In article <dcrimt$i0i$1@blue.rahul.net>, dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com
wrote:

> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops
> for gasoline.

Current mid-size diesels can do that, too.

 

In article <_P9Ie.3354$Q75.674237@newshog.newsread.com>, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com> wrote:

>The real reason her car is more efficient
>than mine has nothing to do with batteries or electric motors but is the
>direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline
>engine.

Huh?
I recall an SAE sponsored talk from a Honda VP who said that the
Insight got about a third of its mpg benefit from each of:
lightweighting, engine downsizing and efficiency improvements, regen
braking.

The battery/motor is directly responsible for the latter. How will
you do regen without a motor/generator?

The hybridization enables the engine downsizing, ie it allows you to
maintain acceptable acceleration with a smaller engine.

And the hybridization allows you power management advantages, ie you
can run the engine in more efficient ranges. Sourcing/sinking to
the batteries allows this.

The Prius is not light like the Insight. And it has a much larger
battery. Thus much more of its mpg benefit is directly due to
hybridization.

 

On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:30:50 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:23:34 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:

>>> Hello,
>>> I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since
>>> they love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they
>>> talk to that they have a "hybrid". They also like it when fellow
>>> greenies see the word "hybrid" on the back of their cars." It's not
>>> the actual word that they love--it's the thought behind the word. An
>>> example is the word "diamond". It's the thought behind the word that
>>> is important when it comes to "hybrid" or "diamond".
>>
>>> Jason
>>
>> Well it may be a matter of semantics but the way I see it, they are
>> bragging the technology and benefits of the hybrid, not the word
>> itself. I think most of them understand the technology reasonably
>> well. It would be a different story if they had no real clue what
>> 'hybrid' meant, or if hybrid technology didn't really do anything.
>> Think Fahrfurnugen or Cab-Forward design. Got a Hemi in that thing?
>
>I was talking with a proud Prius owner just the other day. She was very
>pleased with her new car just as I am when I have a new vehicle. She showed
>me all the screens and even cranked on the A/C pointing out that it worked
>even when the car wasn't started. Very nice lady and a friend but in my
>experience, a typical hybrid owner. The point is that her A/C isn't working
>just because the heat-exchanger fan motor is running and, most importantly,
>her car is entirely powered by gasoline - just like mine. Sure her car is a
>bit more efficient using techniques such as regenerative braking but these
>could be put to use on my car too. The real reason her car is more efficient
>than mine has nothing to do with batteries or electric motors but is the
>direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline
>engine. Naturally, both could be used on my car too.

Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control
these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the
Prius' gasoline motor which would explain it's exceptional fuel
economy. The computer only improves economy because it has a battery
and motor to control. If manufacturers could get the same benefit
without these expensive parts, why don't they do it? The fact is that
the most advanced gas engine with computer control cannot match this
efficiency level, at least not with acceptable performance.

> So, when you think
>current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or hemi.
>You might also throw in extra profits & CAFE.

I thought everyone was saying that the manufacturers are losing money
on hybrids. As for CAFE, it wouldn't help your CAFE if it didn't
improve milage.

 

dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:

> Dave <dm@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Yup. And you had a good summary of Yates' biased spin (to be
>
>
> I was thinking about it later, and I thought I would just list the words
> that would not be in a balanced article. They are purely flame bait.
>
> dark side It's in a headline, so attention-grabbing is okay.
> voila
> palpitate
> greenies
> Rube Goldberg
> flunkies
> flinty-eyed
> discover perpetual motion and cure the common cold
> one of the most respected [unnamed] high-powered engineering executives
> know-it-alls
> gasbags
> elitist
>
> Some of these are perfectly good words, but they are an inordinantly high
> percentage of the article. Nothing new is said, there is just some swagger
> and bravado attached so that the arguments carry more weight.
>
> Where was Brock when Car and Driver did their review of the Escape?
> http://www.caranddriver.com/article....rticle_id=8777
>
> His full page article in the December 2004 edition (as opposed to the
> Hybrid few paragraphs), has "liberal bed-wetters" in the second paragraph.
> Oh, wait! There is a statement that is helpful in relation to his bias
> against hybrids. "we remain devoted to a sybaritic celebration of
> essentially useless, antisocial, high-speed, gas,-guzzling, overpowered
> automobiles."

Yates is waaaaay past his "Use by" date. ;)

Are we to conclude Yates is a conservative bed wetter?

 

Abeness wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
>
>> it's not necessary or practical to go to a wholly alternative fuel
>> model. but i'd go pure electric /if/ the power source was nuclear or
>> wind/solar/geothermal, etc. but that would only be practical for
>> local commute traffic affording known recharge schedules.
>
>
> Right. The trouble is that the power itself has to be generated somehow.
> Oil supplies are finite, even if they're not going to run out anytime
> soon (I don't know whose projections I'd trust, frankly), and the
> emissions from gasoline engines can't be great for our air/atmosphere.
>
> To make long trips viable there needs to be a model similar to that of
> gasoline engines/gas stations as they are now. Obviously one can't wait
> around for batteries to charge up again at an electric "filling
> station", and I kinda doubt a battery-swapping plan could be made
> workable. I also doubt we'll have mini-nuclear reactors in cars anytime
> soon. Al Qaeda would have a field day. That leaves some sort of fuel
> that can be delivered safely and stored, unless we have a tremendous
> breakthrough in solar power conversion, and even so the sun doesnt
> always shine...
>
>> imo, the best most practical solution that meets the needs of urban,
>> suburban and country dwellers is to encourage the use of smaller more
>> efficient vehicles, strongly discourage the use of ridiculous gas
>> guzzlers, and actually deploy known technology that increases
>> thermodynamic efficiency. and all the folk that drive huge vehicles
>> because they "need" them should go to europe for a few minutes to get
>> some perspective.
>
>
> Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example, should
> be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care about gas
> guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because those
> controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity. Oh well,
> to hell in a handbasket we go.

You sound like some liberal bed wetter, boy.

<vbg>

 

Sparky Spartacus wrote:
> Abeness wrote:
>
>> Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example,
>> should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care
>> about gas guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because
>> those controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity.
>> Oh well, to hell in a handbasket we go.
>
>
> You sound like some liberal bed wetter, boy.
>
> <vbg>

LOL. Hey, I'm just a realist, and happen to believe strongly in
efficient use of resources--in general. Using non-renewable stuff up is
inherently inefficient, but using it up faster is more inefficient than
using it slower.

Actually, I drive a puny Honda Civic and can't see around those monster
SUV bastards, which fuels my ire... ;-)) But even worse is the fact that
their suspension is so high up, and my Honda's so low, that my hood now
sports a few good dimples where some assholes just backed right up over
my car when pulling out of a parking space. So I'm pissed at SUVs for
other reasons. GRRRRR!!

 

dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
>
>>You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not viable
>>for long trips.
>
>
> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile stops
> for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels would be
> more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
> would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
> infrastructure.

Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative
fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run out
of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to afford.

 

Abeness wrote:
> dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
>
>> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
>>
>>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not
>>> viable for long trips.
>>
>>
>>
>> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile
>> stops
>> for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels
>> would be
>> more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
>> would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
>> infrastructure.
>
>
> Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative
> fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run out
> of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to afford.

wasn't a lot of the bleating about diminishing reserves done to get tax
write-offs? wasting asset status?

personally. i doubt reserves will be seriously pinched any time soon.
or even during our grand kids lifetimes. and then we can just switch to
biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are
by far the easiest solution.

 

Gordon McGrew wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 20:30:50 GMT, "FanJet" <FanJet27@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Gordon McGrew wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 13:23:34 -0700, jason@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
>
>>>>Hello,
>>>>I disagree. The so called "greenies" love the word "hybrid" since
>>>>they love to tell their friends and almost anyone else that they
>>>>talk to that they have a "hybrid". They also like it when fellow
>>>>greenies see the word "hybrid" on the back of their cars." It's not
>>>>the actual word that they love--it's the thought behind the word. An
>>>>example is the word "diamond". It's the thought behind the word that
>>>>is important when it comes to "hybrid" or "diamond".
>>>
>>>>Jason
>>>
>>>Well it may be a matter of semantics but the way I see it, they are
>>>bragging the technology and benefits of the hybrid, not the word
>>>itself. I think most of them understand the technology reasonably
>>>well. It would be a different story if they had no real clue what
>>>'hybrid' meant, or if hybrid technology didn't really do anything.
>>>Think Fahrfurnugen or Cab-Forward design. Got a Hemi in that thing?
>>
>>I was talking with a proud Prius owner just the other day. She was very
>>pleased with her new car just as I am when I have a new vehicle. She showed
>>me all the screens and even cranked on the A/C pointing out that it worked
>>even when the car wasn't started. Very nice lady and a friend but in my
>>experience, a typical hybrid owner. The point is that her A/C isn't working
>>just because the heat-exchanger fan motor is running and, most importantly,
>>her car is entirely powered by gasoline - just like mine. Sure her car is a
>>bit more efficient using techniques such as regenerative braking but these
>>could be put to use on my car too. The real reason her car is more efficient
>>than mine has nothing to do with batteries or electric motors but is the
>>direct result of the computer control system and an advanced gasoline
>>engine. Naturally, both could be used on my car too.
>
>
> Really? Don't all cars have advanced engines and computer control
> these days? I am not aware of any particular advancements in the
> Prius' gasoline motor which would explain it's exceptional fuel
> economy. The computer only improves economy because it has a battery
> and motor to control. If manufacturers could get the same benefit
> without these expensive parts, why don't they do it? The fact is that
> the most advanced gas engine with computer control cannot match this
> efficiency level, at least not with acceptable performance.
>
>
>>So, when you think
>>current hybrid, you should think Fahrfurnugen, Cab-Forward design or hemi.
>>You might also throw in extra profits & CAFE.
>
>
> I thought everyone was saying that the manufacturers are losing money
> on hybrids. As for CAFE, it wouldn't help your CAFE if it didn't
> improve milage.
>

"volumized" gas with low calorific content doesn't do much for cafe either.

 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:14:48 -0400, Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
> Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>> Abeness wrote:
>>
>>> Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example,
>>> should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care
>>> about gas guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because
>>> those controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity.
>>> Oh well, to hell in a handbasket we go.
>>
>>
>> You sound like some liberal bed wetter, boy.
>>
>> <vbg>
>
> LOL. Hey, I'm just a realist, and happen to believe strongly in
> efficient use of resources--in general. Using non-renewable stuff up is
> inherently inefficient, but using it up faster is more inefficient than
> using it slower.
>
> Actually, I drive a puny Honda Civic and can't see around those monster
> SUV bastards, which fuels my ire... ;-)) But even worse is the fact that
> their suspension is so high up, and my Honda's so low, that my hood now
> sports a few good dimples where some assholes just backed right up over
> my car when pulling out of a parking space. So I'm pissed at SUVs for
> other reasons. GRRRRR!!

Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just don't
seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional vehicles
when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.

And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
"Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
just a couple times a year is simply insane.

For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
conservative Republican. ;-)

- Rich

 

user wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 08:14:48 -0400, Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
>
>>Sparky Spartacus wrote:
>>
>>>Abeness wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Really we should just tax the crap outta them. SUVs, for example,
>>>>should be classified as trucks, which they are. But we don't care
>>>>about gas guzzling and its effect on the rest of the world because
>>>>those controlling this stuff have no sense of history and continuity.
>>>>Oh well, to hell in a handbasket we go.
>>>
>>>
>>>You sound like some liberal bed wetter, boy.
>>>
>>><vbg>
>>
>>LOL. Hey, I'm just a realist, and happen to believe strongly in
>>efficient use of resources--in general. Using non-renewable stuff up is
>>inherently inefficient, but using it up faster is more inefficient than
>>using it slower.
>>
>>Actually, I drive a puny Honda Civic and can't see around those monster
>>SUV bastards, which fuels my ire... ;-)) But even worse is the fact that
>>their suspension is so high up, and my Honda's so low, that my hood now
>>sports a few good dimples where some assholes just backed right up over
>>my car when pulling out of a parking space. So I'm pissed at SUVs for
>>other reasons. GRRRRR!!
>
>
> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just don't
> seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
> a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
> vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
> vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional vehicles
> when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
> the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.
>
> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>
> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
> conservative Republican. ;-)
>
> - Rich
>
>
>
funny! and so true.

 

"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
snip
> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just
don't
> seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
> a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
> vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
> vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional
vehicles
> when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
> the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.

The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of
SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.

> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>
> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
> conservative Republican. ;-)

Ha.

I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
be!

 

In article <RvpIe.753$WD.326@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net >, "Elle"
<elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:

> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> snip
> > Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just
> don't
> > seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
> > a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
> > vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
> > vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional
> vehicles
> > when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
> > the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.
>
> The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of
> SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>
> > And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
> > space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
> > year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
> > where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
> > of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
> > "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
> > use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
> > just a couple times a year is simply insane.
> >
> > For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
> > conservative Republican. ;-)
>
> Ha.
>
> I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
> them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
> be!

I heard that Kerry was observed driving an SUV. When a liberal member of
the press questioned him about it, his response was "The SUV is owned by
my wife."

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

In article <F-WdndUaz_9wiG_fRVn-2A@speakeasy.net>, jim beam
<nospam@example.net> wrote:

> Abeness wrote:
> > dold@XReXXDarkX.usenet.us.com wrote:
> >
> >> Abeness <news@nada.x> wrote:
> >>
> >>> You missed my point, which is that plugging in to charge is not
> >>> viable for long trips.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> I can travel about as far as I want with my hybrid, with the 450 mile
> >> stops
> >> for gasoline. If I could plug in while at home, my local travels
> >> would be
> >> more efficient, maybe close to all-electric. If I went on the road, I
> >> would be more efficient than a gas-only vehicle, and need no additional
> >> infrastructure.
> >
> >
> > Yes, of course. But the immediate subject here is a wholly alternative
> > fuel source that does not involve gasoline, for the time when we run out
> > of oil--or gas gets too expensive for all but the very rich to afford.
>
> wasn't a lot of the bleating about diminishing reserves done to get tax
> write-offs? wasting asset status?
>
> personally. i doubt reserves will be seriously pinched any time soon.
> or even during our grand kids lifetimes. and then we can just switch to
> biomass solutions. fuels that are liquid at normal temps/pressures are
> by far the easiest solution.

One of the local newspapers mentioned some people that are now making use
of recycled french fry oil that they get for free from restaurants. I seem
to recall that country singer Willie Nelson makes use of it in his bus.
The owner of one of those vehicles that burn it said that the only problem
is that it makes the car smell like french fries so his kids are always
asking him to stop at MacDonalds so they can order some french fries.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.

 

Elle wrote:
> I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
> them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
> be!

LOL. Liberal = "I can drive any unsafe gas-guzzling ststus symbol I want"?

 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 14:21:37 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> snip
>> Not to mention that the "benefits" of SUV's touted by so many just
> don't
>> seem to pan out, in real life. Here in Upstate NY, for example, we get
>> a fair bit of snow. There have been days when I keep track of which
>> vehicles have slid/been driven off the road while driving to work. The
>> vast majority of the time, the SUV's far outnumber the conventional
> vehicles
>> when it comes to forlorn looking people waiting in the ditch for
>> the tow truck. It verges on the hilarious.
>
> The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing of
> SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>

I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on. But
when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
*think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.


>> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>>
>> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>> conservative Republican. ;-)
>
> Ha.
>
> I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still on
> them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim to
> be!
>

Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist, just like
being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
ACLU. ;-)

- Rich

 

"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
E wrote
> > The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing
of
> > SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
> >
>
> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
> The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
> they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
> to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
> longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on.

The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time,
IMO.

Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that
looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis.

But
> when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
> seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
> *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
> Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
> be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
> tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.

When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's
driving habits.

So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period.

> >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
> >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
> >> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
> >> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
> >> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
> >> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
> >> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
> >> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
> >>
> >> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
> >> conservative Republican. ;-)
> >
> > Ha.
> >
> > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
on
> > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
to
> > be!
> >
>
> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,

It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.

In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
environmentalists.

> just like
> being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
> ACLU. ;-)

You are simply naming exceptions to the rule, and huge ones at that.

I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra Club
or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described "conservatives."

 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:42:52 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> E wrote
>> > The New Yorker had a great report a couple of years ago on the testing
> of
>> > SUVs, proving positive that they are unsafer.
>> >
>>
>> I'm not so sure that I'd even agree that they're relatively unsafe.
>> The problem I see is that, barring mini-SUV's like the Subaru Legacy,
>> they are trucks, and need to be driven like trucks - you need
>> to account for the larger mass, higher center of gravity, generally
>> longer stopping distances in wet/snowy conditions, and so on.
>
> The New Yorker article would really be worth any interested person's time,
> IMO.
>
> Like you imply, certain (many?) SUVs are in fact some top contraption that
> looks like a truck top but thrown onto literally a passenger car chassis.
>
> But
>> when the average nut climbs into his Ford Behemoth with the leather
>> seats, climate control, and a ride as soft as a Buick Century, they
>> *think* they're still driving a car. Until they end up in the ditch. ;-)
>> Honestly, when it comes down to it, nearly any vehicle can
>> be driven safely as long as it has a decent suspension, and appropriate
>> tires for the conditions. It's just that most people don't.
>
> When it comes down to it, one has to consider the psychology behind people's
> driving habits.
>
> So you don't give a testosterone laden 16-year-old boy a muscle car, period.
>

Uh oh, I was a testosterone laden 17 year old boy who bought a 5L
Mustang. ;-) Which was, if I may say, absolutely the worst possible
car to drive in the snow. Ever. Even with excellent tires.


>> >> And then there are all the people who complain that they need cargo
>> >> space. As a family who takes 4 people - including a toddler and a 4
>> >> year old, with all the extra stuff they need - on week long vacations
>> >> where we have to bring our own towels, bed linens ( which take up a LOT
>> >> of room ), portable crib, etc, in a 4 door Civic, all I can say is,
>> >> "Why haven't you learned how to pack?" :-) Sometimes we have to
>> >> use a roof bag, but buying as huge vehicle for activities that happen
>> >> just a couple times a year is simply insane.
>> >>
>> >> For some reason, people keep asking me if I REALLY am a
>> >> conservative Republican. ;-)
>> >
>> > Ha.
>> >
>> > I know a couple who drive _two_ SUVs with Kerry/Edwards stickers still
> on
>> > them. I don't know how they can call themselves the liberals they claim
> to
>> > be!
>> >
>>
>> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>
> It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
>
> In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
> environmentalists.
>

It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic
political definition, then a liberal could very easily be the owner
of, say, a fleet of SUVs that leak oil like, well, my old Mustang. ;-)
The sound-bite definition of a liberal is closer to what you describe,
even if it's really an unholy combination of a political view with
enviromental and other attitudes.

>> just like
>> being a conservative doesn't mean you can't belong to the Sierra Club and
>> ACLU. ;-)
>
> You are simply naming exceptions to the rule, and huge ones at that.
>
> I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra Club
> or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
> Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described "conservatives."

I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations, and
until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)

ObHonda: If anyone has gotten this far - any recommendations for
a decent roof rack that fits a 2002 Civic?

- Rich

 

"user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
E wrote

> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
> >
> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
> >
> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
> > environmentalists.
> >
>
> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic
> political definition,

This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
Libertarian!," right?

I prefer the real world.

snip
> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra
Club
> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
"conservatives."
>
> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
and
> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)

For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?

 

On Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:33 GMT, Elle <elle_navorski@nospam.earthlink.net> wrote:
> "user" <Rich@iwantnospam.com> wrote
> E wrote
>
>> >> Being a liberal doesn't mean you're an enviromentalist,
>> >
>> > It does to me. It also means you don't try to keep up with the Joneses.
>> >
>> > In fact, this couple I know are otherwise huge recyclers and
>> > environmentalists.
>> >
>>
>> It really depends on how you're using "liberal" - if it's the classic
>> political definition,
>
> This is from the "Libertarian's Guide to Language Abuses--Vote
> Libertarian!," right?
>
> I prefer the real world.
>

Ewwww, don't even get me started about the Libertarian party.

> snip
>> > I suspect anyone who isn't a Democrat who belongs to either the Sierra
> Club
>> > or ACLU is far more likely to say he's a moderate this or that, or an
>> > Independent. It's highly unlikely they're self-described
> "conservatives."
>>
>> I guess I'll be the exception that proves the rule, then, as a
>> self-described conservative who is members of both those organizations,
> and
>> until recently, the NRA, as well. ;-)
>
> For whom have you voted in the past six Presidential elections?

Unfortunately, they don't allow children in Middle School to vote. ;-)
But in the ones I was able to legally vote in, I voted for Bush Sr,
Clinton, Bush Jr, and Kerry - at least if you count a vote against
Bush as a vote for Kerry. Local elections are totally mixed,
depending on who happens to be running.

- Rich