So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

[[email protected]]

ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

[George Patterson]

wrote:
> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then?

Going to Oshkosh? There's usually a seminar there with reps from the fuel
companies and researchers.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Dudley Henriques]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
> lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
> higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
> being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
> computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
> read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are going
to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)
Dudley henriques

[[email protected]]

Interesting.. a month or so ago at the Corsairs over Connecticut
weekend at Sikorsky Airport I spoke to the owner of one of the F4Us
about just that. With 115/130 being long gone they're limited to 50in
on takeoff to keep the engine from making bad sounds.

[Thomas Borchert]

- Diesel/Jet-A as made by Thielert
- Small turbines as made by Innodyn
- Ignition systems as made by Gami (Prism)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[[email protected]]

That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?

[[email protected]]

That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
the aircraft?

[TaxSrv]

> wrote:

> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in
the
> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then?

Don't see a problem there. Anything we must have, we will pay for,
until the price becomes so high.... Think addictive illegal drugs and
sex from better than your usual skank entrepreneur. I suspect the
profits of the UK company on this are enormous. It's one company
because of a low volume product and for whatever reason competitors
anywhere can't or don't wish to come in. It's UK (or could be
anywhere else) because of our EPA rules here, but not their similar
rules on exports of such products. The main problem is the EPA keeps
pushing for the big players to come up with a plan. Like a low-cost
way to modify/recertify existing engines.

Fred F.

[Matt Barrow]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
> lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
> higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
> being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
> computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix.

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/189994-1.html

Motor Head 7: Are We Making It Harder Than It Needs To Be?
June 19, 2005
By Marc Cook,

....
"I have carefully studied the Aerosance-produced FADEC for the Continental
engines -- but, in the interests of full disclosure, have not flown it yet
(more on why later) -- and I believe I have a good understanding of how the
system works. It does a couple of things that I would not do to my own
engine. For one, it strives to set the mixture for best power on takeoff and
climb. That's fine for performance, and I would expect the airplanes powered
by the new FADEC to have slightly better takeoff and initial climb
performance; not by a lot, but it would be noticeable.

The trouble with best-power mixture at high power settings is that it puts
the engine right near the point of highest cylinder pressure and, therefore,
will create very high CHTs. The whole point of running extra fuel during
takeoff -- and why so many savvy owners of big-bore Continental engines
insist that the redline-gauge fuel flow is a minimum not a maximum value --
is to slow down the combustion process and reduce cylinder pressures. The
result is moderated CHTs. Well, shouldn't the computer take care of that?
Sure, it does; but my reading of the specs (confirmed by the published
reports) is that the FADEC doesn't start to respond until one of the
cylinders has reached 435 ºF, when it then starts adding fuel and/or
retarding ignition timing. Unless that installation is dramatically well
cooled for takeoff and initial climb -- thus making it way over-cooled for
cruise and descent -- I'm fairly sure one or more of the cylinders will
reach that threshold in the initial climb and the computer will have to
respond. "

> Anyone
> read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182149-1.html

----------------

Lead in the Hogwash

April 27, 2002
By John Deakin

Tetraethyl lead has been gone from automobile gasoline for two decades, and
it's only a matter of time before leaded avgas goes away as well. Despite a
huge amount of industry research, nobody yet has a suitable replacement
fuel, and nobody's yet quite sure what will happen to today's piston-powered
fleet when the supply of 100LL dries up. AVweb's John Deakin dispels a bunch
of myths about TEL, explains what it does and why it's so indispensable in
high-performance recips, and talks about one solution to the coming
unleaded-avgas crisis that actually works
---------
Hopefully this: http://www.gami.com/prism.html

Unfortunately, the page is 3 1/2 years old and still no STC. A year and a
half ago they said they were HOPING for 2nd half of 2005.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Mike Weller]

On 19 Jul 2005 07:39:01 -0700, wrote:

>ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
>UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
>lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
>higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
>being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
>computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
>read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

So what happened when the 100/115 green gas went away?

One of the scariest times in my life was having green gas all over me
when the pilot of the A-26 asked me to put just a little more gas in
it.

Mike Weller

[Matt Barrow]

"TaxSrv" > wrote in message
> Don't see a problem there. Anything we must have, we will pay for,
> until the price becomes so high.... Think addictive illegal drugs and
> sex from better than your usual skank entrepreneur. I suspect the
> profits of the UK company on this are enormous. It's one company
> because of a low volume product and for whatever reason competitors
> anywhere can't or don't wish to come in. It's UK (or could be
> anywhere else)

Russia is supposed to be making it and cranking up production as well.
Whether the EPA or some other lets that keep going is a poser.

> because of our EPA rules here, but not their similar
> rules on exports of such products. The main problem is the EPA keeps
> pushing for the big players to come up with a plan. Like a low-cost
> way to modify/recertify existing engines.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Michael]

Leaded autogas is available at every fuel pump in Venezuela, it's not
going away any time soon, and I would bet they're not buying their TEL
from the UK. Any engine that runs OK on 100LL will run just fine on
premium (91 Octane) summer gas (blended for low RVP) with a TEL
additive to boost the octane to 100. This is a tempest in a teapot.

Michael

[[email protected]]

That's great news... if you live/fly in Venezuela...Try finding leaded
autogas in the US

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Weller" > wrote in message
>
> So what happened when the 100/115 green gas went away?
>
> One of the scariest times in my life was having green gas all over me
> when the pilot of the A-26 asked me to put just a little more gas in
> it.

Wasn't St. Paddy's Day, was it?

[Michael]

My point is not that you can buy leaded autogas in the US, but that you
can buy TEL from Venezuela. I can pretty much assure you that if 100LL
shows signs of going away, someone will be doing exactly that, and
selling octane-boosting lead treatments for planes. For that matter,
they are already being sold for boats. So put in premium, add the
octane booster, and go fly.

Michael

[NW_PILOT]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> wrote:
>
> > That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
> > Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
> > the aircraft?
>
>
> well, the best time to get rid of those 20-something year old planes with
a
> 50 year old design and 100 year old steam gauges.
>
> why don't you still drive your car you had in your 60's?
>
> #m
> --
> Three witches watch three Swatch watches.
> Which witch watches which Swatch watch?

And go to a Diesel which is Older Technology than Gasoline?

[Doug]

You will either buy an octane booster and add it to the gas, or modify
the engine so it can run on the gas being sold. There is sure to be a
way to solve this problem.

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> why don't you still drive your car you had in your 60's?

Because I'm only 46. ;-)

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Scott Migaldi]

Michael wrote:
> Leaded autogas is available at every fuel pump in Venezuela, it's not
> going away any time soon, and I would bet they're not buying their TEL
> from the UK. Any engine that runs OK on 100LL will run just fine on
> premium (91 Octane) summer gas (blended for low RVP) with a TEL
> additive to boost the octane to 100. This is a tempest in a teapot.
>
> Michael
>
Want to clarify that since most of the auto gas, even premium, in the
Midwest has alcohol in it?

--
--------------------
Scott F. Migaldi
CP-ASEL-IA
N8116B

PADI MI-150972
Join the PADI Instructor Yahoo Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PADI-Instructors/

--------------------

[Bob Noel]

In article >, Martin Hotze >
wrote:

> > > why don't you still drive your car you had in your 60's?
> >
> > Because I'm only 46. ;-)
>
> and how old is the plane you fly (and maybe even own)?

It's a 1974 cherokee.

btw - maybe my response (an attempt at humor) would have
been clearer if it had been: Because I'm only in my 40's.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Thomas Borchert]

> but what about all the
> Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
> the aircraft?
>

My point three, Prism, is just for that.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Nw,

> And go to a Diesel which is Older Technology than Gasoline?
>

Look at the Thielert diesel again.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

TaxSrv,

> I suspect the
> profits of the UK company on this are enormous.
>

It's not just the company, it's the whole supply chain which is a
problem. For example, a truck carrying leaded fuel cannot be used for
unleaded fuel until after an elaborate and expensive cleaning
procedure. We have one single Avgas truck supplying the northern part
of Germany - it just doesn't pay to have more. So some airfields
sometimes have to wait for fuel. It's the beginning of an end, one
might think.
--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Michael,

> someone will be doing exactly that, and
> selling octane-boosting lead treatments for planes.
>

Yeah, but it would have to be an FAA-certified treatment. Can you see
the problem yet?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 15:18:15 -0700, "NW_PILOT"
> wrote:

>> why don't you still drive your car you had in your 60's?

The car I had in the 1960s (I was not in my 60s then) was a VW Beetle
that would cost as much to put on the road today as my 2003 Honda.
Nobody has offered me a new Cessna for $15,500 (with air conditioning,
stereo, and floor mats).


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:22:33 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>ah, the old myth again. don't compare your US diesels with our diesels.
>sure, the technical principles always stay the same, but there is a big
>difference at the end.

The diesels sold in the U.S. are the same as those sold in Europe,
assuming that's what you mean by yours and ours. This is a global
economy. And there isn't a whole lot of difference in the end:
particulates, especially. Diesels today are certainly a huge
improvement over the clanking Mercedes of yesteryear, but they are
still pretty smelly. And Diesel fuel costs more than gasoline at the
local pump, also a big change from yesteryear. This will only get
worse as their ratio in the fleet increases.

(One reason gas in the U.S. is so cheap--and it is cheap, even though
it has doubled in the past couple of years--is that the Europeans have
so thoroughly switched over to diesel that they have gasoline to
export. A lot of New England's gasoline comes from Holland. Thanks,
guys!)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 11:00:05 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Yeah, but it would have to be an FAA-certified treatment. Can you see
>the problem yet?

And why not? Mogas is already sold at the local airfield.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Sylvain]

Cub Driver wrote:

> The diesels sold in the U.S. are the same as those sold in Europe,

I wouldn't be so sure about that; some of the european manufacturers
who make the best diesel engines don't even bother to export to USA
(e.g., Peugeot), and those who do, only export a subset of the
models they make (usually avoiding precisely the models with the
best gas milleage it seems, since the locals wouldn't buy anything
which would do better than 20 miles per gallon...:-) (I am only
half joking here, but since moving here (USA) I haven't been
able to find a car that matches the gaz mileage of what I was used
to in Europe 10 years ago (and I do include the so called 'hybrid'
gimmicks))

--Sylvain

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> The diesels sold in the U.S. are the same as those sold in Europe,
> assuming that's what you mean by yours and ours.

Well, you couldn't be more off the mark. A modern common-rail injected
turbocharged automotive diesel engine with particle filter or catalyzer
is something really, really rare on US roads. And no, it isn't smelly
at all.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Mike Rapoport]

You obviously haven't been the Europe in the past ten years.

Mike
MU-2


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
>> The diesels sold in the U.S. are the same as those sold in Europe,
>
> I wouldn't be so sure about that; some of the european manufacturers
> who make the best diesel engines don't even bother to export to USA
> (e.g., Peugeot), and those who do, only export a subset of the
> models they make (usually avoiding precisely the models with the
> best gas milleage it seems, since the locals wouldn't buy anything
> which would do better than 20 miles per gallon...:-) (I am only
> half joking here, but since moving here (USA) I haven't been
> able to find a car that matches the gaz mileage of what I was used
> to in Europe 10 years ago (and I do include the so called 'hybrid'
> gimmicks))
>
> --Sylvain

[Mike Rapoport]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
> Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
> the aircraft?
>

They become worthless. The problem isn't just octane it is also vapor
pressure. The octane problem can be solved but there doesn't seem to be an
economical solution to the vapor pressure problem. The pressurized piston
twins are probably toast if TEL becomes unavailible.

Mike
MU-2

[Michael]

> Yeah, but it would have to be an FAA-certified treatment. Can you see
> the problem yet?

Why? You don't obey every single rule 100% of the time in your car,
why should your airplane be different?

Lots of people out there using MMO, and nobody certified it.

Michael

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

> You obviously haven't been the Europe in the past ten years.
>

I'm missing your point. What is it?

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Corky Scott]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:00:27 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>I wouldn't be so sure about that; some of the european manufacturers
>who make the best diesel engines don't even bother to export to USA
>(e.g., Peugeot)

Could be a wholly different reason for Peugeot not being here, and it
has nothing to do with their diesel engine.

I used to work on those things and to me they personified "very
difficult to work on, break frequently, bad parts availability and
expensive when they finally arrive." In addition, the diesel engines
kept blowing head gaskets.

Also, at least during the 70's, the Peugeot folks refused to conform
to US standards for cockpit ergonomics, so to speak, so the horn was
on a stalk to the left of the steering wheel (if I'm remembering this
right), and you had to push it in towards the steering wheel to make
it work, and the turn signal was on the right. They might be
conforming now for all I know. Yes, they did handle bumps nicely.

Maybe sales just got so bad Peugeot simply gave up trying.

Corky (Renault's weren't any better) Scott

[Dylan Smith]

On 2005-07-20, Thomas Borchert > wrote:
> Cub,
>
>> The diesels sold in the U.S. are the same as those sold in Europe,
>> assuming that's what you mean by yours and ours.
>
> Well, you couldn't be more off the mark. A modern common-rail injected
> turbocharged automotive diesel engine with particle filter or catalyzer
> is something really, really rare on US roads. And no, it isn't smelly
> at all.

I went to visit a friend a couple of weekends ago. I didn't even realise
his new car was a diesel until he mentioned it the next day. It didn't
sound like a diesel, it didn't smell like a diesel.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> They become worthless. The problem isn't just octane it is also vapor
> pressure. The octane problem can be solved but there doesn't seem to be an
> economical solution to the vapor pressure problem. The pressurized piston
> twins are probably toast if TEL becomes unavailible.

There is a guy (in NC I believe) cutting the engines off (3' on each
wing) the Barons and sticking a turboprop on the nose. Working on his
second conversion now...

Higher fuel per hour burn, but flys faster and higher so it actually
burns less...

[Repo Man]

In article >,
says...
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 09:22:33 +0200, Martin Hotze
> > wrote:
>
> >ah, the old myth again. don't compare your US diesels with our diesels.
> >sure, the technical principles always stay the same, but there is a big
> >difference at the end.
>
> The diesels sold in the U.S. are the same as those sold in Europe,
> assuming that's what you mean by yours and ours. This is a global
> economy. And there isn't a whole lot of difference in the end:
> particulates, especially. Diesels today are certainly a huge
> improvement over the clanking Mercedes of yesteryear, but they are
> still pretty smelly. And Diesel fuel costs more than gasoline at the
> local pump, also a big change from yesteryear. This will only get
> worse as their ratio in the fleet increases.
>
> (One reason gas in the U.S. is so cheap--and it is cheap, even though
> it has doubled in the past couple of years--is that the Europeans have
> so thoroughly switched over to diesel that they have gasoline to
> export. A lot of New England's gasoline comes from Holland. Thanks,
> guys!)
>
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net
> In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
>
WRONG WRONG WRONG!

Diesel fuel costs much less than gasoline in Europe.

The reason American gasoline is cheap is because Congree is too
chicken**** to raise fuel taxes to fix the hemorraging budget deficit.
Seems odd for a war over oil. Or was it WMDs or freedom? I forget...

Euro diesels are light years beyond US diesels as a result of low sulfur
fuels and advanced fuel injection (common rail) systems. Operating at
pressures that would explode the American-style dielsel fuel pump, these
engines are nearly free of diesel clatter and typically perform better
in terms of fuel economy and acceleration than their gasoline
counterparts. Low sulfur diesel fuel is a requirement as the sulfuric
acid is quite corrosive to the pump and injector and any catalysts
needed to clean up the exhaust.

[Matt Barrow]

"Repo Man" > wrote in message
> WRONG WRONG WRONG!
>
> Diesel fuel costs much less than gasoline in Europe.
>
> The reason American gasoline is cheap is because Congree is too
> chicken**** to raise fuel taxes to fix the hemorraging budget deficit.
> Seems odd for a war over oil. Or was it WMDs or freedom? I forget...

Stick to engines - your knowledge of the economic record is abysmal (or
you've been listening to Paul Krugman).

>
> Euro diesels are light years beyond US diesels as a result of low sulfur
> fuels and advanced fuel injection (common rail) systems.

The fuel makes the engine? Ummm....wanna explain that?

> Operating at
> pressures that would explode the American-style dielsel fuel pump, these
> engines are nearly free of diesel clatter and typically perform better
> in terms of fuel economy and acceleration than their gasoline
> counterparts.

Could you show just some basic links that show some sort of comparison?
(you don't have to delineate the data...just the links)

> Low sulfur diesel fuel is a requirement as the sulfuric
> acid is quite corrosive to the pump and injector and any catalysts
> needed to clean up the exhaust.

How much of the world crude is "sweet" crude, rather than sulfurphic?

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote

> Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are going
> to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
> takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
> will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)

What about racing gas that NASCAR guys use? It would take special
arrangements to get it, but I think it is well over 100 octane.
--
Jim in NC

[nrp]

Scott -

Admittedly many auto gas station pumps in WI & especially MN have only
ethanol
laced fuel. But non-ethanol is available in WI at some pumps, and
there are a few pumps in MN at gas stations with a non-alcohol premium
in them. Both MN and WI also have unleaded fuel available for airports
and
marinas. Just keep asking your FBO for autofuel. He can get it if he
really
wants to - (except maybe in California?)

[nrp]

Scott -

Most auto gas station pumps in WI & especially MN have only ethanol
laced fuel. But non-ethanol is available in WI at many pumps, and
there are a few pumps in MN at gas stations with a non-alcohol premium
in them. Both MN and WI also have unleaded fuel for airports and
marinas. Just keep asking your FBO for autofuel. He can get it if he
wants to - except maybe in California?

[[email protected]]

Michael wrote:
> > Yeah, but it would have to be an FAA-certified treatment. Can you see
> > the problem yet?
>
> Why? You don't obey every single rule 100% of the time in your car,
> why should your airplane be different?
>

Hmmm... the FAA ramp-nazis would love to hear that :) I tend to be
pretty conservative about my flying - probably because the margin for
error is much less than driving. If an additive was proven to be safe
and effective, then I would use it. I'd prefer it to have the feds'
blessing but that's another issue altogether I think.

[nrp]

Scott -

Most auto gas station pumps in WI & especially MN have only ethanol
laced fuel. But non-ethanol is available in WI at many pumps, and
there are a few pumps in MN at gas stations with a non-alcohol premium
in them. Both MN and WI also have unleaded fuel for airports and
marinas. Just keep asking your FBO for autofuel. He can get it if he
wants to - except maybe in California?

[Dudley Henriques]

Good point!! Not sure exactly what the mix is for NASCAR, but one thing's
for sure......it's flammable :-)))
Dudley

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote
>
>> Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are
>> going
>> to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
>> takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
>> will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)
>
> What about racing gas that NASCAR guys use? It would take special
> arrangements to get it, but I think it is well over 100 octane.
> --
> Jim in NC
>

[Morgans]

"Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
nk.net...
> Good point!! Not sure exactly what the mix is for NASCAR, but one thing's
> for sure......it's flammable :-)))

I think it is around 115 octane. Anyone out there know for sure?
--
Jim in NC

[George Patterson]

Corky Scott wrote:
>
> Maybe sales just got so bad Peugeot simply gave up trying.

By the end of the 70s, almost none of the French makes could pass the EPA and
safety requirements for importation. Peugeot in particular was very dirty as far
as air pollution was concerned. IIRC, Citroen was the last make being sold in
Atlanta and was still imported as late as 1980.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Martin Hotze wrote:
> Corky Scott > wrote:
>
>>Also, at least during the 70's, (...)
>
> That's how many generations in automobile development?

Depends on the country. Seems to be about 6 for Japanese makes. Appears to be 0
for British cars -- they all died off.

Corky was talking about French cars. I haven't seen a new one in this country
since 1979, so I have no idea what they're like now. The last one I saw in
Germany (a Renault in 1989) smoked almost as badly as a Traubant.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[CryptWolf]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote in message
> nk.net...
> > Good point!! Not sure exactly what the mix is for NASCAR, but one
thing's
> > for sure......it's flammable :-)))
>
> I think it is around 115 octane. Anyone out there know for sure?

A quick google search turned up this:
http://www.motorsportsracingfuels.com/RacingFuel.html

I also remember some other racing fuels, but they didn't turn
up in a quick search.

To save you some page flipping I copied some of the numbers.

Sunoco racing fuels
Name, (R+M)/2, research, motor, color, price 54 gal drum
Standard, 110, 115, 105, purple, $281 (probably the old familiar Cam2)
Supreme, 112, 114, 110, blue, $335
Maximal, 116, 118, 114, red, $389
Max5, 116, 119, 113, lt red, $443
NOS, 117, 120, 113, lt red, $416
MO2X, 112, 115, 109, green, $424
MX114, 114, 118, 110, yellow, $???
unleaded
GT, 100, 105, 95, clear, $308
GT+, 104, 109, 99, lt blue, $314

Now, do you want to put the purple stuff in the airplane at $5.20 a gallon?
What about $7.70 a gallon for the NOS?

I also wonder what might happen if you mixed the cheaper 100LL
with the unleaded GT or GT+. Does the diluted lead content give
you an octane boost and if it does, by how much?

I won't even start on what the chemical composition of racing fuels might
do to gaskets and seals etc. on an airplane engine.

Maybe more google searches are in order.

[Big John]

Dudley

It's Nitro with a spot of Alky :o)

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````
On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 01:26:02 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>Good point!! Not sure exactly what the mix is for NASCAR, but one thing's
>for sure......it's flammable :-)))
>Dudley
>
>"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Dudley Henriques" <dhenriques@noware .net> wrote
>>
>>> Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are
>>> going
>>> to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
>>> takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
>>> will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)
>>
>> What about racing gas that NASCAR guys use? It would take special
>> arrangements to get it, but I think it is well over 100 octane.
>> --
>> Jim in NC
>>
>

[Morgans]

"Big John" > wrote in message
...
> Dudley
>
> It's Nitro with a spot of Alky :o)
>
> Big John

Nascar gas? I don't think so. Straight petrol, I believe.

If someone can prove me wrong, go to it. I was wrong once last year, I
think! <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Cub Driver]

>Maximal, 116, 118, 114, red, $389

Just the stuff for the Cub.

Life hasn't been the same since the gas turned blue.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:00:27 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>I wouldn't be so sure about that; some of the european manufacturers
>who make the best diesel engines don't even bother to export to USA
>(e.g., Peugeot),

Ah well, our loss is France's gain!

We had a Peugeot / Citroen dealer down the road. He ended up as a
used-car lot with all the pancakes etc lined up against the
embankment, immobile. Two or three New Hampshire winters and they were
dead metal.

Then there was Renault. Are they still in business? My brother bought
a Renault in Washington and drove it home, and shortly thereafter the
gear shift (on the steering wheel!) broke and there was no part in
North America to fix it, nor evidently in France either. It was towed
away for scrap at 1,600 miles.

After that we learned to specialize. We drank the wine but let the
French keep their automobiles.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Thomas Borchert]

Cub,

> We drank the wine but let the
> French keep their automobiles.
>

You must really like the perfection of your Neon...

ROFL!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Michael]

> Hmmm... the FAA ramp-nazis would love to hear that :)

No doubt. We have some private airports here where the FAA goes only
in groups - and they very pointedly stay away from any airplanes
they're not directly involved with. I hear rumors that some FAA
inspectors disappeared, but I'm sure they're only rumors.

> I tend to be
> pretty conservative about my flying - probably because the margin for
> error is much less than driving.

I'm really not convinced that's true, but in any case it's irrelevant
here. I worked for quite a while in the refinery insdustry
troubleshoting the distillation towers, and I learned a lot about how
fuels are made. I still design instrumentation for that industry. I
can tell you with a high level of confidence that while you may pay for
a high level of quality control in avgas, you aren't getting it. The
specs on that stuff are obsolete, it's a pain-in-the ass customer
special (not a high-margin product like automotive premium), and it's
the first thing they screw with when the main frac goes wonky. And the
lead additive is 1940's technology. They don't even maintain a
constant amount - they just add it until they make octane on the test
engine.

So what I'm telling you is that when you switch to a boat-engine lead
additive and premium autogas, you're actually being more, not less,
conservative.

Mcihael

[Sylvain]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 03:00:27 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:
>
>
>>I wouldn't be so sure about that; some of the european manufacturers
>>who make the best diesel engines don't even bother to export to USA
>>(e.g., Peugeot),
>
>
> Ah well, our loss is France's gain!

Peugeot, Renault, etc. have not been selling cars
in USA since when, the 70s? if your idea of what it
looks like is inspector Columbo's 403, I understand
your prejudices :-) (but then, remember the kind
of junk that came out of Detroit during the same
time; not sure you *could* even drive back home
from the dealership without a major failure :-)

--Sylvain

[Mike Rapoport]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> They become worthless. The problem isn't just octane it is also vapor
>> pressure. The octane problem can be solved but there doesn't seem to be
>> an economical solution to the vapor pressure problem. The pressurized
>> piston twins are probably toast if TEL becomes unavailible.
>
> There is a guy (in NC I believe) cutting the engines off (3' on each wing)
> the Barons and sticking a turboprop on the nose. Working on his second
> conversion now...
>
> Higher fuel per hour burn, but flys faster and higher so it actually burns
> less...

And the engine is worth more than the airplane. Sure you can do this but
the airframe isn't going to be worth anything before you put the new engine
on (ie pressurized piston twins are toast). They arn't going to be flying
higher than pressurized twins so I doubt that you are going to be able to
save fuel in the real world.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Thomas Borchert" > wrote in message
...
> Mike,
>
>> You obviously haven't been the Europe in the past ten years.
>>
>
> I'm missing your point. What is it?

That modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US and
that, if the poster that I was responding to thinks that they don't exist,
then he hasn't been to Europe (where they do).

Mike
MU-2

[[email protected]]

Hey, no argument here. If a TEL substitute added to autogas keeps the
Lyc (or Cont.) happy I'd use it. I'd just feel better knowing it was
approved by the federales aeronauticos... Interesting how avgas
formulation sounds more like an afterthought than a science.

When I said the margin for error is less than when driving, what I
meant was an engine failure on the highway means you coast to the
breakdown lane and call AAA on the cell. If the same situation happens
in a plane, you become a (heavy) glider pilot. The consequences of this
can be disastrous (obviously) if the failure happens during a critical
phase of flight or over water, mountains, etc. With that in mind, I'm
very careful about what goes in the tanks. The service manager of the
shop that annuals my Lance tells me about guys putting Mystery Oil in
the crankcase. It's not approved but these guys swear by it.

[Jens Krueger]

Cub Driver > wrote:

> Then there was Renault. Are they still in business?

Well, they are in the top 4 of the biggest automotive companies in the
world. They own 44% of Nissan among other interesting investments and
are highly profitable.

It was probably clever of them to sell the US french cars disguised as
japanese cars built in the US. ;-)

--
This signature now under new management!
Reply-to address new and improved! And Valid.

[Sylvain]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

>>I'm missing your point. What is it?
>
>
> That modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US and
> that, if the poster that I was responding to thinks that they don't exist,
> then he hasn't been to Europe (where they do).

the confusion was that you were replying to a message that was
precisely making the same point.

--Sylvain

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> And the engine is worth more than the airplane. Sure you can do this but
> the airframe isn't going to be worth anything before you put the new engine
> on (ie pressurized piston twins are toast). They arn't going to be flying
> higher than pressurized twins so I doubt that you are going to be able to
> save fuel in the real world.

Granted they aren't cheap, some are cheaper than others though. I
suppose the airframe also ends up classified as EXPERIMENTAL. Saved fuel
and time - is saved fuel and time, no matter which world your in. That
also helps pay off the conversion costs...

[Mike Rapoport]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
.. .
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> And the engine is worth more than the airplane. Sure you can do this but
>> the airframe isn't going to be worth anything before you put the new
>> engine on (ie pressurized piston twins are toast). They arn't going to
>> be flying higher than pressurized twins so I doubt that you are going to
>> be able to save fuel in the real world.
>
> Granted they aren't cheap, some are cheaper than others though. I suppose
> the airframe also ends up classified as EXPERIMENTAL. Saved fuel and
> time - is saved fuel and time, no matter which world your in. That also
> helps pay off the conversion costs...

I really doubt that you are going to same fuel and time. Small turbines
burn significantly more fuel to produce the same power than reciprocating
engines.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

Arghh! My error. I read all the messages and replied to the wrong one. I
meant to reply to Cub Driver. Sorry.

Mike
MU-2


"Sylvain" > wrote in message
...
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>>>I'm missing your point. What is it?
>>
>>
>> That modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US and
>> that, if the poster that I was responding to thinks that they don't
>> exist, then he hasn't been to Europe (where they do).
>
> the confusion was that you were replying to a message that was
> precisely making the same point.
>
> --Sylvain

[Morgans]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote

>modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US

Why is that?
--
Jim in NC

[Sylvain]

Morgans wrote:
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>>modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
> Why is that?

Beats me, one of these things that only someone in
marketting can understand I suppose :-), may be the
same reason why you can't buy in USA cars with reasonable
gas mileage even though they are widely available
elsewhere -- i.e., there are cars out there, with
conventional gas engines which beat the gas mileage
(real life numbers not marketting hype) of the overhyped
hybrids and with decent performance (actually a heck of a
lot more fun to drive than what's available here); Even
manufacturers that do make such cars and do have a presence
in USA do not sell these models here. I suppose
they know what they are doing, but I am still puzzled.
I did write once to Peugeot (never expecting an
answer) asking them why I couldn't buy their products
over here and got a nice answer (to my surprise,
it was not a canned answer and someone went through
the trouble of addressing the points I was making)
explaining things a bit (apparently they prefer to go
after 'emerging' markets which have better growth
potentials); may be also a cultural thing, folks
here like gaz guzzling big engines even to commute
at 55 mph... what do I know, I am just a bloody
foreigner :-))

the funny thing is that now that I live in California,
even with gas retail prices only a fraction of what
is available in Europe (even today), I still end
up spending more on gas than I was in Europe (gaz
guzzling piece of junk that cannot do better than
26 mpg combined with much longer commute distances)

--Sylvain

[Mike Rapoport]

I don't know but several key states have effectively banned deisels because
of the way they wrote pollution laws. Part of the problem is that US diesel
fuel is not as pure as that in Europe which make the cars pollute more in
the US.

Mike
MU-2


"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
>
>>modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
>
> Why is that?
> --
> Jim in NC

[Big John]

Morgans

Was thinking about the drag strip.

Some of my model engines when I was racing, used mostly nitro with a
spot of alky and caster :o) Hot stuff. Better than the WWII 120-145.

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ``````````````````````````````````````````````

On Thu, 21 Jul 2005 00:51:47 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Big John" > wrote in message
...
>> Dudley
>>
>> It's Nitro with a spot of Alky :o)
>>
>> Big John
>
>Nascar gas? I don't think so. Straight petrol, I believe.
>
>If someone can prove me wrong, go to it. I was wrong once last year, I
>think! <g>

[Thomas Borchert]

Mike,

got it, thanks.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Morgans,

> >modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
>
> Why is that?
>

The market is different. Nobody cares about gas consumption in the US.
Everbody wants ridiculously BIG cars in the US, whereas European cars
are mostly way smaller. And you guys have this obsession about "buying
American". So you don't always get the best ;-)

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> I really doubt that you are going to same fuel and time. Small turbines
> burn significantly more fuel to produce the same power than reciprocating
> engines.

He's using the Czech turbine as I recall. Previous conversion was on an
earlier Beech airframe. Longer TBO's for the turbine, slightly higher
fuel consumption over twin pistons, lighter airframe, higher cruise
speeds/altitudes and improved TO/LD performance...

The more you fly, more money stays in your pocket on average comparison...

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>
>>>modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
>>
>>Why is that?
>
>
> hm, maybe a uneducated guess: most (not all) Americans are not really into
> innovation,


??? Idiotic statement.


and most are not into anything being not "made in America".


??? We have a higher trade deficit than anyone else. We buy so many
foreign cars they make them here now.

[Newps]

Thomas Borchert wrote:


>
>
> The market is different. Nobody cares about gas consumption in the US.
> Everbody wants ridiculously BIG cars in the US, whereas European cars
> are mostly way smaller.

Yes, exactly. I have no interest in driving a speck. I will give up a
few miles per gallon to drive something substantial.


And you guys have this obsession about "buying
> American". So you don't always get the best ;-)

You're off track there. We buy lots of foreign cars and trucks.
Millions of them.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Darrel Toepfer" > wrote in message
. ..
> Mike Rapoport wrote:
>
>> I really doubt that you are going to same fuel and time. Small turbines
>> burn significantly more fuel to produce the same power than reciprocating
>> engines.
>
> He's using the Czech turbine as I recall. Previous conversion was on an
> earlier Beech airframe. Longer TBO's for the turbine, slightly higher fuel
> consumption over twin pistons, lighter airframe, higher cruise
> speeds/altitudes and improved TO/LD performance...
>
> The more you fly, more money stays in your pocket on average comparison...

These are claims by the seller. . Keep in mind that it takes a small
turbine one third to one half more fuel to produce the same amount of power
compared to a recip. There is no way to get around this. It is great to
say that at FL300 you can get great fuel economy in your unpressurized
turbine Baron but the rality is that nobody is going to fly an unpressurizd
airplane that high except as a stunt.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> >modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
>>
>> Why is that?
>
> hm, maybe a uneducated guess: most (not all) Americans are not really into
> innovation, and most are not into anything being not "made in America".
> Most Americans don't have the need to travel outside of their country, so
> their point of view is most likely very America-centered (this also backed
> up with little to no information on what is going on on the other 70% of
> the world). So everything coming from abroad is seen as bad.
>
> #m
> --
> Three witches watch three Swatch watches.
> Which witch watches which Swatch watch?

More likely because you can't sell them in five states including California
and New York (the largest markets) because of the way the pollution
regulations were written combined with the quality of diesel fuel in the US.

Mike
MU-2

[Darrel Toepfer]

Mike Rapoport wrote:

> These are claims by the seller. . Keep in mind that it takes a small
> turbine one third to one half more fuel to produce the same amount of power
> compared to a recip. There is no way to get around this. It is great to
> say that at FL300 you can get great fuel economy in your unpressurized
> turbine Baron but the rality is that nobody is going to fly an unpressurizd
> airplane that high except as a stunt.

Point taken... Thanks...

[Don Tuite]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:02:07 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:
>
>More likely because you can't sell them in five states including California
>and New York (the largest markets) because of the way the pollution
>regulations were written combined with the quality of diesel fuel in the US.

It is a conundrum. I looked at the specs for the VW Golf with the TDI
turbo diesel, and it has essentially the same EPA mileage as the Honda
Civic hyrid. But apparently, the oxides of nitrogen emissions don't
meet CA standards.

But really, it's not just the NOX emissions. There's a whole
infrastructure here in CA for testing emissions of gas-burning cars
while on a dynamometer. It's worth the investment for service
stations to purchase those test cells because there are enough
gas-powered cars to test to make their payback pretty quick
Meanwhile diesels cars are simply exempt from testing probably because
there are so few of them.

But you can't buy a new one in the state.

This is not totally stupid. I understand that the Golf TDI is detuned
in order to meet the rather good emissions figures (outside of NOX) it
does achieve. It's easy to imagine that a fair amount of souping up
would take place if new Golfs were sold -- at the cost of all kinds of
higher emissions.. And there'd be no way of catching the cheaters
without smog testing, for which there is no equipment. And . . .
it's chicken/egg time. Easier to just keep the ban in place.

You do see the occasional TDI Golf around California. They can't stop
you bringing in a used one. But I gave up looking at them when I
realized that there cant be very many trained mechanics in a state
where you can't sell them.

Newps, I loved your line about "We like foreign cars so much, we build
'em here."

Don

[Mike Rapoport]

Yes and it is not just deciding which evil to combat (CO2, NOX, HC or SO2)
but also how you decide to measure it. My understanding is that pollutants
are measured and regulated by ppm which makes little sense. If car A emits
10ppm of some pollutant and car B emits 8ppm but car A uses 30% less fuel,
then car A actually emits less pollutants than car B since the total amount
of exhaust is 30% less.

Mike
MU-2


"Don Tuite" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:02:07 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>>
>>More likely because you can't sell them in five states including
>>California
>>and New York (the largest markets) because of the way the pollution
>>regulations were written combined with the quality of diesel fuel in the
>>US.
>
> It is a conundrum. I looked at the specs for the VW Golf with the TDI
> turbo diesel, and it has essentially the same EPA mileage as the Honda
> Civic hyrid. But apparently, the oxides of nitrogen emissions don't
> meet CA standards.
>
> But really, it's not just the NOX emissions. There's a whole
> infrastructure here in CA for testing emissions of gas-burning cars
> while on a dynamometer. It's worth the investment for service
> stations to purchase those test cells because there are enough
> gas-powered cars to test to make their payback pretty quick
> Meanwhile diesels cars are simply exempt from testing probably because
> there are so few of them.
>
> But you can't buy a new one in the state.
>
> This is not totally stupid. I understand that the Golf TDI is detuned
> in order to meet the rather good emissions figures (outside of NOX) it
> does achieve. It's easy to imagine that a fair amount of souping up
> would take place if new Golfs were sold -- at the cost of all kinds of
> higher emissions.. And there'd be no way of catching the cheaters
> without smog testing, for which there is no equipment. And . . .
> it's chicken/egg time. Easier to just keep the ban in place.
>
> You do see the occasional TDI Golf around California. They can't stop
> you bringing in a used one. But I gave up looking at them when I
> realized that there cant be very many trained mechanics in a state
> where you can't sell them.
>
> Newps, I loved your line about "We like foreign cars so much, we build
> 'em here."
>
> Don

[Martin Hotze]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:53:28 GMT, Don Tuite wrote:

>
>But you can't buy a new one in the state.

and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
go up there and import one.

#m
--
The most likely way for the world to be destroyed,
most experts agree, is by accident. That's where we
come in; we're computer professionals. We cause accidents.
-- Nathaniel Borenstein

[Cub Driver]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:24:45 -0600, Newps > wrote:

> and most are not into anything being not "made in America".

I can't find much in my clothes closet, office, or garage that WAS
made in the U.S. Of the Big Five U.S. automobile manufacturers, one is
German and two are Japanese.

>
>??? We have a higher trade deficit than anyone else. We buy so many
>foreign cars they make them here now.

The deficit is a direct result of the world savings glut. How else
would the rest of the world get the money here? Get rid of the deficit
and the world falls into depression, taking us with it. Japan has been
in the toilet since the 1980s and only now is beginning to get its
chin over the rim. Europe has been in the toilet since the 1990s and
looks like it will never get out (with a few exceptions, like Britain,
which is still benefiting from its dose of Thatcherism).

And how does buying a U.S.-built Honda affect the deficit?



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:16:24 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>>But you can't buy a new one in the state.
>
>and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
>go up there and import one.

Surely it would be easier to stop in Oregon en route?


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Newps]

Martin Hotze wrote:

> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:53:28 GMT, Don Tuite wrote:
>
>
>>But you can't buy a new one in the state.
>
>
> and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
> go up there and import one.

Maybe. The pollution laws are different and we have much stricter laws
than Canada. Any car/truck you import will have to meet the smog and
safety rules we have here. For American cars/trucks sold in Canada
probably not that big a deal. You'd want a new speedometer head as they
use that stupid metric system up there.

[Thomas Borchert]

Newps,

> I will give up a
> few miles per gallon to drive something substantial.
>

Just goes to show that fuel is too cheap in the US...

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Surely it would be easier to stop in Oregon en route?

You missed a link in the discussion. It appears that modern European diesel
engines are not available anywhere in the U.S.. It's been argued that this is
because California and New York don't allow them to be sold. In any case, you
can't buy them in Oregon.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Martin Hotze wrote:
>
> and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
> go up there and import one.

About ten years ago, I looked into the regs for importing a car. Basically, the
car has to be taken to a local dealer. The dealer adds or changes equipment
until it meets the U.S. safety and emissions laws. This is not feasible if the
model was never imported into the States.

Cars which you owned outside the country were exempt at that time, but few of us
can afford to buy a car and spend several months driving it in a foreign country
to meet the ownership requirements.

If you manage to get through thsoe hoops, you would definitely want to change
the radiator. Most Canadian cars have thinner ones than U.S. cars do.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Bob Noel]

In article >,
Thomas Borchert > wrote:

> > I will give up a
> > few miles per gallon to drive something substantial.
>
> Just goes to show that fuel is too cheap in the US...

Somewhat presumptuous of others to tell the US that
fuel economy is more important than tax revenues and
safety.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Don Tuite]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:16:24 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:53:28 GMT, Don Tuite wrote:
>
>>
>>But you can't buy a new one in the state.
>
>and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
>go up there and import one.

Easier than that, I can buy one in Oregon or Nevada, but where would I
take it for repairs? My local VW dealer won't have paid to send his
mechanics to school to learn how to fix turbo diesels he can't sell.

Don

[Sylvain]

Cub Driver wrote:

> I can't find much in my clothes closet, office, or garage that WAS
> made in the U.S. Of the Big Five U.S. automobile manufacturers, one is
> German and two are Japanese.

well, when I moved here, I made a point of buying a US made car
(yes and I did check the VIN number to see from which factory it
came from :-)

only a foreigner would do that :-)))

--Sylvain

[Sylvain]

Newps wrote:

>>
>> and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
>> go up there and import one.

I did look into that when I wanted to buy a 'Smart' -- sold both
in Mexico and Canada, but NOT in USA, where the manufacturer
prefers to sell a SUV under that brand... -- for one
thing some dealers won't sell to someone with a US address (the
manufacturer they represent might get upset) and importing a
car which is less than 25 years old is going to cost you a bundle,
in the best case scenario, i.e., it probably won't even be
possible.


> probably not that big a deal. You'd want a new speedometer head as they
> use that stupid metric system up there.

the cars there seem to have both markings on their speedometer

--Sylvain

[Mike Rapoport]

He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong"
things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all encouraged
by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.

Mike
MU-2


"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Thomas Borchert > wrote:
>
>> > I will give up a
>> > few miles per gallon to drive something substantial.
>>
>> Just goes to show that fuel is too cheap in the US...
>
> Somewhat presumptuous of others to tell the US that
> fuel economy is more important than tax revenues and
> safety.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

[Bob Noel]

In article et>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong"
> things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
> work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all encouraged
> by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.

It's way more complicated than energy being "too cheap". For example,
in some cases people live far from work because housing is way too
expensive around work. Increase the energy costs by raising taxes and
you'll make the local housing even more unaffordable.

[snip]
> >> Just goes to show that fuel is too cheap in the US...
> >
> > Somewhat presumptuous of others to tell the US that
> > fuel economy is more important than tax revenues and
> > safety.

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Thomas Borchert]

Sylvain,

> I did look into that when I wanted to buy a 'Smart'
>

Hey, I thought we were discussing cars <gd&r>

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Thomas Borchert]

Bob,

> Somewhat presumptuous of others to tell the US that
> fuel economy is more important than tax revenues and
> safety.
>

First, I'm not sure what the former has to do with the two latter. But
I'd be interested.

Second, fuel is still too cheap here, too.

Oil is a finite resource. I don't care whether it is exhausted in 10,
100 or 500 years. All I know is that when the time comes, mankind will
deeply regret to have burned it rather than put it to the many more
important uses that we have for it even today.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 14:40:48 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>You missed a link in the discussion. It appears that modern European diesel
>engines are not available anywhere in the U.S.. It's been argued that this is
>because California and New York don't allow them to be sold. In any case, you
>can't buy them in Oregon.

Ah! Okay. Got it now!

Guess that means I stop buying imported New York and California wine.
Thank God for the Argentines!


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:45:56 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>Any car/truck you import will have to meet the smog and
>safety rules we have here.

Are you sure? I think you can buy a car and just drive it home.

Next town over, there used to be a garage that did a fair business
selling gray-market Volkswagens from Canada. I forget why the VWs
weren't importable. Maybe they were Beetles after the (old) Beetle
wasn't sold here any longer.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:50:09 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:

>the cars there seem to have both markings on their speedometer

So do those sold "here" -- in the U.S. It's been that way for twenty
years, it seems to me, though it may be because for twenty years I've
only bought Hondas.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:20:39 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Oil is a finite resource. I don't care whether it is exhausted in 10,
>100 or 500 years.

Nah. It will never be exhausted. It will however become more
expensive.

When you are talking centuries going forward, you are into the
infinite. We've barely been using petroleum in any significant
quantity for a century. Think of sitting there at your computer in
1905! Could you even have dreamed of two cars in your driveway, one of
them built in Japan, and an airplane at your disposal a few miles off?

-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Stubby]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 11:20:39 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Oil is a finite resource. I don't care whether it is exhausted in 10,
>>100 or 500 years.
>
>
> Nah. It will never be exhausted. It will however become more
> expensive.
>
> When you are talking centuries going forward, you are into the
> infinite. We've barely been using petroleum in any significant
> quantity for a century. Think of sitting there at your computer in
> 1905! Could you even have dreamed of two cars in your driveway, one of
> them built in Japan, and an airplane at your disposal a few miles off?

Fossil fuel is a non-issue. Once enough time has elaspsed, the
neurotic fears about nuclear energy is go away. Nuclear energy is very
safe-- in the U.S., Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than
nuclear power plants.

[Newps]

Cub Driver wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:45:56 -0600, Newps > wrote:
>
>
>>Any car/truck you import will have to meet the smog and
>>safety rules we have here.
>
>
> Are you sure?

100%. Hell to take my Montana truck to California is a pain in the ass.

[Newps]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:50:09 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:
>
>
>>the cars there seem to have both markings on their speedometer
>
>
> So do those sold "here" -- in the U.S. It's been that way for twenty
> years,

Yes for speed, although in Canada the kilometers are on the outside of
the ring, the big numbers. But there aren't too many cars whose
odometers show both. You'd have to take it in and have it converted.
All cars in Canada use kilometers.

[George Patterson]

Cub Driver wrote:
>
> Thank God for the Argentines!

And the Australians.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Thomas Borchert]

Stubby,

> Once enough time has elaspsed, the
> neurotic fears about nuclear energy is go away.
>

Are you familiar with the term "half-life"? Assuming you are, compare
the half-life of nuclear waste with that of human cultures you expect
to safe-keep it. Then, think again about those fears.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Repo Man]

[This followup was posted to rec.aviation.piloting and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Repo Man" > wrote in message
> > WRONG WRONG WRONG!
> >
> > Diesel fuel costs much less than gasoline in Europe.
> >
> > The reason American gasoline is cheap is because Congree is too
> > chicken**** to raise fuel taxes to fix the hemorraging budget deficit.
> > Seems odd for a war over oil. Or was it WMDs or freedom? I forget...
>
> Stick to engines - your knowledge of the economic record is abysmal (or
> you've been listening to Paul Krugman).
>
> >
> > Euro diesels are light years beyond US diesels as a result of low sulfur
> > fuels and advanced fuel injection (common rail) systems.
>
> The fuel makes the engine? Ummm....wanna explain that?
>
> > Operating at
> > pressures that would explode the American-style dielsel fuel pump, these
> > engines are nearly free of diesel clatter and typically perform better
> > in terms of fuel economy and acceleration than their gasoline
> > counterparts.
>
> Could you show just some basic links that show some sort of comparison?
> (you don't have to delineate the data...just the links)
>
> > Low sulfur diesel fuel is a requirement as the sulfuric
> > acid is quite corrosive to the pump and injector and any catalysts
> > needed to clean up the exhaust.
>
> How much of the world crude is "sweet" crude, rather than sulfurphic?
>
>
>
>

And you think the pointy headed suburbanite crowd has a plan to fix the
budget deficit? BWA HA HA HA HA! Nothing more than: Let the Democrats
raise taxes after we put up a brave (looking) fight. Maybe they can
again trot out their man-bitch Arthur Laffer who will explain how not
taxing the over-priviledged is a good thing? Put him on SNL for the
gales of derisive laughter generated...

Here is the remedial Econ 101 course for you. We didn't pay for the
Vietnam war with any tax increases. The rest of the world noticed this
important omission and stopped lending us money. Consequently interest
rates rose. The result was simultaneous lack of economic growth and
dramatic increase in borrowing costs (interest rates) aka 'stagflation'.
Economists were agog at the phenomena. The problem was exacerbated by
the deficit ballooning tendencies of Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and
Reagan. There were truly 'deficit queens' with Reagan topping the charts
handily. Consult the record if Rush the reactionary windbag tells you
otherwise. Economic growth of the USA and resulting larger tax revenues
during the Bush I and Clinton regimes offset their profligate spending
habits sufficiently to reduce interest rates to historically low levels.
The world was willing to lend us money again. Bush II launches war (or
crusade or vulgar oil-grab) while neglecting to find a way to pay for
it. He makes Reagan look like a moderate spender by comparison. The war
does not appear to be good idea. We are not paying to run the war. We
are stuck in a quagmire. The rest of the world notices this. History
repeats self. Grab your ankles and wait for increased interest rates to
kill USA real estate bubble quite soon.

I hope I didn't go too fast for you.

Here is the Diesel 101 section. First many people in Europe drive diesel
autos. They are smooth, sophisticated, and powerful. In comparison, USA
diesels are noisy, rough, and anemic. In the case of General Motors
automobile diesels they were also unreliable and successfully killed the
market. The important part of the reason why is money. In Europe diesel
fuel costs about 3/4 as much as gasoline. There is little difference in
the cost of production. Fuel taxes make the difference. In London UK
diesel runs about $5.61/gallon while unleaded gasoline is about
$5.39/gallon and premium is $5.82/gallon. See
http://www.theautochannel.com/news/2005/03/30/024010.html for an
overview of the diesel engine situation. Diesel engines typically offer
superior fuel economy and comparable power in comparison to similarly
sized gasoline engines. In the USA, Congress obviously does not want
citizens to switch to diesel fuel as the price is typically higher than
for gasoline. USA diesel is also relatively dirty. Sulfur corrodes fuel
injectors and catalysts of modern diesel engines so they stay out of
USA. The good news is the USA EPA has mandated lower sulfur fuels, see
http://www.epa.gov/otaq/regs/fuels/diesel/diesel.htm for the news. In
2006 we will finally catch up. Another benefit of low sulfur fuels is
fewer oil changes will be needed for ALL diesel engines.

Historically Saudi and Pennsylvanian oil has been low in sulfur content.
It is not necessary that the oil be low sulfur in nature. The oil
refining process can be modified to remove many types of impurities.
Sulfur is no exception. It will cost a few cents per gallon more so the
trucking lobby will be agog. Despite their bleating, the world as we
know it will not end for this reason.

[Roger]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 14:50:28 GMT, "Dudley Henriques"
<dhenriques@noware .net> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
oups.com...
>> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
>> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
>> lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
>> higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
>> being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
>> computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
>> read anything more about the coming end of avgas?
>
> Don't know about the small airplane folks, but the warbird guys are going
>to be mad as hell. We have the power back on a P51 now to 45 inches on
>takeoff because of the fuel restriction. Any lower and the damn airplane
>will be taking off at cruise power!! :-)
>Dudley henriques

Pretty soon you'll be carrying as much water as fuel, or are you
already using water injection?

That is about the only thing I can think of, at present, that would
allow going more boost.

Actually, Ethyl Alcohol, which has a poor octane rating will raise the
rating a few percent when mixed up to 10% with gas. Unfortunately it
has a lot of side effects like disolving gaskets and removing
protective coatings that make it an undesirable.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Roger]

On Tue, 19 Jul 2005 19:14:37 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

wrote:
>
>> That's fine for new production & some retrofits, but what about all the
>> Navajos/Twin Cessnas/Barons/etc. where re-engining would cost more than
>> the aircraft?
>
>
>well, the best time to get rid of those 20-something year old planes with a
>50 year old design and 100 year old steam gauges.
>
>why don't you still drive your car you had in your 60's?
>
I still would be if it hadn't fallen apart back in the 60s. <:-))
If it had over 50 to 60,000 miles it had made it well past the design
limits. Remember that was the time of planned obsolescence.
In the late 60s I had a Mustang that rusted out in less than 6 months.
Ford would go half, but I had to use their body shop. I could get it
done for less than that at the local body shop with no discount.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>#m

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 07:56:49 +0200, Martin Hotze
> wrote:

>"Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> >modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
>>
>> Why is that?
>
>hm, maybe a uneducated guess: most (not all) Americans are not really into
>innovation, and most are not into anything being not "made in America".

We purchase a high percentage of imported cars. Even our domestic cars
have so many imported parts they now say, "assembled in America"<:-)).

>Most Americans don't have the need to travel outside of their country, so
>their point of view is most likely very America-centered (this also backed
>up with little to no information on what is going on on the other 70% of
>the world)

The above it true from a social standpoint.

>. So everything coming from abroad is seen as bad.

30 years ago I'd have said yes, but now most of the imports are
considered moving up to quality compared to US automobiles..

However, the car's name be it Honda, Toyota, or what ever does not
indicate where it's made/assembled. It pretty much depends on the
model. One might be assembled in Middle America and the other
overseas.

As to Diesel engines and fuel here in the states, the fuel, quite
often has high sulphur content and the engines put out a lot of
particulates. Between the two, this in general this has given diesel
engines a bad name for being environmentally unfriendly even though
examples exist that run clean.

Many things keep the precision engines with good economy from being
imported. Some run high compression and those develop nitrides from
the high combustion temperatures. Quite likely some just don't figure
it's worth the effort to go through the testing to be sold in the US.

You will find that many of our engines run rich to keep the combustion
temperature low and then have to pump air into the catalytic converter
so the excess can be burned.

At least a good portion of the reason for poorer mileage over here is
due to some specific anti-pollution measure.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>#m

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 18:26:10 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Yes and it is not just deciding which evil to combat (CO2, NOX, HC or SO2)
>but also how you decide to measure it. My understanding is that pollutants
>are measured and regulated by ppm which makes little sense. If car A emits
>10ppm of some pollutant and car B emits 8ppm but car A uses 30% less fuel,
>then car A actually emits less pollutants than car B since the total amount
>of exhaust is 30% less.

I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that as it just
doesn't make sense. In some cases when they first started this and
maybe even now, they reduced the ppm by actually increasing the total
amount produced.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>Mike
>MU-2
<snip>

[Roger]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 07:45:56 -0600, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Martin Hotze wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 17:53:28 GMT, Don Tuite wrote:
>>
>>
>>>But you can't buy a new one in the state.
>>
>>
>> and what about Canada? are there any new diesels available? you still can
>> go up there and import one.
>
>Maybe. The pollution laws are different and we have much stricter laws
>than Canada. Any car/truck you import will have to meet the smog and
>safety rules we have here. For American cars/trucks sold in Canada
>probably not that big a deal. You'd want a new speedometer head as they
>use that stupid metric system up there.

That's why they make felt marking pens.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>

[Roger]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 05:58:43 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 11:50:09 -0700, Sylvain > wrote:
>
>>the cars there seem to have both markings on their speedometer
>
>So do those sold "here" -- in the U.S. It's been that way for twenty

They do? I drive a Toyota 4-Runner and it only has MPH.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>years, it seems to me, though it may be because for twenty years I've
>only bought Hondas.
>
>
>-- all the best, Dan Ford
>
>email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>the blog: www.danford.net
>In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Roger]

On Fri, 22 Jul 2005 09:24:41 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Morgans,
>
>> >modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>
>The market is different. Nobody cares about gas consumption in the US.
>Everbody wants ridiculously BIG cars in the US, whereas European cars

What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.

The big problem here is people who drive into town 3 and 4 times a
day taking their kids to soccer, hockey, baseball, foot ball, or some
kind of practice. People are too independent to car pool.

>are mostly way smaller. And you guys have this obsession about "buying
>American". So you don't always get the best ;-)

I drive an SUV, because it was the closest I could get to a
combination car and pick up truck. The thing is half full, or more,
most of the time. OTOH I only make a few trips into town a week and
those are generally to the airport. I combine those trips into stops
at the hardware store, computer store, Lowe's, Home Depot, etc... I
may even pick up a sub on the way home.

BTW the SUV is imported and gets as good a mileage as any car I've
driven so far. It's a long ways from my wife's Chrysler Mini, mini
van though. She gets close to 40 in all around driving. OTOH with
nigh onto 200,000 miles it's almost time to bury the thing.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Peter Duniho]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> [...] If car A emits
>>10ppm of some pollutant and car B emits 8ppm but car A uses 30% less fuel,
>>then car A actually emits less pollutants than car B since the total
>>amount
>>of exhaust is 30% less.
>
> I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that as it just
> doesn't make sense. In some cases when they first started this and
> maybe even now, they reduced the ppm by actually increasing the total
> amount produced.

I assume the laws are the way they are because the auto manufacturers want
them that way.

A test that measures absolute emissions would effectively be measuring the
fuel efficiency of the car, along with the usual emissions control hardware.
Instead, we have rules that require manufacturers to have a certain average
fuel efficiency across their sold product, with each one having to meet
specific relative emissions requirements.

Putting a limit on absolute emissions would either mess up the way motor
vehicles are sold in the US (since many vehicles just would never qualify),
or it would allow high mpg vehicles to have unreasonably high emissions
(along with every other kind of vehicle). The latter clearly doesn't make
much sense if you're trying to improve air quality, while the former go
against some very powerful lobbying.

IMHO, the current system is actually pretty reasonable, and would be made
much more reasonable with the use of high gas taxes. That is, measuring
relative emissions ensures that all vehicles sold are playing at the same
level (ignoring for a moment that different limits are applied to different
vehicles :) ), while taxing gas consumption would directly relate to
emissions of pollutants.

In other words, testing emissions is not directly related to trying to limit
emissions. Rather, it's to ensure that all vehicles are producing about the
same amount of pollutants for a given amount of fuel consumed. Now if we
could just change the way fuel is consumed, we'd be in business. :)

Pete

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
> He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong"
> things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
> work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all encouraged
> by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.

Nice elitist attitude.

Something along those lines is what every tyrant throws out.

[Matt Barrow]

"Repo Man" > wrote in message
.net...
> [This followup was posted to rec.aviation.piloting and a copy was sent
> to the cited author.]
>
> And you think the pointy headed suburbanite crowd has a plan to fix the
> budget deficit? BWA HA HA HA HA! Nothing more than: Let the Democrats
> raise taxes after we put up a brave (looking) fight. Maybe they can
> again trot out their man-bitch Arthur Laffer who will explain how not
> taxing the over-priviledged is a good thing? Put him on SNL for the
> gales of derisive laughter generated...

Better look at the _DEBITS_ and the _CREDITS_ before shooting your mouth
off.

It's the spending, stupid.

Rest of rambling BS snipped.

[Stubby]

Thomas Borchert wrote:

> Stubby,
>
>
>>Once enough time has elaspsed, the
>>neurotic fears about nuclear energy is go away.
>>
>
>
> Are you familiar with the term "half-life"? Assuming you are, compare
> the half-life of nuclear waste with that of human cultures you expect
> to safe-keep it. Then, think again about those fears.
>
Technology Review had an article several years ago that said nuclear
waste can be processed to reduce it to a glass that emits less than
typical rocks found in nature. Also, we do not have to build reactors
that produce highly poisonous byproducts such as plutonium. And, you
can't just write off disposing of waste by sending into the Sun.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>
>>He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong"
>>things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
>>work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all encouraged
>>by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
>
>
> Nice elitist attitude.

Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
situation to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.

The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
end consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in
the chain you apply the tax.


Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >
> >>He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
"wrong"
> >>things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far
from
> >>work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
encouraged
> >>by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
> >
> >
> > Nice elitist attitude.
>
> Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
> situation to me.


It's ONE summary.

> The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.

So?
>
> The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
> meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
> end consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in
> the chain you apply the tax.

Not to mention giving government more resources to **** away.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
> meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
> end consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in
> the chain you apply the tax.

It makes a difference because everybody in the supply chain tries to achieve a
certain amount of profit. This amount is usually calculated as a percentage of
the cost.

Take a simplistic example. Widgets are made by Bufu Corp and sell to retailers
for $1.00. The local retailer marks it up 100% and sells it for $2.00. Place a
tax of $0.20 on each at the consumer end, and Bubba Jones pays $2.20 for one.

Now place a tax of $0.20 on each and make Bufu pay it. Bufu now charges $1.20
for each widget. The retailer marks it up 100%, just as before, but Bubba pays
$2.40.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Repo Man]

[This followup was posted to rec.aviation.piloting and a copy was sent
to the cited author.]

In article >,
says...
>
> "Repo Man" > wrote in message
> .net...
> > [This followup was posted to rec.aviation.piloting and a copy was sent
> > to the cited author.]
> >
> > And you think the pointy headed suburbanite crowd has a plan to fix the
> > budget deficit? BWA HA HA HA HA! Nothing more than: Let the Democrats
> > raise taxes after we put up a brave (looking) fight. Maybe they can
> > again trot out their man-bitch Arthur Laffer who will explain how not
> > taxing the over-priviledged is a good thing? Put him on SNL for the
> > gales of derisive laughter generated...
>
> Better look at the _DEBITS_ and the _CREDITS_ before shooting your mouth
> off.
>
> It's the spending, stupid.
>
> Rest of rambling BS snipped.
>
>
>
>

Do they teach reading and comprehension in the pointy headed suburbs?
Did you manage to comprehend ANYTHING I wrote? I know the 'New Dumb'
categorically denies any facts that SEEM contrary to their political
beliefs. It works only when their lies SOUND plausible. Go back to
school and get some practice.

This is what passes for intellectual discourse in the suburbs of the USA
these days...

[Thomas Borchert]

Roger,

> What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
> really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.
>

Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
look at mileage.

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

[Centurion]

wrote:

> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
> lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
> higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
> being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
> computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
> read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

This is exactly the rationale behind an outfit I fly for[1] looking at
"options" when the C182 and C206 come up for engine+prop replacements. The
Navajo is already slated for replacement with a single-engine turbine.

So far the 182 (which has ~300HTR on the prop, the O-470 is already "on
condition") is looking like it may get an SMA305 Turbo Diesel conversion.
Some of the bonuses with this engine are:
- 32-37l/hr (7-8 gal/hr, if I got the conversion right)
- fuel is 25-30% cheaper (here in Aust.) ; burns less, costs less.
- 3000TBO target (currently certified for 2000TBO)
- flat rated at max-continuous all the way to 10,000ft in ISA+15 which is a
big plus for us. (see [1] below)
- Single-lever operation (no pitch/mixture control). Mixture is handled by
the fuel pump as a function of boost, boost is managed via the FADEC, and
the RPM is set at a fixed 2200RPM.
- No (or minimal) shock-cooling problems as the engine is air+oil cooled via
a heat exchanger.

The C206 is still a quandary as there is currently no SMA (or other) diesel
powerful enough to slot into the 300HP (O-520/O-540 etc) category. There's
talk the SMA305 can be rated up to 300HP but it's not yet available.
Besides, SMA are already working on a 6-cyl 300+HP version of 4-cyl SMA305.
Unlike the Thielert diesels, the SMA's were designed from the ground up as
an aviation power plant. The Thielert diesels are modified auto engines
(or so I'm told by the SMA guys - so take that with a grain of salt).

Not wanting to get into a political debate about fuel costs and OPEC and
taxes and US foreign policy and.....

BUT, I think if the retro-fit/STC compliance process can be streamlined, the
costs involved to convert an avgas-burning machine to a turbo-diesel
running on Jet-A1 (or equiv) should start to bring the cost down. As costs
come down, market penetration increases and puts further downward pressure
on the costs. If that retrofit cost can be reduced to a level that makes
the return on the investment realisable within the TBO, we could be onto a
potential solution.

The questions remain the same; compensation/incentives/beurocractic-hurdles.
It opens a whole can of worms, as we've seen in other branches of this
thread.

James
[1] We drop parachute enthusiasts from flight levels. They call it fun, we
call it the same....but we don't jump out of the plane.
--
A platitude is simply a truth repeated till people get tired of hearing it.
-- Stanley Baldwin

[Cub Driver]

On Sun, 24 Jul 2005 18:06:31 -0400, Roger
> wrote:

>They do? I drive a Toyota 4-Runner and it only has MPH.

Okay, another reason to buy Honda :)



-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

>>. So everything coming from abroad is seen as bad.

I am sitting here in front of my imported computer, sitting on my
imported chair, drinking my imported coffee, and not believing what I
am reading!

I don't know for sure, but I suspect that every stitch of clothing I
am wearing was imported too. When I drive to the end of the road to
fetch the newspaper (that is probably largely an American product) I
will be using an automobile that, while built in Maryland, bears a
foreign mark.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:46:05 GMT, Repo Man > wrote:

>Did you manage to comprehend ANYTHING I wrote?

I doubt that he did, because it was garbage. Ahistorical garbage.
Mindless, paranoid garbage.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Judah]

Thomas Borchert > wrote in
:

> Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
> look at mileage.
>

Europeans don't look at Mileage. They look at Kilometerage.

[Stefan]

Judah wrote:

> Europeans don't look at Mileage. They look at Kilometerage.

Actually, they look at Literage. Liters per 100 km, that is. But then,
last I checked my map, Great Britain was still European, too.

Stefan

[ShawnD2112]

AH! That's where you're wrong! The Brits do not consider themselves to be
part of Europe either geographically or politically. They are a seperate
and sovereign nation which just happens to adhere to the EU regulations. I
made the mistake when I first moved here of thinking I was in Europe. I was
quickly set straight.

Which leads to some funny anomolies here in the UK. Everything is metric
except for two measurements. Beer is still sold in pints (thank God for
that!). Road distance is still measured in miles but fuel is sold in
liters. Brits still talk about miles per gallon (Imperial, mind, not US)
but I've started thinking about gas economy in terms of miles per liter
because the math is easier. A bit bizarre but you soon get used to it.

You gotta love the quirkiness of this place!

Shawn

"Stefan" > wrote in message
...
> Judah wrote:
>
>> Europeans don't look at Mileage. They look at Kilometerage.
>
> Actually, they look at Literage. Liters per 100 km, that is. But then,
> last I checked my map, Great Britain was still European, too.
>
> Stefan

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Peter Duniho wrote:


>>I've always wondered about the reasoning behind that as it just
>>doesn't make sense. In some cases when they first started this and
>>maybe even now, they reduced the ppm by actually increasing the total
>>amount produced.

I think you are mistaken there. Emissions are mesured in ppm, because
it's the only possible way, you can't collect the NOx from an exhaust
stream and put it on a scale. I believe the ppm-measurement is done by
gas chromatography. However, from the ppm and the total mass flow, you
can easily calculate the total weight of NOx emitted, and that is the
figure that has to be within certain limits to meet emissions standards,
as you can see here:

http://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/light.html

(Actually the limits are gramm-per-mile, but as the emissions test cycle
is a defined distance, this amounts to the same.)

Having said that, there are different emission gramm-per-mile figures
for different classes of vehicles, a light duty truck is allowed much
higher (absolute) emissions than a passcar for the same emission standard.

> A test that measures absolute emissions would effectively be measuring the
> fuel efficiency of the car, along with the usual emissions control hardware.
> Instead, we have rules that require manufacturers to have a certain average
> fuel efficiency across their sold product, with each one having to meet
> specific relative emissions requirements.

the fuel consumption for a given test cycle is actually calculated from
the emission values, not measured by any sort of flow device. Yet the by
far strongest correlation is between CO2 and fuel consumption. The
correlation between emissions NOx, CO and HC (the unwanted stuff) and
fuel consumption is very weak. Differences in the behavior of combustion
and aftertreatment are much stronger between vehicles than an influence
of the fuel consumption. After all, the nasty stuff makes up for less
than 1% of the total mass flow. The correlation between CO2 and fuel
consumption on the other hand is so strong, that CO2 is used INSTEAD of
fuel consumption at least in Europe.

> IMHO, the current system is actually pretty reasonable, and would be made
> much more reasonable with the use of high gas taxes. That is, measuring
> relative emissions ensures that all vehicles sold are playing at the same
> level (ignoring for a moment that different limits are applied to different
> vehicles :) ), while taxing gas consumption would directly relate to
> emissions of pollutants.
>
> In other words, testing emissions is not directly related to trying to limit
> emissions. Rather, it's to ensure that all vehicles are producing about the
> same amount of pollutants for a given amount of fuel consumed. Now if we
> could just change the way fuel is consumed, we'd be in business. :)

We'd be if emissions levels were in ppm indeed. Still the main problem
would be, that you cannot account for different emission standards. If
you tax fuel in order to really tax the emissions behind it, you'd have
to fix different pump prices for LEV, LEVII, ULEV, which is just not
practical. (Of course you SHOULD increase fuel taxation nevertheless, to
bring the CO2 down...)

regards,
Friedrich

--
für reply bitte die offensichtliche Änderung an der Adresse vornehmen

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Roger wrote:

> You will find that many of our engines run rich to keep the combustion
> temperature low and then have to pump air into the catalytic converter
> so the excess can be burned.

I hope not :-)) That would be a sure way to burn out your catalyst.

Gasoline engines do run rich however at high load conditions, which are
not met during emission cycles. But the excess fuel turns into CO
instead of CO2 (thus burning more fuel with less O2) or even goes down
the exhaust pipe unburnt. Noone cares, at it will never be measured.
This is one of several reasons, why the ongoing tightening of emission
standards has become a joke by now.

The only conditions, when so called scondary air is pumped into the
(rich) exhaust is at fairly light loads during warmup. This is done to
get the catalyst to its operating temperature range more qickly.

> At least a good portion of the reason for poorer mileage over here is
> due to some specific anti-pollution measure.

There is a slight influence, but it's not a big deal.

regards,
Friedrich

--
für reply bitte die offensichtliche Änderung an der Adresse vornehmen

[Repo Man]

In article >,
says...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:46:05 GMT, Repo Man > wrote:
>
> >Did you manage to comprehend ANYTHING I wrote?
>
> I doubt that he did, because it was garbage. Ahistorical garbage.
> Mindless, paranoid garbage.
>
>
> -- all the best, Dan Ford
>
> email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
> Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
> Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
> the blog: www.danford.net
> In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com
>

I can see you disagreed with it. But maybe your child could do a better
job explaining why.

[Roger]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 06:43:48 -0400, Cub Driver
> wrote:

>
>>>. So everything coming from abroad is seen as bad.
>
>I am sitting here in front of my imported computer, sitting on my

Hey! My Computer is 100% American... well as much as GM, Ford, or
Chrysler.

The motherboard came from china, the drives from Taiwan, Singapore,
and Japan. HOWEVER the Silicon in most of the chips came from
Michigan. The RAW Silicon was made here. The poly crystal was
shipped to Taiwan where it was made into single crystal and then cut
into wafers. The chips? Mostly Japan and Taiwan although more and
more are coming from China. My Router (D-Link) was made in China,
along my Link-Sys stuff. I didn't find any networking components,
regardless of brand that weren't made in China.

BUT it was 100% assembled here. Right here in my den with no
outsourcing. Albeit the software comes from all over the world and the
US companies are importing programmers from India. Still it (there
are 4 of them) was assembled, configured, and put into operation here
in the US.

I don't think there is a TV set made in the US any more.

>imported chair, drinking my imported coffee, and not believing what I
>am reading!

I don't drink coffee!

>
>I don't know for sure, but I suspect that every stitch of clothing I
>am wearing was imported too.

Probably by child labor in sweat shops.

>When I drive to the end of the road to
>fetch the newspaper (that is probably largely an American product) I

But in a plastic Chinese mail box?
I actually have a steel, US manufactured mail box from US steel.
Of course it's flanked by one for the paper and one for the shopping
guide that are of Chinese plastic.

>will be using an automobile that, while built in Maryland, bears a
>foreign mark.

Even if you purchased an American brand car you will find many parts
in it came from other countries.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>-- all the best, Dan Ford
>
>email (put Cubdriver in subject line)
>
>Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
>Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
>the blog: www.danford.net
>In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Sport Pilot]

wrote:
> ISTR there's only one company that still makes TEL (I think it's in the
> UK?) When they decide the cost isn't worth it, what then? Sure, the
> lower HP Lyc's and Cont's can probably run mogas without issue, but the
> higher HP turbo'd engines won't be so happy without lead. The FADEC mod
> being developed by Aerosance might be a solution for some engines by
> computerized ignition retarding, but that's not a cheap fix. Anyone
> read anything more about the coming end of avgas?

Way past time to get rid of TEL. Nasty stuff, both on ourselves and on
the engines. Don't need it, there are other substances to boost
octane, and you can add a water injection system if requirements are
truely high.

[Sport Pilot]

Sylvain wrote:
> Morgans wrote:
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote
> >>modern European deisel automobile engines are not seen in the US
> > Why is that?
>
> Beats me, one of these things that only someone in
> marketting can understand I suppose :-), may be the
> same reason why you can't buy in USA cars with reasonable
> gas mileage even though they are widely available
> elsewhere -- i.e., there are cars out there, with
> conventional gas engines which beat the gas mileage
> (real life numbers not marketting hype) of the overhyped
> hybrids and with decent performance (actually a heck of a
> lot more fun to drive than what's available here); Even
> manufacturers that do make such cars and do have a presence
> in USA do not sell these models here. I suppose
> they know what they are doing, but I am still puzzled.
> I did write once to Peugeot (never expecting an
> answer) asking them why I couldn't buy their products
> over here and got a nice answer (to my surprise,
> it was not a canned answer and someone went through
> the trouble of addressing the points I was making)
> explaining things a bit (apparently they prefer to go
> after 'emerging' markets which have better growth
> potentials); may be also a cultural thing, folks
> here like gaz guzzling big engines even to commute
> at 55 mph... what do I know, I am just a bloody
> foreigner :-))
>
> the funny thing is that now that I live in California,
> even with gas retail prices only a fraction of what
> is available in Europe (even today), I still end
> up spending more on gas than I was in Europe (gaz
> guzzling piece of junk that cannot do better than
> 26 mpg combined with much longer commute distances)
>
> --Sylvain

You do see some European diesel engines in the US, but they are not the
same ones they use in Europe. That is because the US lead Europe in
cleaning up gasoline engines and their fuel, but nothing for diesel's.
The European's have caught up to us and have now past us and included
diesel engines. They have cleaned up the diesel fuel, that is take out
the sulfur, and won't run on our dirty fuel.

[Sport Pilot]

>I think you are mistaken there. Emissions are mesured in ppm, because
>it's the only possible way, you can't collect the NOx from an exhaust
>stream and put it on a scale.

Actually you can measure it in % of air. This is common when the
amount is greater than 10,000 ppm or so. But even smaller amounts can
be measured that way but too many zeros. 100 ppm is 0.01%.

[George Patterson]

Roger wrote:
>
> They do? I drive a Toyota 4-Runner and it only has MPH.

Must be pretty old -- they've had a kph scale for years.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[George Patterson]

Repo Man wrote:
>
> I can see you disagreed with it. But maybe your child could do a better
> job explaining why.

Ah! So you were writing for ignorant children. That explains it.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Sylvain]

ShawnD2112 wrote:

> Which leads to some funny anomolies here in the UK. Everything is metric
> except for two measurements. Beer is still sold in pints (thank God for
> that!). Road distance is still measured in miles but fuel is sold in
> liters. Brits still talk about miles per gallon (Imperial, mind, not US)
> but I've started thinking about gas economy in terms of miles per liter
> because the math is easier. A bit bizarre but you soon get used to it.

I lived in Ireland for quite a while and they had their share of
confusing anomalies as well: road signs; there were (may be still
are) two kinds: the old kind, written black on a white background,
which give distances in miles by default, except when explicitly
indicated otherwise (as they sometimes did); and the new kind (I
suppose to replace the ones some tourists would take home as
souvenirs), written white on a green background, that give
distances in kilometers by default, unless explicitly indicated
otherwise (as they sometimes did); e.g., you happily drive along to
Dublin, see a sign saying: "Dublin 50" and later see another sign
saying "Dublin 65", and yet are on the right track... the other
thing was that, while eager to adopt the metric system, they
did not always get it right, and the conversions were not always
made as rigorously as you might expect :-)

--Sylvain

[ShawnD2112]

Good point. Pardon my coloring my spelling with Americanisms.

Shawn
"Martin Hotze" > wrote in message
...
> "ShawnD2112" > wrote:
>
>> Road distance is still measured in miles but fuel is sold in
>> liters.
>
> that's litres, not liters. :-))
>
> #m
> --
> Three witches watch three Swatch watches.
> Which witch watches which Swatch watch?

[Roger]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:

>Roger,
>
>> What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
>> really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.
>>
>
>Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
>look at mileage.

True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
still gets almost 40 MPG

However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
not be safe or practical here.

Actually a large percentage of our population would like to get really
good mileage and I mean as the Europeans see it, but they are the ones
stuck driving the 20 and even 30 year old, two and three ton rust
buckets often known as "Bondo Beauties", that get maybe 15 MPG on a
good day, going down hill with a tail wind. There are many who would
dearly love to have a car that gets 40 and 50 mpg, but they can't
afford to purchase one. Then there are the farmers who have to make
the choice between getting a car and truck, or just driving the truck.
When you are looking at another $20,000 for just a small car it's an
easy choice. Then there are people with large families that have to
get them around some how. Remember, much of the US is rural and a
drive to town can be quite a trip.

Although we are seen as a society with every one driving a huge new
car, we are really a society with a few driving the new ones and a lot
of families driving those old rust buckets, or people driving the
pickup or SUV they use for work for their regular driving.

You are also looking at an entirely different set of traffic
conditions. Effectively, we have no mass transit except in some
local settings. Amtrack is not heavily used except in some specific
areas and requires massive subsidies.

That puts some very heavy traffic on the roads where we are mixing
every thing from very large tractor-trailers to small economy cars.
The yearly death toll is coming down, (I believe a bit over 43,000
last year put it close to a 20 or 30 year low. Some one on here
undoubtedly has that statistic) but the safety measures add weight
and size to the cars and that reduces mileage. We have so many cars
on the roads that we have to apply anti-pollution standards to the
cars and those reduce the gas mileage. We have literally millions of
cars on the roads every day. Just the disposal of worn out tires is a
major problem. I read, and I don't know the accuracy of the
statement, that more oil is thrown out into the woods from individuals
doing their own oil changes every year than the entire Exxon Valdez
(sp?) oil spill.

Unlike Europe our population for any working area is widely spread,
meaning long drives and a need for both safety and comfort.
Homes near the working areas are either in the high priced district
and out of reach for most workers, or slums where no one wants to put
their families. So to save money we end up burning more fuel.

It's not unusual for production workers to spend an hour or more
driving to get to work and another to get home. In some areas it's
twice that or even more.

Some years back I used to spend nearly an hour and a half driving to
and from work (65 miles). That's three hours a day and that was mostly
at cruising speed on open or back roads. You bet I wanted 30, or 40
MPG or more, but back then there wasn't a thing available stateside
that would do it and do it safely on the expressways. Back then the
imported cars were not the high quality we see now and planned
obsolescence was the word for the American Auto Industry. We had a
beautiful home out in the country, but a long drive for both of us.
Now we have a much smaller home only 4 1/2 miles from town (11 from
the shopping center)

Now as to the large cars: If people would car pool and fill the seats
the amount of gas per passenger mile would drop dramatically. Car
pooling alone could make a big difference in the amount of crude
required and reduce pollution. Unfortunately car pooling is not
effective in many areas due to the wide spread population.

Because much of the US consists of miles and miles, of nothing but
miles and miles, mass transit becomes impractical and uneconomical in
those areas. That means the individual needs a vehicle that can be
used to haul more than people.

I drive a relatively small SUV (huge by European standards), but it's
used more as a truck for hauling stuff (rear seats folded down for
even more cargo area). So for me to get the utility I need (hauling
equipment and parts), I'd need at least an economy car and a truck.
Although the car would save me some gas on some trips, the truck would
cost me more gas when not hauling a full load. So the SUV is a good
compromise.

We have a "County connection" small bus system and I could use that
for my trips into town, but it's actually more expensive than driving
the SUV and I'm not just counting the gas.

If the county would ever get in a bridge across the river to the East
of me, it would cut the distance to the airport and to the shopping
centers to less than half. I could easily ride my bike to the airport
when I didn't have to haul things. At 4 1/2 miles it'd be a quick hop
even on the bike, but it's currently over 11 miles to the shopping
center through heavy traffic and 9 traffic lights.

So, it's a complicated issue that goes far beyond the availability of
cars and engines that get much better gas mileage. Me? I moved much
closer to town, bought a much smaller home, and make about half the
trips I used to make.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[George Patterson]

Roger wrote:
>
> However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
> efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
> economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
> not be safe or practical here.

Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Jose]

> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)

You used to have a question mark after this in your sig. You've
confirmed now that yours is it?

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Matt Whiting]

Matt Barrow wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Matt Barrow wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>>>
>>>
>>>>He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
>
> "wrong"
>
>>>>things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far
>
> from
>
>>>>work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
>
> encouraged
>
>>>>by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
>>>
>>>
>>>Nice elitist attitude.
>>
>>Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
>>situation to me.
>
>
>
> It's ONE summary.
>
>
>>The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.
>
>
> So?

So how is the statement elitist?

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Roger,
>>
>>
>>>What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
>>>really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.
>>>
>>
>>Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
>>look at mileage.
>
>
> True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
> the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
> BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
> still gets almost 40 MPG

What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?

Matt

[Roger]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:06 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roger,
>>>
>>>
>>>>What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
>>>>really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
>>>look at mileage.
>>
>>
>> True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
>> the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
>> BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
>> still gets almost 40 MPG
>
>What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?
It's not a minivan, but rather what they used to call a mini, mini
van.

It's a Chrysler Summit with a 1.7 liter gas engine and stick shift.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Matt

[Roger]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
> wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>>
>> However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
>> efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
>> economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
>> not be safe or practical here.
>
>Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
>The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
>hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
>needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.

No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
are, in most cases, not praticle here.

Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
success<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.

[W P Dixon]

Hey Now!
Let's leave my pick up out of this! ;) A nice big 84 Ford F-150 4x4 w/
built up 351 Windsor, performance trannie, a nice Warn winch and brush guard
with deer spotter lights mounted of course. To round it all off is my front
plate that says " American By Birth, Southern By The Grace Of God". Passes
anything but the gas station!
But the wife's car which is what we always take on family things is a
Geo Metro , it gets somewhere around 40mpg. As for the deisels, I just hate
the sound of them! They sound like a washing machine with a pipe wrench in
it!
I'm just a good old southern boy, but a real redneck has at least two
cars on blocks in the front yard with a broke down frig on the porch, and a
new TV sitting on top of the broken console TV !;)
As Jeff Foxworthy says" You might be a redneck...if your momma tells the
Georgia Highway Patrolman to kiss her ass without even taking the Marlboro
out of her mouth."

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>>
>>> However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
>>> efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
>>> economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
>>> not be safe or practical here.
>>
>>Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient
>>engines.
>>The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about
>>60
>>hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is
>>not
>>needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.
>
> No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
> are, in most cases, not praticle here.
>
> Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
> success<:-))
>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com
>>
>>George Patterson
>> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
>> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
>> Because she smells like a new truck.
>

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article et>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
>> "wrong"
>> things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
>> work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
>> encouraged
>> by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
>
> It's way more complicated than energy being "too cheap". For example,
> in some cases people live far from work because housing is way too
> expensive around work. Increase the energy costs by raising taxes and
> you'll make the local housing even more unaffordable.
>
> [snip]
>> >> Just goes to show that fuel is too cheap in the US...
>> >
>> > Somewhat presumptuous of others to tell the US that
>> > fuel economy is more important than tax revenues and
>> > safety.
>
> --
> Bob Noel
> no one likes an educated mule
>

Obviously there is no perfect solution but it is clear (I think) that cheap
fuel encourages more fuel use.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>> He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
>> "wrong"
>> things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
>> work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
>> encouraged
>> by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
>
> Nice elitist attitude.
>
> Something along those lines is what every tyrant throws out.
>


Pretty clear factual statement supported by high school economics or by
looking around the world and observing energy use.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> ink.net...
>>
>>>He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
>>>"wrong"
>>>things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far from
>>>work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
>>>encouraged
>>>by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
>>
>>
>> Nice elitist attitude.
>
> Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the situation
> to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.
>
> The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
> meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The end
> consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in the
> chain you apply the tax.
>
>
> Matt

The only difference is that consumers make choices and taxing energy
consumption would reduce that consumption and reduce all of the by products
like dependence of foreign oil, pollution

Mike
MU-2

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:06 GMT, Matt Whiting >
> wrote:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Roger,
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
>>>>>really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
>>>>look at mileage.
>>>
>>>
>>>True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
>>>the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
>>>BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
>>>still gets almost 40 MPG
>>
>>What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?
>
> It's not a minivan, but rather what they used to call a mini, mini
> van.
>
> It's a Chrysler Summit with a 1.7 liter gas engine and stick shift.

Is that was was originally an Eagle Summit? Made by Mitsubishi as I
recall. I'd call that a station wagon. :-)

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Roger wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Roger wrote:
>>
>>>However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
>>>efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
>>>economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
>>>not be safe or practical here.
>>
>>Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
>>The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
>>hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
>>needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.
>
>
> No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
> are, in most cases, not praticle here.
>
> Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
> success<:-))

Actually, a pickup or SUV is the yuppie symbol of status. Real rednecks
actually USE their trucks.


Matt

[Roger]

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:24 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
>
>You used to have a question mark after this in your sig. You've
>confirmed now that yours is it?

Near as I can tell. CD-1 is not in the FAA database, and "they" tell
me it was the mating of a 35 and 33 which was then disassembled and
used to set up the assembly line where it became CD-2, BUT I've never
been able to get them to put that in writing.

The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jose

[Jose]

> The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.

No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot. :)

Jose
--
Nothing takes longer than a shortcut.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[George Patterson]

Matt Whiting wrote:
>
> Actually, a pickup or SUV is the yuppie symbol of status.

Yeah -- that happened in the mid-90s. Seems a lot of people decided that a
*real* pickup should be a Cadillac with a big, open trunk. All the garbage they
added to the trucks added over $5,000 to the cost in two years. All "standard"
equipment. (Can you tell that I was shopping for one about then?)

George Patterson
Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
Because she smells like a new truck.

[Sylvain]

George Patterson wrote:
> Matt Whiting wrote:
> >
>
>> Actually, a pickup or SUV is the yuppie symbol of status.
>
>
> Yeah -- that happened in the mid-90s. Seems a lot of people decided that
> a *real* pickup should be a Cadillac with a big, open trunk.

where I come from, that's what a truck / SUV looked like:

http://www.vtonly.com/truck.htm

did the job just fine; you wouldn't believe how much these
babies go for in California these days (it has become a
collector item)

--Sylvain

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Hi Roger,

> However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
> efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
> economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
> not be safe or practical here.

The matter of safety here is more complicated than it seems at first.
The big SUVs and trucks are not at all safer in themselves, as many
people would believe. Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make. Use a medium or large passenger car, and
your chances are MUCH better. Reason for this is, that trucks are build
very rigid and will impose very high deceleration forces on their
passengers, even if cushioned by airbags etc.

This basically also applies for collisions between vehicles of similar
weight.

However, when collisions between vehicles of different weight are
considered, the weight of a truck will give it a very significant
advantage over lighter vehicles just by the physics. The lighter vehicle
will have higher accelerations to endure in relation of the weight. If
an economy car crashes into a truck, the chances of the truck driver are
much better. So, yes, for the individual it is safer to drive a truck.

But what it comes down to is that everyone has to drive big cars because
everyone drives big cars....

This is also known as the "theater effect". If one person in a theater
stands up, he gets a much better view of the stage. However, if everyone
stands up, everyone gets the same view as before, but now everyone has
to stand. This is why standing in theaters is frowned upon...

> Actually a large percentage of our population would like to get really
> good mileage and I mean as the Europeans see it, but they are the ones
> stuck driving the 20 and even 30 year old, two and three ton rust
> buckets often known as "Bondo Beauties", that get maybe 15 MPG on a
> good day, going down hill with a tail wind. There are many who would
> dearly love to have a car that gets 40 and 50 mpg, but they can't
> afford to purchase one.

certainly a point with no simple answer.

> Then there are the farmers who have to make
> the choice between getting a car and truck, or just driving the truck.
> When you are looking at another $20,000 for just a small car it's an
> easy choice.

Yes, in these cases the use of the truck also for normal transport is
certainly justifiable. But the majority of trucks and SUVs never leave
paved roads.

> Then there are people with large families that have to
> get them around some how. Remember, much of the US is rural and a
> drive to town can be quite a trip.

You are talking about more than 5 heads per family? What about a Van?

> Although we are seen as a society with every one driving a huge new
> car, we are really a society with a few driving the new ones and a lot
> of families driving those old rust buckets, or people driving the
> pickup or SUV they use for work for their regular driving.

How many of the trucks and SUVs are really regularly used for jobs that
couldn't be done by a passcar?

> You are also looking at an entirely different set of traffic
> conditions. Effectively, we have no mass transit except in some
> local settings. Amtrack is not heavily used except in some specific
> areas and requires massive subsidies.

accepted point. With the infrastructure in place people have to rely on
road traffic, and it has to be affordable.

> That puts some very heavy traffic on the roads where we are mixing
> every thing from very large tractor-trailers to small economy cars.

Just the same in Europe. We also have HGVs on our roads... But a truck
or SUV is not helping you there. If you have a serious collision with
one of these you are a goner, no matter truck or passcar.

> The yearly death toll is coming down, (I believe a bit over 43,000
> last year put it close to a 20 or 30 year low. Some one on here
> undoubtedly has that statistic) but the safety measures add weight
> and size to the cars and that reduces mileage.

True, but just the same in Europe. Our cars are by no means less save in
themselves. (see beginning of post)

> We have so many cars
> on the roads that we have to apply anti-pollution standards to the
> cars and those reduce the gas mileage.

Again, it's just the same in Europe, standards are very similar today.
The mileage penalty exists, but it is not a big deal, just a few percent.

> We have literally millions of
> cars on the roads every day. Just the disposal of worn out tires is a
> major problem. I read, and I don't know the accuracy of the
> statement, that more oil is thrown out into the woods from individuals
> doing their own oil changes every year than the entire Exxon Valdez
> (sp?) oil spill.

Wow, really? Over here you can dispose of as much used oil as you bought
new at the shop where you bought it. The shop must take it and dispose
of it in a proper manner.

> Now as to the large cars: If people would car pool and fill the seats
> the amount of gas per passenger mile would drop dramatically. Car
> pooling alone could make a big difference in the amount of crude
> required and reduce pollution.

Quite true. As a matter of fact a car with 4 people in it comes very
close in prime energy consumption to the famed rail transport.

> Unfortunately car pooling is not
> effective in many areas due to the wide spread population.

doesn't really work over here as well. People are too individually
minded. Also everyone nowadays is required to be "flexible" about his
work hours.

> Because much of the US consists of miles and miles, of nothing but
> miles and miles, mass transit becomes impractical and uneconomical in
> those areas. That means the individual needs a vehicle that can be
> used to haul more than people.

I don't quite get that point. I have never thought about sending any
goods by rail. If I buy something that exeeds my cars hauling capability
I can mostly have it delivered to my door.

> I drive a relatively small SUV (huge by European standards), but it's
> used more as a truck for hauling stuff (rear seats folded down for
> even more cargo area). So for me to get the utility I need (hauling
> equipment and parts), I'd need at least an economy car and a truck.
> Although the car would save me some gas on some trips, the truck would
> cost me more gas when not hauling a full load. So the SUV is a good
> compromise.

Have you thought about a car and a trailer?

> So, it's a complicated issue that goes far beyond the availability of
> cars and engines that get much better gas mileage.

Absolutely

regards,
Friedrich

--
für reply bitte die offensichtliche Änderung an der Adresse vornehmen

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >> He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
> >> "wrong"
> >> things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far
from
> >> work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
> >> encouraged
> >> by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than production.
> >
> > Nice elitist attitude.
> >
> > Something along those lines is what every tyrant throws out.
> >
>
>
> Pretty clear factual statement supported by high school economics or by
> looking around the world and observing energy use.
>
:: Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong" things for a
country

I differentiate your solution from your correct grasp of supply&demand.

Aren't you the guy who runs around in a 4.5 MPG turbo-prop?

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> >>
> >> Nice elitist attitude.
> >
> > Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
situation
> > to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.
> >
> > The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
> > meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
end
> > consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in the
> > chain you apply the tax.
> >
> >
> > Matt
>
> The only difference is that consumers make choices and taxing energy
> consumption would reduce that consumption and reduce all of the by
products
> like dependence of foreign oil, pollution
>

Yup...you're going to tell them how to live.

I have a better idea: Let's kick PRODUCTION in the ass.

[Matt Barrow]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Matt Barrow wrote:
> >>>>He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
> >
> > "wrong"
> > So?
>
> So how is the statement elitist?
>

"Elitist" is NOT drinking wine from long-stem glasses with your pinky
sticking out.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> nk.net...
>>
>> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> > ink.net...
>> >> He has a point. Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the
>> >> "wrong"
>> >> things for a country facing rapidly rising energy costs. Living far
> from
>> >> work, driving large vehicles and living in large houses are all
>> >> encouraged
>> >> by cheap fuel. It makes more sense to tax consumption than
>> >> production.
>> >
>> > Nice elitist attitude.
>> >
>> > Something along those lines is what every tyrant throws out.
>> >
>>
>>
>> Pretty clear factual statement supported by high school economics or by
>> looking around the world and observing energy use.
>>
> :: Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong" things for a
> country
>
> I differentiate your solution from your correct grasp of supply&demand.
>
> Aren't you the guy who runs around in a 4.5 MPG turbo-prop?
>

Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am more
focused on combining or eliminating trips.

Mike
MU-2

[Mike Rapoport]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> >>
>> >> Nice elitist attitude.
>> >
>> > Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
> situation
>> > to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.
>> >
>> > The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
>> > meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
> end
>> > consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in the
>> > chain you apply the tax.
>> >
>> >
>> > Matt
>>
>> The only difference is that consumers make choices and taxing energy
>> consumption would reduce that consumption and reduce all of the by
> products
>> like dependence of foreign oil, pollution
>>
>
> Yup...you're going to tell them how to live.
>

No, taxing energy would allow people a choice. Taxing their income isn't
really a choice.



> I have a better idea: Let's kick PRODUCTION in the ass.
>

Every drilling rig has been drilling nonstop for a long time now. You
simply aren't going to produce enough to keep prices under $40. The larger
the number of declining legacy wells, the harder it will be to replace
production so every year it gets harder to keep production flat.
Additionally, the areas where major new reserves are likely to be found are
more expensive to drill than similiar areas were in the past for the simple
reason that the easier, cheaper locations were developed first. Production
will increase but it will do so slower than demand, therefore prices will
continue to increase although there will be a lot of volitility.

Low petroleum prices are a thing of the past. Some of us recognized this
three years ago.

Mike
MU-2

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message news:uasFe.4654>>
>
> Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
> more focused on combining or eliminating trips.
>

Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and the
enviroment you would like to protect.

If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we could do
is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us to burn it.

Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much better
as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.

Gig

[Mike Rapoport]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:F8tFe.52$_t.47@okepread01...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> news:uasFe.4654>>
>>
>> Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
>> more focused on combining or eliminating trips.
>>
>
> Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and the
> enviroment you would like to protect.
>
> If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we could
> do is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us to burn
> it.
>
> Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much better
> as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.
>
> Gig


We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive that
we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output is
always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity. Using more
now does nothing to help anything.

Mike
MU-2

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> > ink.net...
> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> Nice elitist attitude.
> >> >
> >> > Elitist? It seemed like a pretty straightforward summary of the
> > situation
> >> > to me. The economics of cheap energy DOES encourage the above.
> >> >
> >> > The only part I disagree with is the tax statement. I don't see any
> >> > meaningful difference between taxing consumption vs. production. The
> > end
> >> > consumer pays the tax anyway so it doesn't really matter where in the
> >> > chain you apply the tax.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Matt
> >>
> >> The only difference is that consumers make choices and taxing energy
> >> consumption would reduce that consumption and reduce all of the by
> > products
> >> like dependence of foreign oil, pollution
> >>
> >
> > Yup...you're going to tell them how to live.
> >
>
> No, taxing energy would allow people a choice. Taxing their income isn't
> really a choice.

Neither is really a choice...that's why taxes are a form of FORCE, rather
than persuation. Taxes are persuasion at gun point. Your's is the typical
statist response, and I figure that's not your true type, but you're telling
people, through taxes, how to live their lives.

You do understand supply and demand; when demand gets too much, prices will
rise and do two things: encourage reduced consumption and find alternatives.

the market will take care of it; you don't have to go the
jackbooted-IRS-thug routine. Again, why give the politicians more money to
**** away? How do you encourage THAT behavior?

We have become so innured to a governemtn screwing things up and then giving
them still more power that it's become our kneejerk reaction.

> > I have a better idea: Let's kick PRODUCTION in the ass.
> >
>
> Every drilling rig has been drilling nonstop for a long time now. You
> simply aren't going to produce enough to keep prices under $40. The
larger
> the number of declining legacy wells, the harder it will be to replace
> production so every year it gets harder to keep production flat.
> Additionally, the areas where major new reserves are likely to be found
are
> more expensive to drill than similiar areas were in the past for the
simple
> reason that the easier, cheaper locations were developed first.
Production
> will increase but it will do so slower than demand, therefore prices will
> continue to increase although there will be a lot of volitility.
>
> Low petroleum prices are a thing of the past.

I was paying 87 cents for 89 octane (car gas) just five years ago.

I don't expect that to last forever, but the US has done so much to curtail
production that we just expect it to always be that way.


> Some of us recognized this
> three years ago.


Some people recognized that back before the end of the 19th century.

Analogy: I have no sympathy for people guys who beat their spouse, then
bitch when they "don't get any".

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Pretty clear factual statement supported by high school economics or by
> >> looking around the world and observing energy use.
> >>
> > :: Cheap fuel has encouraged consumers to do all the "wrong" things for
a
> > country
> >
> > I differentiate your solution from your correct grasp of supply&demand.
> >
> > Aren't you the guy who runs around in a 4.5 MPG turbo-prop?
> >
>
> Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
more
> focused on combining or eliminating trips.
>
I would expect that you fly for the same reason I do: it saves loads of time
and let's you expand your business. That's what you should be measuring.

[Matt Barrow]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
that
> we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output is
> always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity. Using
more
> now does nothing to help anything.
>

And with all that's going on, it's still less expensive than it was in 1980,
even though we use, what?, four times as much?

And (as mentioned) the supply hysterics go all the way back to the late
1890's (US Geological Survey, 1891) and The Federal Oil Conservation Board
(1906).

I for one would love to see 10-20 years from now when alternative fuel
vehicles (I'm hoping for fuel cells) take hold because they're better than
what we use now, not because petrol products are getting expensive.

Between OPEC, the Feds, and the environuts, gas is still a good buy --- but
wasting anything is stupid.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
> news:F8tFe.52$_t.47@okepread01...
>>
>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>> news:uasFe.4654>>
>>>
>>> Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
>>> more focused on combining or eliminating trips.
>>>
>>
>> Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and
>> the enviroment you would like to protect.
>>
>> If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we could
>> do is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us to
>> burn it.
>>
>> Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much
>> better as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.
>>
>> Gig
>
>
> We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
> that we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output
> is always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity. Using
> more now does nothing to help anything.
>

You are quite right we want run out because we have never run out of
anything it has just become more scarce and or has been replaced by
something better.

But what is the outcome you want?

Create and use a better more effecient fuel?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something more effecient.

Save the enviroment in the long term?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something cleaner.

Stop dependance one foreign oil?
Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
and adopt the something else that isn't under Saudi.

But to do as some in this thread have suggested to just tax it to make it
more expensive gives you the same output with more input.

[Roger]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:21:54 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 22:27:06 GMT, Matt Whiting >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 09:19:01 +0200, Thomas Borchert
> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Roger,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>What would make you think that? Other than the "Hummers" and the
>>>>>>really expensive *big* SUVs people are looking at mileage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes, but the American look at mileage is worlds apart from a European
>>>>>look at mileage.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>True, but when you've been looking at 10, then 15, then 20 MPG over
>>>>the last 40 years, 30 MPG looks like something with super efficiency.
>>>>BTW my wife's mini, mini van which has almost 200,000 miles on it
>>>>still gets almost 40 MPG
>>>
>>>What kind of minivan is this? A diesel?
>>
>> It's not a minivan, but rather what they used to call a mini, mini
>> van.
>>
>> It's a Chrysler Summit with a 1.7 liter gas engine and stick shift.
>
>Is that was was originally an Eagle Summit? Made by Mitsubishi as I
>recall. I'd call that a station wagon. :-)
>
That's the one. Originally they were billed as mini, mini vans, but I
think station wagon sounded better. <:-)) OTOH there's hardly enough
there and it's far too plain to be called a station wagon<:-)) She
does a lot of bicycling, (on the order of 2,000 to 3,000 miles a
year). So it has the bike rack on the back and often serves as one of
the "sag wagons" for some of the larger (and longer) rides here in
Michigan. West Shoreline is coming up starting Sunday.

Actually my 4-Runner which is a 4 WD SUV says station wagon on the
title which I find even more confusing.

That means it has all the anti-pollution stuff on it. It is a lot
nicer inside, but gets used like a truck most of the time.
It even has a removable bed liner to fit in back so all the leaky
parts don't ruin the carpet. Besides hydraulic oil is some times
difficult to get out of carpets and you can smell it for weeks.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>Matt

[Mike Rapoport]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
news:W7vFe.54$_t.21@okepread01...
>
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
> ink.net...
>>
>> "Gig 601XL Builder" <wr.giacona@coxDOTnet> wrote in message
>> news:F8tFe.52$_t.47@okepread01...
>>>
>>> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
>>> news:uasFe.4654>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes and more expensive fuel is causing me to reexamine my habits. I am
>>>> more focused on combining or eliminating trips.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then you are doing the exactly the wrong thing if it is the planet and
>>> the enviroment you would like to protect.
>>>
>>> If that is the LONG term goal you would like then the best thing we
>>> could do is drop the price of gas to zero and have the government pay us
>>> to burn it.
>>>
>>> Then we would at some point run out and come up with something much
>>> better as an energy source. So throttle up and burn all you can.
>>>
>>> Gig
>>
>>
>> We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
>> that we won't use it for fuel. Using less inputs to get the same output
>> is always a good idea anyway and is the definition of productivity.
>> Using more now does nothing to help anything.
>>
>
> You are quite right we want run out because we have never run out of
> anything it has just become more scarce and or has been replaced by
> something better.
>
> But what is the outcome you want?
>
> Create and use a better more effecient fuel?
> Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to
> develop and adopt the something more effecient.
>
> Save the enviroment in the long term?
> Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to
> develop and adopt the something cleaner.
>
> Stop dependance one foreign oil?
> Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to
> develop and adopt the something else that isn't under Saudi.
>
> But to do as some in this thread have suggested to just tax it to make it
> more expensive gives you the same output with more input.
>
>

Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,
finite, non-renewable fuel. We should not waste it. We need it to last
until there is an alternative. Our children may need it and driving around
in huge vihicles with one person aboard is irresponsible. There is no
alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.

Mike
MU-2

[Bob Noel]

In article t>,
"Mike Rapoport" > wrote:

> Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,

true

> finite, non-renewable fuel.

um, not true. not non-renewable, it just takes a loooong time
;-)

>We should not waste it.

true.

> There is no
> alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.

eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
to extract it from water.

Until we can find dilithium crystals or make naquadah generators, let's
not overcomplicate things...

--
Bob Noel
no one likes an educated mule

[Repo Man]

In article <kC9Fe.7146$eg4.3217@trndny01>, says...
> Repo Man wrote:
> >
> > I can see you disagreed with it. But maybe your child could do a better
> > job explaining why.
>
> Ah! So you were writing for ignorant children. That explains it.
>
> George Patterson
> Why do men's hearts beat faster, knees get weak, throats become dry,
> and they think irrationally when a woman wears leather clothing?
> Because she smells like a new truck.
>

You said it. I didn't.

[Roger]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 11:08:34 +0200, Friedrich Ostertag
> wrote:

>Hi Roger,
>
>> However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
>> efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
>> economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
>> not be safe or practical here.
>
>The matter of safety here is more complicated than it seems at first.
>The big SUVs and trucks are not at all safer in themselves, as many
>people would believe. Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
>don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
>escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
>if it is of fairly recent make. Use a medium or large passenger car, and
>your chances are MUCH better. Reason for this is, that trucks are build
>very rigid and will impose very high deceleration forces on their
>passengers, even if cushioned by airbags etc.
>
>This basically also applies for collisions between vehicles of similar
>weight.
>
>However, when collisions between vehicles of different weight are
>considered, the weight of a truck will give it a very significant
>advantage over lighter vehicles just by the physics. The lighter vehicle

There are still a lot of variables.
I used to drive a Trans Am. One of those immortal teen agers in his
invincible SUB came out of a parking lot with all 4 burning. I think I
left less than 12 feet of skid marks before T-boning him. It bent the
GMC Jimmy into a shallow U. The only thing that saved the kids life
was that massive door pillar.

However, the difference in mass sure was evident. I turned him 90
degrees and maybe knocked the SUV about 20 to 30 feet.

My TA was spun through on coming traffic and into a parking lot on the
other side of the 4 lane (plus center turn lane) highway. It drove
the right front wheel back into the passenger compartment and put the
firewall against the bottom of the dash all the way across.

Other than some scuff marks on the insides of my forearms from
skidding on the steering wheel when I wrapped it around the column and
being as punchy as an all night drinking binge, I was fine. Even the
cheap drunk feeling was gone in about 15 minutes and I wasn't even
sore the next day. The kid ended up in the Hospital with a broken
shoulder or collar bone.

Needless to say, I couldn't convince the insurance company to rebuild
the TA. It didn't look all that bad other than having the windshield
blown out and the right front wheel seemed to be a bit out of place.
Of course when you looked under the hood or inside... The SUV was
totaled as well.

>But what it comes down to is that everyone has to drive big cars because
>everyone drives big cars....

To a point that is true for safety when all things are equal. Some
SUVs are built more like cars with crumple zones and others are more
like trucks, but even our smaller trucks have crumple zones.

The SUVs have a problem with higher CG and lack of driver knowledge.
We get a lot of roll overs and one vehicle accidents with SUVs. They
have even started an advertising campaign to educate the drivers.
(which is probably a waste of time)

>
>This is also known as the "theater effect". If one person in a theater
>stands up, he gets a much better view of the stage. However, if everyone
>stands up, everyone gets the same view as before, but now everyone has

Gets even worse for the short people.

>to stand. This is why standing in theaters is frowned upon...
<snip>
>
>> Then there are the farmers who have to make
>> the choice between getting a car and truck, or just driving the truck.
>> When you are looking at another $20,000 for just a small car it's an
>> easy choice.
>
>Yes, in these cases the use of the truck also for normal transport is
>certainly justifiable. But the majority of trucks and SUVs never leave
>paved roads.

I think a lot of them get used for "mudding"<:-)) which is a popular
pastime here, but that is evolving into specialized *expensive* and
modified trucks. However it is true that the vast majority are more
of a status symbol.

>
>> Then there are people with large families that have to
>> get them around some how. Remember, much of the US is rural and a
>> drive to town can be quite a trip.
>
>You are talking about more than 5 heads per family? What about a Van?

In some places it gets difficult to tell the van from the SUV except
by the interior. I think they are trying to combine them in some
aspects. Even then the regular vans and SUVs are heavy and use more
gas.

Another thing that is very popular up here in the Northern states is 4
wheel drive. I find there may be weeks at a time when I need it
getting around the airport and even getting out of our driveway. Of
course that takes good tires too. "Street Slicks" on all 4 corners
aren't very efficient when it comes to "go or whoa" Then we have that
segment that figures if the 4 WD will let them go twice or three times
as fast in slippery conditions they will be able to control them at
that speed. The darn things don't stop any better than any other
vehicle of the same weight.
>
>> Although we are seen as a society with every one driving a huge new
>> car, we are really a society with a few driving the new ones and a lot
>> of families driving those old rust buckets, or people driving the
>> pickup or SUV they use for work for their regular driving.
>
>How many of the trucks and SUVs are really regularly used for jobs that
>couldn't be done by a passcar?
>

Probably a sizeable percent, but then even if the SUV, truck, or van
is put to its designed use 15% of the time it eliminates the need for
two vehicles.

>> You are also looking at an entirely different set of traffic
>> conditions. Effectively, we have no mass transit except in some
>> local settings. Amtrack is not heavily used except in some specific
>> areas and requires massive subsidies.
>
>accepted point. With the infrastructure in place people have to rely on
>road traffic, and it has to be affordable.

and to many that means driving the old "bondo beauty", gas hog because
they can't afford a $20,000 or $30,000 car. Me? I purchase used.
>
>> That puts some very heavy traffic on the roads where we are mixing
>> every thing from very large tractor-trailers to small economy cars.
>
>Just the same in Europe. We also have HGVs on our roads... But a truck
>or SUV is not helping you there. If you have a serious collision with
>one of these you are a goner, no matter truck or passcar.

Agreed.
>
>> The yearly death toll is coming down, (I believe a bit over 43,000
>> last year put it close to a 20 or 30 year low. Some one on here
>> undoubtedly has that statistic) but the safety measures add weight
>> and size to the cars and that reduces mileage.
>
>True, but just the same in Europe. Our cars are by no means less save in
>themselves. (see beginning of post)
>
>> We have so many cars
>> on the roads that we have to apply anti-pollution standards to the
>> cars and those reduce the gas mileage.
>
>Again, it's just the same in Europe, standards are very similar today.
>The mileage penalty exists, but it is not a big deal, just a few percent.
>
>> We have literally millions of
>> cars on the roads every day. Just the disposal of worn out tires is a
>> major problem. I read, and I don't know the accuracy of the
>> statement, that more oil is thrown out into the woods from individuals
>> doing their own oil changes every year than the entire Exxon Valdez
>> (sp?) oil spill.
>
>Wow, really? Over here you can dispose of as much used oil as you bought
>new at the shop where you bought it. The shop must take it and dispose
>of it in a proper manner.

They don't have to, but most will. I can't think of a local
automotive supplier who won't take the used oil. I know one guy who
will take all he can get to mix with the fuel oil in his hangar
heater.
>
>> Now as to the large cars: If people would car pool and fill the seats
>> the amount of gas per passenger mile would drop dramatically. Car
>> pooling alone could make a big difference in the amount of crude
>> required and reduce pollution.
>
>Quite true. As a matter of fact a car with 4 people in it comes very
>close in prime energy consumption to the famed rail transport.
>
>> Unfortunately car pooling is not
>> effective in many areas due to the wide spread population.
>
>doesn't really work over here as well. People are too individually
>minded. Also everyone nowadays is required to be "flexible" about his
>work hours.

That "used to be" a US phenomena. It must be contagious.

>
>> Because much of the US consists of miles and miles, of nothing but
>> miles and miles, mass transit becomes impractical and uneconomical in
>> those areas. That means the individual needs a vehicle that can be
>> used to haul more than people.
>
>I don't quite get that point. I have never thought about sending any
>goods by rail. If I buy something that exeeds my cars hauling capability
>I can mostly have it delivered to my door.

It's a mix. If I need some plywood sheets, or steel stock for a
project, I could have the plywood delivered, but I might have to wait
a couple of days and I wouldn't get to select the individual sheets.
It'd also cost me about $25 or $30 even though I live just outside the
city limits. Midland Steel has been kind enough to drop off some big
pieces when the owner is on his way home with the truck, but for
regular stock I need to bring it home on my own.

>
>> I drive a relatively small SUV (huge by European standards), but it's
>> used more as a truck for hauling stuff (rear seats folded down for
>> even more cargo area). So for me to get the utility I need (hauling
>> equipment and parts), I'd need at least an economy car and a truck.
>> Although the car would save me some gas on some trips, the truck would
>> cost me more gas when not hauling a full load. So the SUV is a good
>> compromise.
>
>Have you thought about a car and a trailer?

I was raised on a farm and even farmed 80 acres through high school
and up until I was 21 so I have a lot of practice backing trailers and
even wagons with articulated tongues. With that background I find a
moderate size trailer to be a real pain in traffic. When hauling one
into town there is no place to park it. The only places it can be
parked are the Mall, the airport, and the discount builders supply
places. Even then it takes more than two parking spots which leaves
the back end sticking wayyy out.

I know I hide it well, but I hate trailers in parking lots. <:-))

>
>> So, it's a complicated issue that goes far beyond the availability of
>> cars and engines that get much better gas mileage.

The one thing that would probably make a bigger difference than going
to small cars would be people learning to schedule their time and
trips so they'd be driving a minimum rather than going into town two
or three times a day. Combining trips with planning. I usually try
to organize my trips into town so I can do things in order as I cross
town. Often store and office hours modify this but it can still be
done. I've been building my G-III so long that having to wait until
tomorrow for the part I just discovered I need to finish up a piece.
Still, I know one couple who only keep enough food to run them through
the next day. They will drive 30 miles one way to find a store so
they can save $5 on the shopping.

One day I sat down and started figuring out how much I'd spent on new
cars over the years. I had a good job that paid well and I could
afford them. Thing is, had I stuck with nice used ones, or kept them
until I *needed* one, I'd have enough money to do almost anything I so
desire. I've averaged over 30,000 miles a year even when I take into
account I started driving at age 14 with a regular license (it was a
while back) and now being retired I have no need to drive as much. I
was able to take early retirement by choice so I could go play.
But I have driven over one and a half million miles and gone through
about 14 new cars and several used ones. I try not to think of how
much I could have saved<:-))

A quick comparison: When traveling to Denver from Michigan I figured
the different costs. Driving a car is *very* expensive unless you
drive it until the wheels fall off.

Driving my TA was the most expensive:
Then came a non discount coach class airfare.
Then flying the Debonair for my wife and I.
(Alone the Deb was still slightly cheaper than the TA)
Then the discount airfare (coach)
and finally the cheapest...renting a compact car (If I didn't count
food and lodging for the two day trip)

Some where in the archives for one of the aviation groups (probably
this one) you will find the calculations I did with the specific
costs.
>
>Absolutely

Take care,

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

>
>regards,
>Friedrich

[George Patterson]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
> Create and use a better more effecient fuel?
> Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
> and adopt the something more effecient.

Actually, that just makes something less efficient cost-competitive.

> Save the enviroment in the long term?
> Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
> and adopt the something cleaner.

Actually, we would fall back on coal. Which is *not* cleaner.

> Stop dependance one foreign oil?
> Burn more gas now to make it more scarce thus an economic reason to develop
> and adopt the something else that isn't under Saudi.

Coal again.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[George Patterson]

Bob Noel wrote:
>
> eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
> to extract it from water.

Yeah, but it takes more energy to extract it from water than we get by burning
it. Which increases our consumption of electricity. Which will increase our
consumption of coal, oil, and natural gas.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Bob Noel" > wrote in message
...
> In article t>,
> "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
>
>> Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,
>
> true
>
>> finite, non-renewable fuel.
>
> um, not true. not non-renewable, it just takes a loooong time
> ;-)
>

I concede the point :-)

>
>> There is no
>> alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.
>
> eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
> to extract it from water.
>

It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water then you get out of it.
Then there is the problem of storage. H2 and O2 is the most energetic
chemical reaction known (that is why it is used in the Shuttle), Do we
really want a kiloton worth of explosive energy scattered around numerous
sites in every city? It will also escape from anything except perfect
tanks. Other than those things, hydrogen is great. The practical reality
is that we will need huge amounts of nuclear energy to drive a H2 economy.

Mike
MU-2

[Roger]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:26:38 GMT, Jose >
wrote:

>> The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.
>
>No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot. :)

Probably more than one of the locals would agree with that. <:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>Jose

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Sport Pilot wrote:

>>I think you are mistaken there. Emissions are mesured in ppm, because
>>it's the only possible way, you can't collect the NOx from an exhaust
>>stream and put it on a scale.
>
>
> Actually you can measure it in % of air. This is common when the
> amount is greater than 10,000 ppm or so.

correct. That's what's used for CO and CO2, which are in that range.
NOx, HC and NMOG are measured in ppm.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:24:39 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive that
>we won't use it for fuel.

Well, the first part is certainly right.

Note that a good part of the runup in petroleum over the past five
years was due to the bear market in the dollar. If a dollar lost 30
percent against a basket of world currencies, then the income from a
$25 barrel of oil has dropped to an effective $17.50. To maintain the
same buying power outside the U.S., the petrocountries have to raise
the price by 43 percent, or to $37.50 (I'm doing this in my head, so
all figures are approximate).

And that's before China's and India's boom economies are factored into
the demand side. Thank God Europe and Japan are in the economic
toilet!

Some of this imbalance has now been corrected, of course. The dollar
today is about where it was a year ago, and that eventually means a
bit of relief for the (U.S.) fuel consumer.

I don't think though that we will soon stop using petroleum for fuel.
Rather, we are likely to see widespread use of gas-electric hybrids
and the widespread introduction of composite materials to make
lighter, stronger cars. No reason we couldn't see a 100 mpg hybrid by
2010.

We can use all those SUVs and pickups for landfill.





-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Cub Driver]

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> wrote:

>Hydrogen is a joke.

Until it catches fire!

The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.


-- all the best, Dan Ford

email (put Cubdriver in subject line)

Warbird's Forum: www.warbirdforum.com
Piper Cub Forum: www.pipercubforum.com
the blog: www.danford.net
In Search of Lost Time: www.readingproust.com

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Hydrogen is a joke.
>
>
> Until it catches fire!
>
> The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
> granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.

The Hindenburg was LIFTED by Hydrogen, not fueled. (Hydrogen was used to
fill the hull, as NAZI-Germany could not get hold of helium). And it
suffered lightning stroke.

Actually, hydrogen is significantly less dangerous than gasoline vapour.
It will burn but it won't explode. And due to it's low weight it will
disperse very quickly when released, while other gases or vapours of
flammable stuff will accumulate on the ground.

That said, I don't see hydrogen as the fuel of the future. To many
problems attached, like low energy content, very hard to store, leakes
through about every containing material due to it's small molekules.
Once hydrogen is available from solar or nuclear energy, it's much more
feasible to use it to produce some sort of artifical fuel like methanol.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Sport Pilot]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
> Cub Driver wrote:
>
> > On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Hydrogen is a joke.
> >
> >
> > Until it catches fire!
> >
> > The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
> > granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.
>
> The Hindenburg was LIFTED by Hydrogen, not fueled. (Hydrogen was used to
> fill the hull, as NAZI-Germany could not get hold of helium). And it
> suffered lightning stroke.
>
> Actually, hydrogen is significantly less dangerous than gasoline vapour.
> It will burn but it won't explode. And due to it's low weight it will
> disperse very quickly when released, while other gases or vapours of
> flammable stuff will accumulate on the ground.
>
> That said, I don't see hydrogen as the fuel of the future. To many
> problems attached, like low energy content, very hard to store, leakes
> through about every containing material due to it's small molekules.
> Once hydrogen is available from solar or nuclear energy, it's much more
> feasible to use it to produce some sort of artifical fuel like methanol.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
>
> --
> for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

The latest analysis of the Hindenburg disaster I read was that the
accident was not caused by leaking hydrogen. Rather it was the
unusually high nitrate in the dope and aluminum powder for the dope
pigment. If you look at the films the fabric is burning at a very high
rate, the hydogen cells ignite well behind the fabric.

[Sport Pilot]

Mike Rapoport wrote:
> "Bob Noel" > wrote in message
> ...
> > In article t>,
> > "Mike Rapoport" > wrote:
> >
> >> Basically I think that we should recognize that petroleum is a precious,
> >
> > true
> >
> >> finite, non-renewable fuel.
> >
> > um, not true. not non-renewable, it just takes a loooong time
> > ;-)
> >
>
> I concede the point :-)
>
> >
> >> There is no
> >> alternative for the forseeable future. Hydrogen is a joke.
> >
> > eh? Hydrogen is awesome, it's plentiful. We already know how
> > to extract it from water.
> >
>
> It takes more energy to extract hydrogen from water then you get out of it.
> Then there is the problem of storage. H2 and O2 is the most energetic
> chemical reaction known (that is why it is used in the Shuttle), Do we
> really want a kiloton worth of explosive energy scattered around numerous
> sites in every city? It will also escape from anything except perfect
> tanks. Other than those things, hydrogen is great. The practical reality
> is that we will need huge amounts of nuclear energy to drive a H2 economy.
>
> Mike
> MU-2

Actually the reason hydrogen is used in space craft is its high energy
to weight ratio. It is not a very strong fuel per volume, that is why
more energetic fuels are used on the boosters and hydrogen is used on
the upper stages. Gasoline has a much higher energy per volume.

[Big John]

In Texas they (pickups) are used to hold the empty beer cans and long
necks, when driving down the road. It also takes skill to get the cans
in the bed when driving 70-80 due to their light weight and the
airflow around the pickups body.

We have the "Don't mess with Texas" program that precludes throwing
trash (beer cans or long necks) out along the highways, hence one of
the attractions of pickups :o)

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:23:16 GMT, Matt Whiting >
wrote:

>Roger wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Roger wrote:
>>>
>>>>However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
>>>>efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
>>>>economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
>>>>not be safe or practical here.
>>>
>>>Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
>>>The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
>>>hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
>>>needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.
>>
>>
>> No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
>> are, in most cases, not praticle here.
>>
>> Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
>> success<:-))
>
>Actually, a pickup or SUV is the yuppie symbol of status. Real rednecks
>actually USE their trucks.
>
>
>Matt

[Sport Pilot]

>Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
>don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
>escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
>if it is of fairly recent make.

When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
from its own inertia, so the differance between a large vehicle and a
small one is not that great. But when a small vehicle hits a large
vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
occupants.

[Mike Rapoport]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:24:39 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>>We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
>>that
>>we won't use it for fuel.
>
> Well, the first part is certainly right.
>
> Note that a good part of the runup in petroleum over the past five
> years was due to the bear market in the dollar. If a dollar lost 30
> percent against a basket of world currencies, then the income from a
> $25 barrel of oil has dropped to an effective $17.50. To maintain the
> same buying power outside the U.S., the petrocountries have to raise
> the price by 43 percent, or to $37.50 (I'm doing this in my head, so
> all figures are approximate).


Very true but it doesn't help us in the US that other people have not seen
the same rise that we have.

> And that's before China's and India's boom economies are factored into
> the demand side. Thank God Europe and Japan are in the economic
> toilet!
>
> Some of this imbalance has now been corrected, of course. The dollar
> today is about where it was a year ago, and that eventually means a
> bit of relief for the (U.S.) fuel consumer.

Actually it just means that the US consumer will see the same
increases/decreases as the rest of the world.

>
> I don't think though that we will soon stop using petroleum for fuel.
> Rather, we are likely to see widespread use of gas-electric hybrids
> and the widespread introduction of composite materials to make
> lighter, stronger cars. No reason we couldn't see a 100 mpg hybrid by
> 2010.

This is the way I see it too, evolution not revolution.

Mike
MU-2

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Sport Pilot wrote:

> The latest analysis of the Hindenburg disaster I read was that the
> accident was not caused by leaking hydrogen. Rather it was the
> unusually high nitrate in the dope and aluminum powder for the dope
> pigment. If you look at the films the fabric is burning at a very high
> rate, the hydogen cells ignite well behind the fabric.

interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Sport Pilot wrote:

>>Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
>>don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
>>escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
>>if it is of fairly recent make.
>
>
> When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
> from its own inertia,

The vehicle needs to protect the occupants from THEIR OWN inertia by
decelerating them as smoothly as possible. Because passenger cars will
crumble their complete front in a crash the occupants have more
traveling distance available for deceleration. Most Trucks and 4WDs are
built very stiff so the deceleration is harder.

> so the differance between a large vehicle and a
> small one is not that great.

How big the difference is you would have to consider specific vehicles.
My point is that the difference is not in favor of the supposedly "safe"
big trucks, as many people would believe.

> But when a small vehicle hits a large
> vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
> occupants.

As I said. The lighter vehicle has to take more total deceleration to
the point of accelerating backwards, therefore acting higher forces on
it's occupants. The truck will decelerate less. As it is stronger built,
it will suffer less structural damage of course.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[Sport Pilot]

>We can use all those SUVs and pickups for landfill.

Almost all Yugo's are already in the landfill. While I suppose when
the Gulf and WOT baby boomers are grown, the amunt of SUV's will
diminish, I doubt pick up trucks ever will.

[Sport Pilot]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
> Sport Pilot wrote:
>
> >>Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
> >>don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
> >>escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
> >>if it is of fairly recent make.
> >
> >
> > When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
> > from its own inertia,
>
> The vehicle needs to protect the occupants from THEIR OWN inertia by
> decelerating them as smoothly as possible. Because passenger cars will
> crumble their complete front in a crash the occupants have more
> traveling distance available for deceleration. Most Trucks and 4WDs are
> built very stiff so the deceleration is harder.
>
> > so the differance between a large vehicle and a
> > small one is not that great.
>
> How big the difference is you would have to consider specific vehicles.
> My point is that the difference is not in favor of the supposedly "safe"
> big trucks, as many people would believe.
>
> > But when a small vehicle hits a large
> > vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
> > occupants.
>
> As I said. The lighter vehicle has to take more total deceleration to
> the point of accelerating backwards, therefore acting higher forces on
> it's occupants. The truck will decelerate less. As it is stronger built,
> it will suffer less structural damage of course.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
>
>
> --
> for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

Friedrich,
I think you must be tinkning of SUV's built in the 80's or somewhere
else. The modern SUV has plenty of crush built in the design. I know
thae Mercedes Benz led in this area, but Crylsler (whom Mercedes merged
with) and others were not far behind. Many crash tests indicate that
on many American SUV's, some extra stifness is still needed around the
passenger compartment.

[W P Dixon]

All I can say was my 1983 Ford Bronco with 33.5 tires and you needed a
ladder to get in , and a parachute to get out got rear ended. Police said
est speed of the fullsize 84 Caddy was around 65 mph. My bumper got bent,
and had to replace the tailgate (it was not that bad,but cost was worth it
to replace the skin). The Caddy was totaled with the entire front of the big
car crudhed to the windshield. The fellow driving was not hurt, I had a
pulled back from being rear ended. But nothing serious. If I had of been in
a small car I would not be typing this today!

Patrick


"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in message
...
> Sport Pilot wrote:
>
>>>Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
>>>don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
>>>escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
>>>if it is of fairly recent make.
>>
>>
>> When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
>> from its own inertia,
>
> The vehicle needs to protect the occupants from THEIR OWN inertia by
> decelerating them as smoothly as possible. Because passenger cars will
> crumble their complete front in a crash the occupants have more traveling
> distance available for deceleration. Most Trucks and 4WDs are built very
> stiff so the deceleration is harder.
>
>> so the differance between a large vehicle and a
>> small one is not that great.
>
> How big the difference is you would have to consider specific vehicles. My
> point is that the difference is not in favor of the supposedly "safe" big
> trucks, as many people would believe.
>
>> But when a small vehicle hits a large
>> vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
>> occupants.
>
> As I said. The lighter vehicle has to take more total deceleration to the
> point of accelerating backwards, therefore acting higher forces on it's
> occupants. The truck will decelerate less. As it is stronger built, it
> will suffer less structural damage of course.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
>
>
> --
> for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[[email protected]]

Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )

My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
guess here

[Friedrich Ostertag]

Sport Pilot wrote:

> Friedrich,
> I think you must be tinkning of SUV's built in the 80's or somewhere
> else. The modern SUV has plenty of crush built in the design. I know
> thae Mercedes Benz led in this area, but Crylsler (whom Mercedes merged
> with) and others were not far behind. Many crash tests indicate that
> on many American SUV's, some extra stifness is still needed around the
> passenger compartment.

there certainly are improvements and I was thinking about trucks more
than SUVs to be honest. Especially the more modern types built upon
passenger car type undercarriage probably are pretty much up to
passenger car standards in crashworthyness as well, point taken. About
those built on truck platforms I'm not so sure.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

[W P Dixon]

It did have a 6 inch lift, but can you imagine what would have been left of
me if I had of been in a Toyota Tercel or Ford Festiva? YUCK! Bring out the
brooms and sweep the leftovers off the road! ;)

Patrick

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )
>
> My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
> big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
> guess here
>

[Sport Pilot]

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
> Sport Pilot wrote:
>
> > Friedrich,
> > I think you must be tinkning of SUV's built in the 80's or somewhere
> > else. The modern SUV has plenty of crush built in the design. I know
> > thae Mercedes Benz led in this area, but Crylsler (whom Mercedes merged
> > with) and others were not far behind. Many crash tests indicate that
> > on many American SUV's, some extra stifness is still needed around the
> > passenger compartment.
>
> there certainly are improvements and I was thinking about trucks more
> than SUVs to be honest. Especially the more modern types built upon
> passenger car type undercarriage probably are pretty much up to
> passenger car standards in crashworthyness as well, point taken. About
> those built on truck platforms I'm not so sure.
>
> regards,
> Friedrich
>
> --
> for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

>About those built on truck platforms I'm not so sure.

Ahh, the true working truck. They wouldn't sell at all if they
couldn't haul the required load. That's going to make it stiff. I
suspect that making those crash worthy would take a lot of special
design.

[Sport Pilot]

wrote:
> Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )
>
> My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
> big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
> guess here

Maybe it was a pimped Caddy riding high on it's airbags?

[W P Dixon]

Let's just say it was probably in the process of being "pimped". ;) In any
case it was a huge old caddy that went to the junk pile!;)

Patrick

"Sport Pilot" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
>
> wrote:
>> Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )
>>
>> My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
>> big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
>> guess here
>
> Maybe it was a pimped Caddy riding high on it's airbags?
>

[Matt Whiting]

Cub Driver wrote:

> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 23:48:57 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Hydrogen is a joke.
>
>
> Until it catches fire!
>
> The Hindenberg was fueled with hydrogen. Not what I'd want my
> granddaughter driving around with a tank-full of.

Actually, gasoline is pretty much as dangerous as hydrogen. And it is
pretty much generally accepted now that the issue with the Hindenberg
wasn't the hydrogen inside the envelope but rather the highly flammable
coating on the outside of the envelope. Better do some more research...

Matt

[Matt Whiting]

Sport Pilot wrote:

>>Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
>>don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
>>escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
>>if it is of fairly recent make.
>
>
> When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
> from its own inertia, so the differance between a large vehicle and a
> small one is not that great. But when a small vehicle hits a large
> vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
> occupants.
>

Actually, when hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the
occupants from THEIR inertia, not that of the vehicle. Larger vehicles
are generally better in this case as you say, but not because of their
greater weight, but because the occupants are sitting farther from the
point of impact and thus have a greater distance over which to dissipate
their energy which results in lower rates of deceleration.

Matt

[Matt Barrow]

"Cub Driver" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:46:05 GMT, Repo Man > wrote:
>
> >Did you manage to comprehend ANYTHING I wrote?
>
> I doubt that he did, because it was garbage. Ahistorical garbage.
> Mindless, paranoid garbage.
>
As I mentioned, he is really into Paul Krugman.

He is most likely referring to this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/11/opinion/11krugman.html

Here is a devastating rebuttal:
http://www.nationalreview.com/script/printpage.p?ref=/nrof_luskin/luskin200507120940.asp

In fact, his rambling about "Econ 101" indicates he hasn't the slightest
clue what he's talking about and is merely parroting what Krugman (batting
average about .068) babbles about. Krugman has been shown to flat out make
up crap off the top of his head and many swallow it hook, line, and sinker.


--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

[Matt Barrow]

"George Patterson" > wrote in message
news:kC9Fe.7146$eg4.3217@trndny01...
> Repo Man wrote:
> >
> > I can see you disagreed with it. But maybe your child could do a better
> > job explaining why.
>
> Ah! So you were writing for ignorant children. That explains it.

RM writes as though he was an ignorant child and it shows. He can make nine
points, all of them have no correlation, and them come off as a pompous boob
that is totally clueless.

[Matt Barrow]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:26:38 GMT, Jose >
> wrote:
>
> >> The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.
> >
> >No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot. :)
>
> Probably more than one of the locals would agree with that. <:-))
>

How correct would they be? :~(

[Roger]

On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 09:27:31 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 01:26:38 GMT, Jose >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >> The locals just keep saying I'm the world's oldest Debonair pilot.
>> >
>> >No. The world's oddest Debonair pilot. :)
>>
>> Probably more than one of the locals would agree with that. <:-))
>>
>
>How correct would they be? :~(
>
Considering I have the only Deb at the airport...
I'm also the best they have.<:-))

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>
>

[George Patterson]

Matt Barrow wrote:
>
> RM writes as though he was an ignorant child and it shows.

Yep, that's a better way to put it. Perhaps he is.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.