas. Hydrogen gas is produced commercially by the combustion of Natural Gas, and is therefore a waste of time.

There is no free way or cheap way to make hydrogen gas, unfortunately. Hydrogen is a waste of time. And in case I don't have you convinced, here's some science!

The hydrogen powered car produces water, yes? This is from burning H2 gas in O2, making H20. 2*H2+O2->2H2O

Electrolysis is breaking up two H2O molecules to make 2H2(g) and O2(g). 2*H2O->2H2(g)+O2

If you agree with both of those principles but somehow are in favor of H2 cells, you are a moron.

Put these two reactions together, and what do you get?
2*H2o->2*H2O. You have only wasted energy to break up water then put it back together.

Complete waste of time.


Are you joking or retarded?
One is an endothermic reaction and the other is an exothermic reaction, i.e. one you put energy in and the other you get energy out. The energy you get out can be used for many things, like powering a car for instance. The closed loop effect of electrolysis and recombination of water is precisely why it is so desirable. The only issue is creating the initial H2 gas in a renewable manner.

If solar power could be utilized in a large scale to provide electricity during the day, as well as split water into H2 to provide energy for the night, we'd be rid of this stupid energy issue once and for all.

See you at da party Richtaaa!

Churchill2004: I could be wrong, but I think his point was not the stupidity of the particular policy but the stupidity of having a government-imposed, one-size-fits-all policy to begin with. If not, that's my point.

That was my point. Thank you. The kicker for me is that it is ILLEGAL to deactivate airbags. I know many people who are 4'10" or even shorter. When driving a car with airbags they are in great danger of being killed since they have to sit so close to the steering wheel. They can't turn the bag off and rely on the belt alone. In my case and many others, airbags INCREASED the amount of injury.

Airbag benefits, airbag costs (new window)

A plethora of technical and policy subjects relating to airbags is covered in a massive and rapidly expanding literature (see, for example, the summary in Ref. ). Despite so much literature, many of the most basic questions still lack confident answers. The question of whether the benefits of airbags are commensurate with their considerable costs has received scant attention. This question constitutes a major portion of the present chapter. Even after over ten million airbag deployments, it is still not known with confidence whether airbags provide a net decrease or net increase in risk of different severity injuries. However, it is well established that when a crash occurs, airbags reduce fatality risks to belted or unbelted drivers, as summarized in Table 11-4

The problem is that seatbelts do most of the work, making it difficult to determine some of these factors to asses the cost/benefits or airbags

More regulation on how to build a car coming out of Califohniah? Color me shocked.
When is Detroit just going to stop selling there?

Aluminum frames, aluminum/ceramic engines, and plastic bodies to start the lightening of cars
Remove radio, A/C, soundproofing panels, headliner, heated leather interior, fog lamp wipers, dealer bonus package, and hundreds of other pieces of crap to complete the diet
Once you have a lighter car you will need less engine to do the same amount of work, less engine = better fuel economy at the same high speed and power you are accustomed to currently.

Tata Nano is one direction for this no frills style car.
BMW is making the 1L/100km car in a similar style.

Churchill2004: burndtdan: are politicians somehow not human beings?

Debatable.

no, it isn't. they are human beings, and to attribute to them a sensibility or a lack thereof based solely on their career choice is ignorant.

burndtdan: are they somehow different than you or me in some way other than their career?

They sure seem to think so. Who else claims such a right to violently compel others to do their will?

just about all of humanity. and for that matter, i don't recall a single detail in this entire issue that would amount to violently doing anything.

burndtdan: and do you believe, looking back at arnold's life, people will identify him primarily as a politician?

I honestly don't care, nor do I see the relevance.

well, if you are attributing to him this perceived quality of "politicians", then even in your strained, strangely bigoted logic that determines the humanity of a person by their career choice or other arbitrary methods, he must also have the humanity that you would attribute to athletes, actors, immigrants, etc.

burndtdan: and most importantly... do you even have a thing to say to agree or disagree with the point?

I do object to his presumption that the car companies exist to do what he tells them to do.

it's not what he told them to do, it's what the citizens told them to do. as the consumers, the companies do exist, or continue to exist, to do what the consumers tell them to do. in this case, the government is an extension of the consumers; their way of forcing the industry to adapt to the true market when the industry failed to do so on it's own steam.

burndtdan: stop being defensive

What?

everything in this thread that you posted was argumentatively disagreeing with someone for no real reason.

I can't believe nobody posted the "Stop Whining" pic.

I thought he'd be on their side now that global temperatures have dropped more than they have gone up in the last 60 years combined.

We need more emissions.

ARNOLD IS NUMERO UNO!

/yes I started back up again....
//yes, it's more fun that I remember.
///weee.............