Grand Prix Commission decides on single tyre rule for 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 11:02 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>My dad drove a <u>1978</u> Honda Civic.




This was 30 years earlier and these cars were just as, if not more effecient than 99% of all vehicles we have on the road today and I would argue that it would give the prius a run for its money. Think about it They also weighed a small fraction of what more modern vehicles do, possessed a small fraction of the amenities and features of modern cars, and were tin cans in a crash. Improvements in efficiency have gone towards making heavier, more luxurious, safer vehicles as light on gas as lighter, more basic, less structurally-sound ones. There's no magic, just differing priorities.

If you truelly want to go green its going to hurt a bit or a lot depending how green you want to go. If it's Al .... green then I would actually be hurting the environment more, ironic huh. How much is it going to cost taxpayers in the US to go green? We may go broke first

Ha Like adding a 6 speaker sound system, leather seats, power windows, and cruise control are major breakthroughs in technology

Let me ask you this. You add airbags to a prius and your chances are how much better? You'll have a battery in you lap in no time.

30 Years of developement and that's all we could come up with. Looks like automakers were pocketing more than they were putting into research and now they find themselves way behind the eight ball. That 1978 Honda Civic isn't looking that bad afterall. Specially under 1k.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Ha Like adding a 6 speaker sound system, leather seats, power windows, and cruise control are major breakthroughs in technology No, but they do make the car heavier, and heavier things take more energy to move.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Let me ask you this. You add airbags to a prius and your chances are how much better? You'll have a battery in you lap in no time.Add airbags to a car that already has them? What's your point? You won't likely have a battery in your lap, though, for a couple of reasons. Their batteries are stored low in the vehicle, and the whole thing is built far stiffer and stronger, at the expense of weight, than older cars. It's not things like airbags that add most weight, it's stuff like the stronger, stiffer structures required to meet modern crash standards and sound-dampening insulation to keep cars quiet inside. The tightening of emissions standards has also had some effect on efficiency.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 11:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>30 Years of developement and that's all we could come up with. Looks like automakers were pocketing more than they were putting into research and now they find themselves way behind the eight ball. That 1978 Honda Civic isn't looking that bad afterall. Specially under 1k.47mpg from a car that weighs half as much as a modern car and has half the power (compared to the civic hybrid those numbers are about the same, and fuel economy is as good or better despite hauling around twice the mass and delivering twice the power).

Automotive companies were delivering what consumers were asking for and governments were mandating: heavier, safer, nicer to be in vehicles. It's not like things like VW's 1-liter car haven't been developed...it's just that most markets haven't cared enough about efficiency to sacrifice modern niceties for gains in fuel economy.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 05:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>My dad drove a <u>1978</u> Honda Civic.




This was 30 years earlier and these cars were just as, if not more effecient than 99% of all vehicles we have on the road today and I would argue that it would give the prius a run for its money. Think about it
i had a 1976 1500 s civic. it was a great car and very very fast

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 05:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>If you truelly want to go green its going to hurt a bit or a lot depending how green you want to go. If it's Al .... green then I would actually be hurting the environment more, ironic huh. How much is it going to cost taxpayers in the US to go green? We may go broke first

Ha Like adding a 6 speaker sound system, leather seats, power windows, and cruise control are major breakthroughs in technology

Let me ask you this. You add airbags to a prius and your chances are how much better? You'll have a battery in you lap in no time.

30 Years of developement and that's all we could come up with. Looks like automakers were pocketing more than they were putting into research and now they find themselves way behind the eight ball. That 1978 Honda Civic isn't looking that bad afterall. Specially under 1k.
If Al .... was SOOOOO ...... worried about the enviornment he wouldn't have the big ... jet he has ripping through the skies laying down Huge contrails that he says among other scientists mess up the natural cloud patterns. Screw that moron PLUS the oceans were colder this past year than that of the previous. HMMMMM Anyone ever hear him talk about the sOUTh pole instead of JUST the NORTH as well. I bet not or at least I haven't seen anything he said about that. Friggin tree huggin ..... think we have that much to do with the environment. Now I'm not saying for all of you who like to jump all over me to go out and trash eveything. I am saying that before your so ready to believe that the problems .... says are happening go research it yourself. You will find he is bending it JUST a bit.

How can you even compare the 78 civic to a modern day hybrid? The 78 requires less manpower, less material, and a lot less energy to make and the materials are almost 100% recyclable. Not to mention the price tag on the bad boy is about an eighth of what a hybrid costs. Look we could go on and on but I could argue that the 78 Honda is 100x more green than a hybrid. What does safety and comfort have to do with going green anyway? Scooter and motorcycle sales are going crazy

WTF does a 78 civic have to do with "Grand Prix Commission decides on single tyre rule for 2009"

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Oct 14 2008, 11:10 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>WTF does a 78 civic have to do with "Grand Prix Commission decides on single tyre rule for 2009"

Take another hit and then tell me if you see...

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 01:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Take another hit and then tell me if you see...

Hell no..i'm not wasting a perfectly good buzz on all the BS you .... typed up

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (xx CURVE xx @ Oct 14 2008, 11:37 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Hell no..i'm not wasting a perfectly good buzz on all the BS you .... typed up

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 14 2008, 01:02 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>How can you even compare the 78 civic to a modern day hybrid? The 78 requires less manpower, less material, and a lot less energy to make and the materials are almost 100% recyclable. Not to mention the price tag on the bad boy is about an eighth of what a hybrid costs. Look we could go on and on but I could argue that the 78 Honda is 100x more green than a hybrid. What does safety and comfort have to do with going green anyway? Scooter and motorcycle sales are going crazy
Yes, hybrids suck and are all marketing vs. no real gain (and overall are worse in terms of impact than conventional cars). Yes, using existing cars is generally greener than building new ones. The 78 requires less to make (but not necessarily as much as one would think), but wouldn't even be road-legal to manufacture and sell today without changes that'd bring it a lot closer to what modern cars are. Also, people in developed countries wouldn't buy them anyway.

Safety and comfort have a lot to do with going green. The legal and marketing obstacles to marketing anything that isn't up to modern safety and comfort standards are quite substantial. It doesn't matter how green something is if no one uses it.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Oct 13 2008, 06:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>I'm not at all rewriting anything. As you MUST have seen I wrote aboute the 999's racing merits, not sales figures. As such it was a huge success. That's nothinig else but a fact.



I line up a few excamples of how prototyping helps efficency and all you come up with in reply is avoiding the facts and talk about sosciety. Your arguments are against capitalism but got little to do about efficency.
V-twins stinks in any comparisons regarding cost and efficency. Doesn't stop me from loving them though. Efficency is allways good in capitalism, it's just different types of efficiency. Get out in the real life lex. I work in a high cost contry and prototyping, engineering and production here is nothing but efficency. At the same time the taxes has turned "green" so hybrids, electric and LPG/CNG powered cars are big hits.
But then again, I forgot you live in a country where the president until recently denied any man made clima changes, and you live in the "republic" where trucks are the most common viechels.
In that perspective I guess it's easy to miss the changes that are going on.

You need to Google search[ Generation Investment Management ] before you go off on a Global warming rant.Have you noticed the tag line has already changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.Mother Nature made the Global warming scare mongers look like the scam artist they are last year and this year is looking even cooler.This whole thing is one big scam to make billions of dollars off the people to incompetent or lazy to try to find the truth.Like i said,do a search on GIM
and let me know what you think.Here is a quote

In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, .... doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management ? he buys stocks."

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 14 2008, 06:57 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>You need to Google search[ Generation Investment Management ] before you go off on a Global warming rant.Have you noticed the tag line has already changed from Global Warming to Climate Change.Mother Nature made the Global warming scare mongers look like the scam artist they are last year and this year is looking even cooler.This whole thing is one big scam to make billions of dollars off the people to incompetent or lazy to try to find the truth.Like i said,do a search on GIM
and let me know what you think.Here is a quote

In other words, he 'buys' his 'carbon offsets' from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself," Hobbs writes. "To be blunt, .... doesn't buy 'carbon offsets' through Generation Investment Management ? he buys stocks."
The thing that most forget to do it follow the money. The global climate .... is such a ...... joke. Ask a scientist how long they have studied the effects of climate on the earth and not just himself collectively and all the info gatherd for years since they started taking records. This is just another way to steal your money without actually muggin you for it. You just give it up to them like they actually know what they are talking about. Don't believe the hype and question the sources they like to cite. Cause usually you will find some sort of special funding or something referring to money again so they will give the answers they are supposed to cause in reality they are being paid for them.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mattsteg @ Oct 14 2008, 11:49 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Safety and comfort have a lot to do with going green. The legal and marketing obstacles to marketing anything that isn't up to modern safety and comfort standards are quite substantial. It doesn't matter how green something is if no one uses it.

So basically you are saying the the government has forced hybrids upon the masses by creating safety requirements that makes cars heavy and by giving tax credits to consumers to indirectly fluff auto industry profits?

While I don't think heavy cars or tax credits that indirectly benefit the auto industry are bad; removing simple, mass-produced vehicles for a narrow-minded reason (fuel consumption) is actually going to make the problem worse.

It's the crash safety tests and pollution controls that need an overhaul. Reducing fuel consumption is handled by consumers who don't like paying for gas.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 14 2008, 02:14 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>So basically you are saying the the government has forced hybrids upon the masses by creating safety requirements that makes cars heavy and by giving tax credits to consumers to indirectly fluff auto industry profits?

While I don't think heavy cars or tax credits that indirectly benefit the auto industry are bad; removing simple, mass-produced vehicles for a narrow-minded reason (fuel consumption) is actually going to make the problem worse.

It's the crash safety tests and pollution controls that need an overhaul. Reducing fuel consumption is handled by consumers who don't like paying for gas.Well, they've forced hybrids upon us years before they're actually beneficial through tax credits (although if they ever are to reach a beneficial state, such credits is the only way they're getting there. They're just not there at the present, and getting there isn't a sure thing). Safety standards, cheap gas, improved ability to add plushness at a relatively low cost, and our longstanding love for the big and powerful have given us lots of heavy cars to choose between, and few small, simple ones. It's not just regulations, it's what the US public has demanded. We don't have the expensive fuel and tight streets faced by, for example, europeans, japanese, etc. so we don't get the same emphasis on economy and space efficiency that they do. Our laws are a reflection of our values in that regard.

Crash safety laws and pollution control laws don't need more than minor tweaking. For the most part, they're pretty decent, and the "side benefits" of having stiffer cars with better isolation would be tough for people to give up. The reason we use a fuckload of gas is because we have little choice but to drive everywhere, and can afford to do it in inefficient vehicles. Short of taxing the .... out of gas and funneling the proceeds into developing new and more efficient technologies and mass transit, the "can afford it" bit isn't going to change until oil prices skyrocket and stay there or our economy tanks.

In the end, most of the US just likes inefficient cars and trucks.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ROCKGOD01 @ Oct 14 2008, 12:07 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>The thing that most forget to do it follow the money. The global climate .... is such a ...... joke. Ask a scientist how long they have studied the effects of climate on the earth and not just himself collectively and all the info gatherd for years since they started taking records. This is just another way to steal your money without actually muggin you for it. You just give it up to them like they actually know what they are talking about. Don't believe the hype and question the sources they like to cite. Cause usually you will find some sort of special funding or something referring to money again so they will give the answers they are supposed to cause in reality they are being paid for them.

(sarcasm) Yeah, Global Warming/Climate Change is fake. (sarcasm)

You see why we are ...... in the US, because we got people like this with a voting ballot. I wish there was an IQ test and minimum education requirement to vote.

There is a difference between saying people profit from a crisis than saying the crisis doesn't exist because people are making profit from it. Take for example the Iraq war, something you surely support since it sound like you carry on as a Republican. This has been by far the most war profiteering enterprise in history. Does this mean the war on terror is "fake"? No, but the call to go to war in Iraq was a 'farce'. That is different, can you see? (Probably not).

So sure. people are designing scams to make money on the Climate Change crisis, but this doesn't mean its a "fake" crisis.

I wouldn't expect you to know the difference, people like you believe whatever lie your party tells you to repeat.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 14 2008, 11:57 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Mother Nature made the Global warming scare mongers look like the scam artist they are last year and this year is looking even cooler.This whole thing is one big scam to make billions of dollars off the people to incompetent or lazy to try to find the truth.Like i said,do a search on GIM
and let me know what you think.Here is a quote

People make scams on anything that happens, this does not forgo its existence. Do you eBay? Are you aware that there are many scams there? Does this mean eBay doesn't exist? Does it mean that the scam artist made eBay?

The truth is Global Warming/Climate Change exists. The truth is our current administration did suppress scientific findings of its existence because it was unfavorable to their agenda favoring executive cronies in oil companies, energy industry, and car companies, ect. They also denied it existed, until so much overwhelming independent findings proved there is in fact a climate problem. Are these scientist the scam artists or the people rushing to make pseudo business to scam you from money? Are those reporting its existence the “scam artists” or those who suppressed it to scam you and me from billions of profiteering with energy policy that stands to make the problem worse? Who are the “scam artists”?--Those suppressing a fact to profit, or those reporting the fact and making a profit? Obviously both, those that suppressed the truth are more egregious.

Screw gasoline too old-school. They should go to pure ethanol just like IndyCar. I would love to see alcohol fueled motogp bikes...love it!

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Jumkie @ Oct 14 2008, 12:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>(sarcasm) Yeah, Global Warming/Climate Change is fake. (sarcasm)

You see why we are ...... in the US, because we got people like this with a voting ballot. I wish there was an IQ test and minimum education requirement to vote.

Jumkie, what's the first rule of statistics?

1. Correlation does not mean causation!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



Both sides have legitimate arguments. Green people say that carbon emissions and global warming have a strong statistical correlation in the last 20 years. They have exhausted themselves trying to find another climate input that could be responsible for the rise; none have been found.

People who don't believe the "proof" need only to cite the historical climate trends. The Earth has been warming for hundreds of thousands of years! Way before the evil industrial revolution.

Besides, people in the green camp make themselves look stupid by trying to convince everyone that global warming is the enemy. They fluff bogus statistics and point to death tolls to make storms look more severe than they have been in the past. In fact, storms are not worse or more frequent and global warming is not the enemy.

The extra harsh global cooling that follows global warming is the enemy. It drastically reduces farmable land and it curtails forest growth putting strain on global food sources and valuable species of plants and animals.

Like you say, the average voter is too dumb to get it so they try to make global warming look bad by showing earth floods, dust bowls, and general mayhem. The earth would probably correct with violent cooling before any such scenarios were realized.

Pollution is bad no matter what. When you lie about the effects of pollution or you make up wild conspiracies it hurts your credibility. Global warming is no stronger an argument than my conspiracies, I'm sure you've noticed that people are less inclined to listen to what I have to say. If global warming is true, the forecasts are useful, but the lies (Al ....) will worsen the problem.

Keep in mind also that a huge part of the green movement is rooted in green money not green planets. Oil is what? A global industry with global sales of 10 trillion? Do you think it's likely some people are pushing the propaganda extra hard to speed up the transfer of revenues?

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 14 2008, 01:21 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Screw gasoline too old-school. They should go to pure ethanol just like IndyCar. I would love to see alcohol fueled motogp bikes...love it!

Just wait until you read about the new diesel.

It is chemically the same as pure diesel now it's grown with yeast so it has no impurities and gives of very little carbon compared to the refined stuff.

Plus it much more energy dense than ethanol.