So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

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.

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.

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

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

"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?

"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 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.

"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

"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

"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