Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics of Energy -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Road Walker who wrote (2526)	9/21/2008 10:02:57 AM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

1. Don't like it, we are a very mobile society and I don't think we should lose that 'culteral heritage'. You've got to be kidding me. Kids cruising up and down the drag all night every weekend night is a cultural heritage we should treasure and waste massive gasoline on? What horseshit. Why not make young people do something to deserve a drivers license - like graduate HS or get a GED or something? And whats wrong with postponing it a couple years? In my home town with high school graduating classes of about 100-120, usually at least one out of every class wouldn't make it cause they died in a teenage driving accident - usually liquor was involved. Thats a crappy cultural heritage you're talking about there. 2. I read an op-ed along these lines... the automobile is one of the few products designed specifically to break the law. Imagine the smaller, more efficient engine that could be used if the top speed of each vehicle was 70 MPH. 3. Really same answer as #2. But by enforcing a stringent much more aggressive CAFE standard, and taxing MPG inefficient vehicles, you are allowing the marketplace to decide. No you're not. You're coercing people at the margin.

To: Road Walker who wrote (2526)	9/22/2008 6:54:42 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 86356

we are a very mobile society Less so than in the past. The Mobility Myth Pundits love to fret about our "increasingly mobile society," but Americans are actually more likely than ever to stay put. Alison Stein Wellner \| April 2006 reason.com Although I think your talking about commuting and traveling, not relocating like that article. Imagine the smaller, more efficient engine that could be used if the top speed of each vehicle was 70 MPH. You need to have a lot more power than the minimum needed to get you to 70mph, esp. for aerodynamic vehicles, otherwise the acceleration will be pathetic, to the point where it becomes a safety risk when you try to merge. You can put rev limiters on the engine to cut power when you reach a certain number of revs, but that doesn't save fuel at normal speeds. And, in addition to consumer preference, and special cases like showroom stock racing. You also have the fact that speed limits in the US go to at least 80mph maybe more. And cars last for years, so if the speed limit goes higher in any state during that period there is reason to have some margin. I suppose you could call for rev limiters at 100. I still wouldn't want it, but at least it wouldn't be totally senseless. OTOH it wouldn't save much gas. I have a rev limiter in my car, but its for 143 mph.