Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Latest Boss Info
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="68fastback" data-source="post: 6380124" data-attributes="member: 44957"><p>Having the auto industry engineers directly involved (rather than having to defend against targets made in a vacuum) makes total sense to me too -- clearly we're being too logical :rollseyes ;-) But clearly they're the 'evil-ones' and cannot be believed! :-D</p><p></p><p>I can't help but recall that the model-T was the first volume production vehicle designed to run on ethanol. It also got 23 mpg on gas. I'm actually an environmentalist (active for over 30 years) but disagree with many of the 'blind-greens' -- those that feel blind insistance on change is just as important as content and prudent change. With today's tech, only nuclear can bring us affordable and 'clean' hydrogen, imo, but many greens still see it as the devil-incarnate not realizing nuclear technology has changed dramatically -- even tho it still scares me a bit, I see real promise in nucs.</p><p></p><p>So while they demand cars that can flip-over and flatten into concrete walls with high-surviveability, and carry the weight of the structure and all the systems that go along with safety, the average fleet still only gets about 23 mpg -- 80+ years later. The greens see that as a total lack of progress -- even a conspiracy -- while I see it as getting what was asked for. Personally, I'd rather own a 2500 lb super-fast curve-carver that cruises at 35 mpg than a 4000+ lb 'safe' beast that struggles to get 20-25 mpg. Of course, that would require folks to actually know how to drive :dw: rather than relying on the car to protect them from themselves. There's merit to both approaches, imo, but then reason should dictate that the CO2 footprint will be worse for a 'safe' 4000lb'er. </p><p></p><p>The 'blind-greens' are sure it's a conspiracy sereptitiously driven by big-oil with a wink from the auto manufacturers. The more sensible greens see it as a genuine dilemma but demand change -- now --anyway ...that still tends to lead to premature mandates without sufficient (imo) auto-industry engineering input. Of course, that is also problematic, since the manufacturers 'play' competitive strategy games to favor their own technologies, so each brand does have it's biasses too... </p><p></p><p>But, underneath it all, I agree that more realistic, more engineering-driven and 'pre-tested' peer-reviewed goals are needed based to drive the <em>core assumptions that government <u>commits</u> to manage to</em> -- so the stated goals don't change more frequently than the half-life of the technologies trying to achieve them. If we could only suck the politics out of the debate we (USA) might actually be able to do this and even assume a leadership role to the extent U.S. tech can rightly achieve that. Of course the auto industry did try to take the easy way out in the '60s, but that was the first turn of the screw -- I think everyone is taking this FAR more seriously now ...I hope I'm not naiive.</p><p></p><p>Sorry for the long post ... I get carried away sometimes <lol> It's frustrating to stare down the potential boresight on the demise of high-performance vehicles when it's not at all necessary -- or even significant -- in the overall dilemma. But, I predict, we'll see more ethanol and E85 racing for political reasons when it's neither total-energy-cycle viable (presently) nor friendly to the massive investment in existing infrastructure. Bio fuels (diesel, jet-kero, gasoline) and nuclear-hydrogen are just so superior -- even if we have to use clean-coal for the +/-20 years it will take to ramp-up those techs to full throttle and full capacity.</p><p></p><p>Hopefully we'll look back on these years as the "thanks-I-needed-that" slap that woke us up -- change takes awareness and a public mandate ...as long the public doesn't get to 'engineer' the solutuion. ;-)</p><p></p><p>---</p><p></p><p>< Andy, sorry for the hijack... it seemed like a worthwhile diversion lacking any new Boss info <lol> ;-) --Dan ></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="68fastback, post: 6380124, member: 44957"] Having the auto industry engineers directly involved (rather than having to defend against targets made in a vacuum) makes total sense to me too -- clearly we're being too logical :rollseyes ;-) But clearly they're the 'evil-ones' and cannot be believed! :-D I can't help but recall that the model-T was the first volume production vehicle designed to run on ethanol. It also got 23 mpg on gas. I'm actually an environmentalist (active for over 30 years) but disagree with many of the 'blind-greens' -- those that feel blind insistance on change is just as important as content and prudent change. With today's tech, only nuclear can bring us affordable and 'clean' hydrogen, imo, but many greens still see it as the devil-incarnate not realizing nuclear technology has changed dramatically -- even tho it still scares me a bit, I see real promise in nucs. So while they demand cars that can flip-over and flatten into concrete walls with high-surviveability, and carry the weight of the structure and all the systems that go along with safety, the average fleet still only gets about 23 mpg -- 80+ years later. The greens see that as a total lack of progress -- even a conspiracy -- while I see it as getting what was asked for. Personally, I'd rather own a 2500 lb super-fast curve-carver that cruises at 35 mpg than a 4000+ lb 'safe' beast that struggles to get 20-25 mpg. Of course, that would require folks to actually know how to drive :dw: rather than relying on the car to protect them from themselves. There's merit to both approaches, imo, but then reason should dictate that the CO2 footprint will be worse for a 'safe' 4000lb'er. The 'blind-greens' are sure it's a conspiracy sereptitiously driven by big-oil with a wink from the auto manufacturers. The more sensible greens see it as a genuine dilemma but demand change -- now --anyway ...that still tends to lead to premature mandates without sufficient (imo) auto-industry engineering input. Of course, that is also problematic, since the manufacturers 'play' competitive strategy games to favor their own technologies, so each brand does have it's biasses too... But, underneath it all, I agree that more realistic, more engineering-driven and 'pre-tested' peer-reviewed goals are needed based to drive the [I]core assumptions that government [U]commits[/U] to manage to[/I] -- so the stated goals don't change more frequently than the half-life of the technologies trying to achieve them. If we could only suck the politics out of the debate we (USA) might actually be able to do this and even assume a leadership role to the extent U.S. tech can rightly achieve that. Of course the auto industry did try to take the easy way out in the '60s, but that was the first turn of the screw -- I think everyone is taking this FAR more seriously now ...I hope I'm not naiive. Sorry for the long post ... I get carried away sometimes <lol> It's frustrating to stare down the potential boresight on the demise of high-performance vehicles when it's not at all necessary -- or even significant -- in the overall dilemma. But, I predict, we'll see more ethanol and E85 racing for political reasons when it's neither total-energy-cycle viable (presently) nor friendly to the massive investment in existing infrastructure. Bio fuels (diesel, jet-kero, gasoline) and nuclear-hydrogen are just so superior -- even if we have to use clean-coal for the +/-20 years it will take to ramp-up those techs to full throttle and full capacity. Hopefully we'll look back on these years as the "thanks-I-needed-that" slap that woke us up -- change takes awareness and a public mandate ...as long the public doesn't get to 'engineer' the solutuion. ;-) --- < Andy, sorry for the hijack... it seemed like a worthwhile diversion lacking any new Boss info <lol> ;-) --Dan > [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
SVT Shelby GT500
Latest Boss Info
Top