This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Grand Prix Commission decides on single tyre rule for 2009

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (povol @ Oct 7 2008, 06:03 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What is it about a control tire or a one supplier that is going to screw Pedrosa any more than the other riders.Where his tires that much different than what everyone else was running.

I don't know, but Bridgestone said that Pedrosa would probably struggle with the tires next year.

It could be the hard construction Bridgestone use, or it could be Bstone and Ezy hammering Pedrosa/Puig for organizing a boycott.
 
Or it could be that if you can't drift a motogp bike around every corner on the circuit without wiping out or exhausting yourself you have no chance of winning. Pedrosa likes to monorail and with the new tires it simply will be a style of the past.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (gsfan @ Oct 7 2008, 08:49 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Or it could be that if you can't drift a motogp bike around every corner on the circuit without wiping out or exhausting yourself you have no chance of winning. Pedrosa likes to monorail and with the new tires it simply will be a style of the past.
Oh god i hope so
<
 
I thought that comment came from commentators hypothesizing that riders that are a ways away from the mean would have more trouble with using standardized tires instead of ones tailored precisely to them. As a tiny little person, Dani would qualify for that.
 
Let me help you out Lex

LINK

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'><u>According to Hiroshi Yamada of Bridgesto</u>ne, riders should expect an allocation of around fifteen to twenty tyres next year as opposed to the forty they currently get. Whoch would explain why Nicky Hayden said today that he will 'miss qualifiers next year.' He won't be the only one. But rides with non-standard styles or requirements are the ones likely to suffer most. Toni Elias depends on a very special front that Bridgestone currently make for him. That luxury will disappear. Yamada-san also mentioned that Dani Pedrosa's light weight mean he <u>could have</u> problems. A natural consequence of a single-tyre rule, said Yamada-san, is that 'they [riders] will have to adapt.' Details of the tyre regulations for next season will be released in two weeks time at the Malaysian GP. Expect back-tracking from riders as they realise what a single-tyre rule really means.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (SackWack @ Oct 7 2008, 01:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Let me help you out Lex

LINK

Thank you.

So Bridgestone are completely incapable of supplying soft tires for a midget on a Honda.
<
That's believable.

I think this does hint at an interesting phenomenon, though. It sounds like the tires are going to be aimed at riders with a higher median weight than Pedrosa.
<


Maybe Ezy has been reading my signature about emaciated horse jockeys. I'm really happy to learn that the control tire is probably even going to be designed for people of Rossi's and Nicky's stature.

Will Colin win a race next season?!
<
 
I found Kropotkin's first part of his race report on PI very interesting. He weaves quite the tale on how we got where we're at in regards to a control tire.

http://www.motogpmatters.com/report/2008/1...e_report_t.html
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Ever since the long-lamented 990cc bikes roared into the sunset at the end of 2006 to be replaced by the 800cc machines, MotoGP has suffered a crisis of confidence. That final year of competition with the large capacity bikes produced some of the most exhilarating racing ever seen, yet after the introduction of the new formula, the racing changed overnight, suddenly becoming processional and rather too often, positively dull.

Having been spoilt by a year of thrills and spills, and with the big name stars being left for dead by a relatively unknown Australian on a Bridgestone-shod Ducati, TV audiences switched off in droves, the viewing figures tumbling. MotoGP was starting to lose ground to other motorsports, and with teams already finding it difficult to raise the necessary sponsorship to fund their efforts, neither Dorna nor the teams could afford for the series to decline in popularity further. Something had to be done.

Whenever a group of people - be it organizations, governments or even families - decide that "something has to be done" the first step is usually to try and pinpoint a culprit. Throughout 2007, the finger of blame was pointed squarely at tires, Bridgestone prospering as Michelin failed to adapt to the new rules limiting tire numbers. This regularly left half the field unable to compete, and most painfully, saw Valentino Rossi and Dani Pedrosa, key figures in Dorna's target markets, floundering and off the pace. The current tire situation could not be allowed to stand.

I Know I'm Unlovable

An appropriate culprit - or perhaps scapegoat - found, the rules were tweaked at the end of the season in the hope of reintroducing competition. And as extra insurance, Valentino Rossi was allowed to switch tire brands, with the hope of putting motorcycle racing's media phenomenon back on equal footing with the implacably unlovable Casey Stoner.

The first few races showed at least some improvement, with four different winners in the first four races, and Valentino Rossi then going on to win three races in a row. But the underlying problem remained: The margin of victory was never less than 1.8 seconds, and most races were still being decided by half way. And after Ducati found some fixes to the problems that plagued Casey Stoner's early season, the situation got worse. Once again, the reigning World Champion was humiliating the field, winning race after race, sometimes by as much as 11 seconds.

The changes to the tire rules hadn't changed anything. The little-known and even less liked Australian was winning races by the end of the first lap again, and the field was spread out seconds apart. Down in 6th place, huge multiple rider battles were raging, but these were going on off-camera, and for the consolation prizes. When Michelin ran all of their riders on hard rain tires in Germany, gambling on a drying track which never arrived, we were back at square one. Once again, conversations about MotoGP were all about tires, and not about riders.

Turning Point

Then came Laguna Seca. At Laguna, two things happened. First, Michelin turned up with tires that were completely inadequate to cope with the conditions, leaving all of the Michelin runners completely out of contention once again. The heat under the tire discussion got turned up another notch, and the first rumblings of more rule changes started to appear.

Secondly, as the race got underway, one of the most nail-biting battles MotoGP has seen for a long time unfolded, with Valentino Rossi and Casey Stoner knocking chunks out of each other for 23 long laps. For half an hour, the crowd and TV viewers around the world held their breath, as the death-defying spectacle went on for lap after lap. And for 45 minutes, no one mentioned tires, wrapped up in the glorious duel of two racers at the very top of their ability.

The respite was to be only brief, as another Michelin failure at Brno after the summer break saw the riders, fans and paddock all talking tires once again, only briefly diverging to talk about the racing, before returning to the subject at the forefront of everybody's minds.

Lessons From The Lake

But all the talk of tires disguised a much more important lesson from Laguna Seca: There was plenty of racing to be had in MotoGP, if the track would only allow it. Laguna Seca, with a few fast corners mixed with tight and tortuous sections, but more importantly, the track layout following the lie of the land and flowing from corner to corner, proved an ideal stage for MotoGP. The combinations of corners placed the emphasis on rider skill once again, and gave Valentino Rossi, his Yamaha clearly outclassed, a chance to match Casey Stoner's terrifying pace around the Californian circuit.

In a strange way, the tracks that followed Laguna underlined this lesson. Misano is run backwards, against the natural flow of the track, Indianapolis was an artificial course inside a racing oval, and Motegi is a collection of perfectly engineered corners joined by a complete failure of imagination. Only Brno has some kind of natural character, and any hopes of a race were soon cut short, with Casey Stoner crashing out early on.

Though the MotoGP paddock arrived at Phillip Island once again full of tire talk, a single tire rule having been agreed the week before, the fans hoped for much more. The Australian circuit is an old road course, and flows naturally across the landscape, organically evolved rather than technologically designed. As such, it lends itself to fantastic racing, rewarding the brave and the skilled far above those with just a fast bike.
 
Chris Vermeulens perspective on this CV Single Tyre opinion

It's marvelous how succinct the argument is when framed as follows

"Also for the racing – we're there to compete, manufacturers are there to make a name for themselves, to develop and to beat the other manufacturers," he said.

"And do I think it's going to make the racing closer? No, because at the moment every manufacturer has at least one rider on Bridgestone.

"Casey Stoner and Valentino Rossi have the same tyres (Australian backmarker) Anthony West has and he hasn't been fighting with them all year.


"Competition will basically cease. The way I see it they will develop a tyre at the start of the year. Tyres may change from circuit to circuit slightly, but there'll be no major development like we have now," he said.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Oct 12 2008, 12:16 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Chris Vermeulens perspective on this CV Single Tyre opinion

It's marvelous how succinct the argument is when framed as follows

"Also for the racing – we're there to compete, manufacturers are there to make a name for themselves, to develop and to beat the other manufacturers," he said.

"And do I think it's going to make the racing closer? No, because at the moment every manufacturer has at least one rider on Bridgestone.

"Casey Stoner and Valentino Rossi have the same tyres (Australian backmarker) Anthony West has and he hasn't been fighting with them all year.


"Competition will basically cease. The way I see it they will develop a tyre at the start of the year. Tyres may change from circuit to circuit slightly, but there'll be no major development like we have now," he said.

And here again we are supposed to believe that this is also for safety reasons as well as cost. Just stupid how they can go backwards like this.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Andy Roo @ Oct 11 2008, 04:16 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Chris Vermeulens perspective on this CV Single Tyre opinion

It's marvelous how succinct the argument is when framed as follows

"Also for the racing – we're there to compete, manufacturers are there to make a name for themselves, to develop and to beat the other manufacturers," he said.

"And do I think it's going to make the racing closer? No, because at the moment every manufacturer has at least one rider on Bridgestone.

"Casey Stoner and Valentino Rossi have the same tyres (Australian backmarker) Anthony West has and he hasn't been fighting with them all year.


"Competition will basically cease. The way I see it they will develop a tyre at the start of the year. Tyres may change from circuit to circuit slightly, but there'll be no major development like we have now," he said.


While I agree that technological innovation is important people have completely lost focus of why prototyping exists.

Prototyping exists to create TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION while INCREASING EFFICIENCY in the production market.

For whatever reason, people have completely ditched the efficiency part---they have decided that more new technology is always better regardless of the cost. This commonly held belief is how we have worked our way into the pollution/waste mess we are in today. I'm inclined to believe that class-envy is also rooted in consumer wastefulness.

Unlike most people, I don't throw the problem on the doorstep of the manufacturers. Consumers are to blame for buying new inefficient junk.

Do I want pneumatic valves on my moto? NO! Just raise the displacement and reduce the number of cylinders. It costs less to produce and it makes the same amount of power.
<
I guess now you know the REAL reason Ducat kept the twin config and raised displacement after the 999 disaster.

Do I want 5 compound tires? NO! At 30-60mph regular tires can do the work in 95% of all situations. I don't need or want to spend an extra $100 for tires that cause more pollution and don't work any better (although I did buy dual compounds once
<
)

Prototyping in many developed industries has nearly ceased to provide innovation of value to the production markets. Instead, it serves as a laboratory for developing new, inefficient, high-margin technologies that protect manufacturers from upstart companies.

Prototyping is very sexy---it's marketed that way b/c big manufacturers can't live without new inefficient technology. Chris is a great guy, but we've all got to stop drinking the kool-aid on this prototyping nonsense.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 12 2008, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>While I agree that technological innovation is important people have completely lost focus of why prototyping exists.

Prototyping exists to create TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION while INCREASING EFFICIENCY in the production market.

For whatever reason, people have completely ditched the efficiency part---they have decided that more new technology is always better regardless of the cost. This commonly held belief is how we have worked our way into the pollution/waste mess we are in today. I'm inclined to believe that class-envy is also rooted in consumer wastefulness.

Unlike most people, I don't throw the problem on the doorstep of the manufacturers. Consumers are to blame for buying new inefficient junk.

Do I want pneumatic valves on my moto? NO! Just raise the displacement and reduce the number of cylinders. It costs less to produce and it makes the same amount of power.
<
I guess now you know the REAL reason Ducat kept the twin config and raised displacement after the 999 disaster.

Do I want 5 compound tires? NO! At 30-60mph regular tires can do the work in 95% of all situations. I don't need or want to spend an extra $100 for tires that cause more pollution and don't work any better (although I did buy dual compounds once
<
)

Prototyping in many developed industries has nearly ceased to provide innovation of value to the production markets. Instead, it serves as a laboratory for developing new, inefficient, high-margin technologies that protect manufacturers from upstart companies.

Prototyping is very sexy---it's marketed that way b/c big manufacturers can't live without new inefficient technology. Chris is a great guy, but we've all got to stop drinking the kool-aid on this prototyping nonsense.

Wow. Agree 100%..........................!!!!
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 12 2008, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>While I agree that technological innovation is important people have completely lost focus of why prototyping exists.

Prototyping exists to create TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION while INCREASING EFFICIENCY in the production market.

For whatever reason, people have completely ditched the efficiency part---they have decided that more new technology is always better regardless of the cost. This commonly held belief is how we have worked our way into the pollution/waste mess we are in today. I'm inclined to believe that class-envy is also rooted in consumer wastefulness.

Unlike most people, I don't throw the problem on the doorstep of the manufacturers. Consumers are to blame for buying new inefficient junk.

Do I want pneumatic valves on my moto? NO! Just raise the displacement and reduce the number of cylinders. It costs less to produce and it makes the same amount of power.
<
I guess now you know the REAL reason Ducat kept the twin config and raised displacement after the 999 disaster.

Do I want 5 compound tires? NO! At 30-60mph regular tires can do the work in 95% of all situations. I don't need or want to spend an extra $100 for tires that cause more pollution and don't work any better (although I did buy dual compounds once
<
)

Prototyping in many developed industries has nearly ceased to provide innovation of value to the production markets. Instead, it serves as a laboratory for developing new, inefficient, high-margin technologies that protect manufacturers from upstart companies.

Prototyping is very sexy---it's marketed that way b/c big manufacturers can't live without new inefficient technology. Chris is a great guy, but we've all got to stop drinking the kool-aid on this prototyping nonsense.
good post lex and food for thought there.
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 12 2008, 06:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>While I agree that technological innovation is important people have completely lost focus of why prototyping exists.

Prototyping exists to create TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION while INCREASING EFFICIENCY in the production market.

For whatever reason, people have completely ditched the efficiency part---they have decided that more new technology is always better regardless of the cost. This commonly held belief is how we have worked our way into the pollution/waste mess we are in today. I'm inclined to believe that class-envy is also rooted in consumer wastefulness.

Unlike most people, I don't throw the problem on the doorstep of the manufacturers. Consumers are to blame for buying new inefficient junk.

Do I want pneumatic valves on my moto? NO! Just raise the displacement and reduce the number of cylinders. It costs less to produce and it makes the same amount of power.
<
I guess now you know the REAL reason Ducat kept the twin config and raised displacement after the 999 disaster.

Do I want 5 compound tires? NO! At 30-60mph regular tires can do the work in 95% of all situations. I don't need or want to spend an extra $100 for tires that cause more pollution and don't work any better (although I did buy dual compounds once
<
)

Prototyping in many developed industries has nearly ceased to provide innovation of value to the production markets. Instead, it serves as a laboratory for developing new, inefficient, high-margin technologies that protect manufacturers from upstart companies.

Prototyping is very sexy---it's marketed that way b/c big manufacturers can't live without new inefficient technology. Chris is a great guy, but we've all got to stop drinking the kool-aid on this prototyping nonsense.

i agree with most of this Lex,

BUT, not every prototype is an inefficient, useless marketing ploy. some prototypes have gone on to change the world, for the better too! like the very first expansion chamber on a 2stroke...
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BigAl @ Oct 12 2008, 01:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>i agree with most of this Lex,

BUT, not every prototype is an inefficient, useless marketing ploy. some prototypes have gone on to change the world, for the better too! like the very first expansion chamber on a 2stroke...

Yes. The tone of my post was overwhelmingly negative towards the status quo, but when race prototyping works properly, it is by far the coolest way to develop new stuff.
<
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 12 2008, 07:39 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>While I agree that technological innovation is important people have completely lost focus of why prototyping exists.

Prototyping exists to create TECHNOLOGICAL INNOVATION while INCREASING EFFICIENCY in the production market.

For whatever reason, people have completely ditched the efficiency part---they have decided that more new technology is always better regardless of the cost. This commonly held belief is how we have worked our way into the pollution/waste mess we are in today. I'm inclined to believe that class-envy is also rooted in consumer wastefulness.

What do you base this on?
I thought efficency is a large part of prototyping and inovation today.
For starters the fuel limit force efficiency to the degree that it gives Ducati at notable advantage with their desmo valves.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Unlike most people, I don't throw the problem on the doorstep of the manufacturers. Consumers are to blame for buying new inefficient junk.

Do I want pneumatic valves on my moto? NO! Just raise the displacement and reduce the number of cylinders. It costs less to produce and it makes the same amount of power.
<
I guess now you know the REAL reason Ducat kept the twin config and raised displacement after the 999 disaster.
The 999 were the most successful Ducati model ever, based on the number of years it was in producation. Won more than any other model. It was also by far the most expencive one. Raising the capasity has only leveled the cost compared to the 4's. Efficeincy wise the big shortstroke twins are a disaster. While low power engines give fairly good fuel efficincy the big powerful ones are awful.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Do I want 5 compound tires? NO! At 30-60mph regular tires can do the work in 95% of all situations. I don't need or want to spend an extra $100 for tires that cause more pollution and don't work any better (although I did buy dual compounds once
<
)

You are living in the wrong place of the earth. On cruvy roads and occational track day I surly want the grip those tires offer. At the same time they give good efficency compared to older race replica tires as they last longer and produce less rubber particles.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Prototyping in many developed industries has nearly ceased to provide innovation of value to the production markets. Instead, it serves as a laboratory for developing new, inefficient, high-margin technologies that protect manufacturers from upstart companies.
That's true to some degree but efficency is still important part of the prototyping and innovation.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Oct 13 2008, 08:34 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>What do you base this on?
I thought efficency is a large part of prototyping and inovation today.
For starters the fuel limit force efficiency to the degree that it gives Ducati at notable advantage with their desmo valves.

Prototyping is a big part of innovation today, but race prototyping as we know it is not about increasing efficiency.

The idea that prototyping should be innovative and lead to consumer efficiency gains is in the theory of capitalism. Capitalism is an existential system in which consumers define the reason for which it exists.
<
Awesome. In founders envisioned that innovation would lead to efficiencies in production they are right more often than not.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>The 999 were the most successful Ducati model ever, based on the number of years it was in producation. Won more than any other model. It was also by far the most expencive one. Raising the capasity has only leveled the cost compared to the 4's. Efficeincy wise the big shortstroke twins are a disaster. While low power engines give fairly good fuel efficincy the big powerful ones are awful.

Babel
<
Stop trying to rewrite history. The 999 is the Duc that nearly sank Ducati. Sales were so poor that the wheels nearly fell off the Ducati machine. Only a last minute save by Minoli to buy out debtors with equity saved the company. In fact the 1098 is named the 1098 (despite its 1099cc capacity) to reference the 998 and to avoid any reference to the 999. That's how bad the 999 wounded Ducati.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>You are living in the wrong place of the earth. On cruvy roads and occational track day I surly want the grip those tires offer. At the same time they give good efficency compared to older race replica tires as they last longer and produce less rubber particles.

That's true to some degree but efficency is still important part of the prototyping and innovation.

Babel, like I said before, capitalism is an existential society. Efficiency will never increase until consumers demand efficiency gains. The first capitalists believed people would demand efficiency b/c reducing costs is in our nature. Unfortunately, we've become so wealthy that buying cool stuff has trumped efficiency gains, imo.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (mylexicon @ Oct 13 2008, 08:19 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}><div class='quotemain'>Prototyping is a big part of innovation today, but race prototyping as we know it is not about increasing efficiency.

The idea that prototyping should be innovative and lead to consumer efficiency gains is in the theory of capitalism. Capitalism is an existential system in which consumers define the reason for which it exists.
<
Awesome. In founders envisioned that innovation would lead to efficiencies in production they are right more often than not.




Babel
<
Stop trying to rewrite history. The 999 is the Duc that nearly sank Ducati. Sales were so poor that the wheels nearly fell off the Ducati machine. Only a last minute save by Minoli to buy out debtors with equity saved the company. In fact the 1098 is named the 1098 (despite its 1099cc capacity) to reference the 998 and to avoid any reference to the 999. That's how bad the 999 wounded Ducati.
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.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>Babel, like I said before, capitalism is an existential society. Efficiency will never increase until consumers demand efficiency gains. The first capitalists believed people would demand efficiency b/c reducing costs is in our nature. Unfortunately, we've become so wealthy that buying cool stuff has trumped efficiency gains, imo.

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.
 
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Babelfish @ Oct 13 2008, 03:49 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.

Shhhh. I'm part of the Ducatisti so don't tell anyone I posted this. The 999 was only good on the track because the Japanese manufacturers withdrew much of their support to focus on MotoGP.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>V-twins stinks in any comparisons regarding cost and efficency. Doesn't stop me from loving them though.

V-twins aren't efficient?
<
It's half as many cyclinders, half as many valves as a 4 cylinder. You think that is less efficient? And don't even try to pull some crap using fuel economy numbers. We all know bike fuel economy is controlled by the wrist. A few mpg here or there means nothing in the grand scheme of things.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>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.

Hybrids are perfect examples of how prototyping is broken. Hybrids are entirely about tax credits and the profits companies reap by building hybrids. When you factor in the tax cuts, they are a huge net societal loss. The government is paying companies vast sums of money to quell the masses by putting "green" electrical components in our vehicles. The best way to improve fuel economy and cut emissions is to equip a car with a 500 lb battery full of toxic chemicals that doesn't recycle?
<
Really?

Babel, you need to read the spinella report. It was made by people who understand that the dust-to-dust rating of a vehicle is a true measure of it's environmental impact. The third best car in the world? The Jeep Wrangler. What do I drive, huh? A metal tub with 4 piece of rubber and a half dozen pieces of plastic. When you're done with it you melt it down and cast a new one. THAT'S EFFICIENCY. Way better than any hybrid. http://cnwmr.com/nss-folder/automotiveenergy/

BTW, How many people have bothered to point out that a good chunk of the Prius' fuel economy gains are made with good old fashioned aerodynamic design?
<
Hybrid technology my .... What a wolf in sheep's clothing that mess is. Even if you didn't know how messed up they were, all you have to do is watch the sheep flock to them---the same way they flocked to V-8 Hummers that got 8mpg.

Diesel and carbon capture technology, or just plain-old reducing displacement on gas engines has got hybrids beat by leaps and bounds. Hybrids are going to be the death of this planet if we don't stop using them.

Stop confusing utility with efficiency. I'm talking about MACRO ALLOCATION OF RESOURCES, you know, GLOBAL PRODUCTION AND THE ASSOCIATED POLLUTION. I'm not talking about the chubby you get when you buy your first BMW. Sure, it feels good, but conspicuous consumption is how we got into this mess.

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE <div class='quotemain'>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.

Babel for the last time, capitalism is an existential arrangement. Your leaders have decided that climate change is man-induced and that SUVs are evil because they need consumer cooperation to spark the production they want. Their job is to sell you man-induced climate change and evil SUV's at all costs.

Thankfully, our government still lets us decide for ourselves without the self-righteous propaganda.

There is little science to suggest climate change is induced by man; although, I'm inclined to believe the psuedo-science they use to "prove" it b/c it is based on intuition. Furthermore, reducing pollution is ALWAYS a noble effort, so unlike most who fight global warming, I have no problem with the people who have embraced the green lifestyle. Unfortunately, many of their habits are anything but green. The people who control them have their own underhanded agendas as well.
 
My dad drove a <u>1978</u> Honda Civic.


78hondacivic_cvcc.jpg


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
<
 

Recent Discussions