Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nice intention, but have you been to suburban america? There's nothing there.
Sounds like a good place to not live then.
America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
431–440 of 528 posts
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#432Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US only about 1 out of every 70 deaths is from an auto accident. As a single cause of death, it's not even in the top 10. Less than 1 in 3 accidental deaths is auto accident related. More people commit suicide (42,000) than die in auto accidents (40,000). http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/282929.php Deaths per mile driven have plummeted over time. From 24 per million miles in 1921, to 7 per hundred mill…
1 out of 70 is pretty damn huge. We have global campaigns about preventing cancers that are less dangerous than car accidents. There was panic over Ebola, which killed essentially nobody compared to car accidents. Yet the general response to 1/70 people deaths being because of cars is "meh, oh well."
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#433https://grassrootsmotorsports.com/articles/soccer-moms-reven...
Once we unloaded our gear, luggage, tires and a bunch of other junk from the same Honda Odyssey—a minivan, remember—that had just carried us 400 or so odd miles while watching DVD movies in air-conditioned comfort while sitting our bourgeois asses on cushy leather seats, it proceeded to storm around the autocross course in 49.09 seconds. In other words, it cruised to a near dead-heat with the Porsche [356].
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#434The huge stride in efficiency recently has been made possible by direct injection. Engines no longer have to work hard to pull intake air through a mostly closed butterfly valve. Attributing this advancement to govt regulation is preposterous. Just as regardless of whether govt had mandated faster processors, industry would have created them anyway.
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#435Direct fuel injection, turbos and fancy transmissions are the min technologies which make these powerful efficient cars possible, but they're all impossibly complex to service!
DFI leads to carbon fouling of intake valves, because port fuel injection "washed" fuel over the valves, cleaning them and burning up residue. Turbos are high RPM, high heat parts which have nowhere near the longevity of a modern engine, and there are lots of cars with 8 and 10 speed automatic transmissions to get every last bit of efficiency out of the engine.
All these expensive technologies make for less reliable cars that need more maintenances, and cars are much younger when scrapped because they're simply not economical to fix. Your local transmission shop won't rebuild a 10-speed auto, they'll buy a remanufactured one from a specialist, which costs many thousands.
It's a bummer for a weekend mechanic like myself, that cars are becoming so impractical to run for a long time. I consider it wasteful to scrap a perfectly nice ten year old car because of a bad transmission or blown motor, but there are increasingly more of these.
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#436These new engine technologies are really cool if you enjoy driving performance cars, and it's amazing how it's possible to comply with EPA requirements while delivering so much power, but all these systems add a lot of complexity. Direct fuel injection, turbos and fancy transmissions are the min technologies which make these powerful efficient cars possible, but they're all impossibly complex to service! DFI leads to…
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#437Earlier quoted context omitted.
A new Fiat 500, Chevy Spark, or Mitsubishi Mirage have weight and performance similar to your old VW GTI. A new GTI is much bigger and despite the name has no real relation to the 1984 model.
> A new GTI is much bigger and despite the name has no real relation to the 1984 model. Agreed, it's safer, considerably faster and much more luxurious. It is also priced a lot higher.
Taking into account inflation, it's only priced slightly higher. 8400 dollars from 1984 becomes something like $19500. Which would get you a Honda Fit, which is probably a lot more similar to that old GTI.
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#438A few weeks ago I bought a Chevy Bolt EV...according to the dealer it was the first one sold in my state (Utah). I'd been on a waiting list for almost a year. Sure, ICE engines are getting better, but EVs are rapidly gaining and will soon surpass. The Bolt is a bit expensive for a car of its body type, but "gassing up" at home is amazing, the 200+ mile range is great, and the sharply reduced emissions are a weight of…
Electric vehicles are a tough sell now though. The Chevy Bolt EV has a 60 kWh Lithium-ion battery; to charge that fully costs $8.7 in Utah (14.5 cents per kWh). Per the EPA's measure that gets you 238 miles. Gas costs approx $2.24/gallon in Utah. A Prius has a 11.3 gallon tank and a 540 miles range (again, EPA standard). That means that $11.15 would get you the same distance as a full Bolt EV charge in gas. Now, befo…
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#439Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I own a Tesla S85 and recently had a Cadillac ATS rental for a few days. The MSRP on the Tesla is twice as much as the ATS, so I would expect performance differences. > and we rarely do 0-60 in actual real-life driving. Many people would be mostly satisfied with great handling over speed in daily driving, but don't know what that feels like in a car.
My point is not just that the Tesla performs better, but that it does so despite a similar 0-60 time. The price difference has nothing to do with that.
Price has nothing to do with performance?
0-60 time is 0-60 time, regardless of how it feels. "Performance" can be measured. Maybe I'm still missing your point.
Re: America’s Cars Are Getting Faster and More Efficient
#440Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't there a more scalable solution? I'm imagining reflective stripes at specifiv GPS positions, so satellites can target them with lasers and measure the reflection. Too much refraction?
The refraction doesn't matter, its the precision. Given a reading (of 02 ppm), how can you prove that it matches the reading a ground station would have made? How could you filter out the noise from materials in the ~100km of atmosphere between the satellites and the targets? More pragmatically, could you explain it in a courtroom & convince the jury that it works? I understand that you're disappointed that this extr…
Btw. how about something like OCO-2? I couldn't find anything about its spatial resolution, but it seems to allow ground measurements of carbon sinks and sources.