| WIKI | FAQ | Tech FAQ | |
 http://csua.com/feed/ | |
| ||||||
| 12/24 |
| 2013/10/24-11/8 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:54744 Activity:nil |
9/30 Tesla Model S earned 5.4 stars on the NHTSA's 5-star safety test.
http://www.csua.org/u/11bw (theweek.com)
The only problem is that it's so expensive.
\_ I am buying one. -dotcom millionaire |
| 2011/12/5-2012/1/10 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:54250 Activity:nil |
12/5 "Eight Ferraris wrecked in million-dollar pileup"
http://www.csua.org/u/uw3 (autos.yahoo.com)
"Police and video reports say the wreck began when a 60-year-old
businessman from Fukushima driving a Ferrari F430 attempted to pass a
Toyota Prius, but instead hit the guardrail. That set off a chain
reaction among the cars driving in a tight formation behind the lead
Ferrari, ......
The Prius escaped unharmed."
So much for "performance" cars. |
| 2011/7/10-8/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:54141 Activity:nil |
7/8 Is there some reason we can't have mass market nat gas cars?
\_ Not enough infrastructure for refuing. Chicken and egg.
\_ Not enough infrastructure for refueling. Chicken and egg.
\_ It has less than half the energy density of gasoline. -tom
\_ So you have to compress it, which results in huge explosions
during a crash. Same for flywheel tech.
\_ It's not a safety issue; CNG isn't particularly more likely
to explode than gasoline. It's that the amount of CNG that
fits in a gas tank won't get you even half of the distance
of a tank of gasoline. -tom
\_ 1. Can we make CNG tanks and valves twice as strong, such
that it can withstand twice the pressure and can store
twice as much LPG in the same volume?
twice as much CNG in the same volume?
2. What about LPG?
\_ LNG is far more expensive to produce. The answer to
your initial question is "yes." -tom
\_ My grandfather used to fuel his Suburban with a trailer hooked
up behind it with CNG, it was cheaper than gasoline. This was
back in the 80s and while he sometimes had to look around for
a hookup he always found one. I always wondered why more people
don't do this. -ausman
\_ do *you* do this? and if not, why not?
\_ I didn't own a car until very recently.
\_ and now?
\_ Because we decided to not take over Iran, the world's second
largest nat gas reserve.
\_ Who cares, we have working pubtrans. |
| 2010/7/14-23 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:53884 Activity:nil |
7/14 DOT Report: Toyota crash data suggests driver error
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100713/ap_on_bi_ge/us_toyota_recall
\_ "Moving ahead." |
| 2010/3/9-30 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:53749 Activity:nil |
3/9 "Prius with stuck accelerator glides to safe stop"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_runaway_prius
"After the car decelerated to about 50 mph, Sikes turned off the
engine and coasted to a halt." Hmm, then why didn't he turn off the
engine when the car was going at 94mph? |
| 12/24 |
| 2009/7/21-24 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:53167 Activity:low |
7/20 Do people not know that the only place where there is no speed
limit is on a freeway onramp? Which means that it is the entrant
driver's job to speed up and get in past the existing traffic?
\_ The ones who can't accelerate are in SUVs
\_ True. My 2nd-gen Prius (not the 2010) accelerates on the
on-ramps fine. -- !OP
\_ People are stupid. Especially those in LA.
\_ This happens everywhere, but most noticeable in 2 lane
or smaller highways. Indeed in LA, where freeways are wide
the exsiting traffic has more recourse.
\_ People might be stupid in LA, but they are much better drivers
than the ones in the Bay Area. They are especially adept
at handling merging. |
| 2009/5/31-6/5 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:53063 Activity:moderate |
5/31 I was talking to a harpist who asked me if there were any pieces
that she shouldn't play at my wedding. I said... no, why would
there be restriction? She told me there may be religious reasons
or pieces that may touch some nerves. For example, she played
for Jewish weddings and a few times she's been asked to not play
Wagner's Wedding march. I find it interesting that 50 years after
the war, people still feel offended by Wagner. So let me ask you
Jewish people out there... do you or know someone who wouldn't buy
or use German products because of the Holocaust? It's godamn 50
years, and I doubt any [normal] German person still Heil to Hitler.
\_ Great trolling attempt, I salute you.
\_ 50 years isn't that long. My mom stills remembers WW II very well.
\_ My aunts and uncles claims to hate Japan more than I do, but then
\_ My aunts and uncles claim to hate Japan more than I do, but then
they all buy more Japanes cars and AV appliances than I do.
they all buy more Japanese cars and AV appliances than I do.
-- Chinese
\_ I have a coworker that won't buy VW. He has a Volvo and a Prius.
\_ Jewy people buying german cars what the cock is that shit?
( http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=9138036 )
(audio NSFW, in case you couldn't guess).
\_ is she Jewish?
\_ THIS IS AWESOME!!!!!! A+++ totally recommended.
\_ She is Jewish, this is her best number.
\_ It's Sarah Silverman, FWIW, and I would hardly call this
her best routine. In fact, I rather like Sarah and this
bit kind of sucked.
\_ I didn't call it her best routine. (it is not) I called
it her best "number" by which I meant to imply that it is
her best musical bit. This is good, but some of her
stand up bits are, in fact, awsome. (Though a lot of
her stuff is just lame. She's very inconsistent).
\_ How about Ford? Shouldn't Jewish people boycott Ford, too?
\_ I thought Ford, Disney, etc spend a LOT of efforts
hiring minorities.
\_ Ford Sr. was a notorious anti-semite.
\_ Ah but what Ford thought and what the company did
for minorities were two very different things. |
| 2009/3/25-4/2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:52753 Activity:nil |
3/25 Anyone have experience soundproofing/dampening a small 4/8/12U server
racks? Let's assume it has side panels as well as front and rear
doors.
\_ I haven't done that but I've done sound proof of my Prius and
it works quite well. The secret was putting in thick sound
material. Look at the following crappy example:
<DEAD>ecobunny.com<DEAD>
I'm guessing you can use the same material for your racks.
\_ My stock Prius is already pretty quiet as-is. Why do you want
to sound-proof it? |
| 2009/2/17-21 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:52595 Activity:moderate |
2/17 http://www.navigadget.com/index.php/2006/05/24/hack-your-toyota-prius-gps-navigation-system Hack your Toyota Prius so you don't have to press the stupid I AGREE legalese before using the GPS. Thanks oj! \_ My Lexus has the same problem. Also, it won't work while driving. 'sup with dat? $50K for a crippled car. Toyota sucks so hard I will never buy another. This was my first and likely last. I owned Nissan, BMW, and Honda in the past. \_ I was not aware that BMW/Honda/Nissan didn't put in GPS disclaimers. My Toyota's GPS sucks because of that nanny feature and that the UI is sluggish (1-2 second response) and it drives me nuts. Do your other car's GPS have the same problem or no? Maybe I should start looking at other brands -former Toyota fan \_ So you won't buy a car because of its electronics which is subject to change from year to year? \_ So you won't buy a car because of its electronics which is subject to change from year to year? \_ I won't buy a car because of the attitude of the manufacturer who thinks I need a car-nanny. \_ That's a safety feature. \_ That no other car has. \_ It takes time for features to proliferate. \_ Which model year of Prius is it? My 2008 Prius doesn't ask me to press "I agree" when I use GPS. \_ The latest nav s/w fixes that problem, but breaks the ability to use the nav while the car moves. |
| 2008/11/3-4 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:51802 Activity:kinda low 50%like:51793 |
11/3 Here's a gas/diesel/biodiesel/ethanol/vegatable-oil + compressed-air
hybrid, with plug-in capability:
"Air Cars: A New Wind for America's Roads?"
link:www.csua.org/u/mth (finance.yahoo.com)
Range:
- 60 miles at 35mph on one plug-in "recharge" alone.
- 800 miles at freeway speed on one tank of gas/diesel/whatever alone
(106mpg).
\_ And of course it's ridiculously tiny and impractical. Guess what,
a tiny ass car like that with just a plain ol' gas engine would
already get great mileage.
\_ The Smart ForTwo doesn't get gas mileage anywhere close to this.
In fact it doesn't even have better gas mileage than the Prius.
\_ The Smart is bigger than this thing, can carry luggage, and
actually meets safety and performance standards.
http://www.itmdi-energy.com/news/airpod_launch-091008.php
"can be driven up to 70 km/hr" (43mph)
The car has 5.45 hp "maximum". This is basically a golf cart. |
| 2008/11/3 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:51793 Activity:nil 50%like:51802 |
11/3 Here's a fossil-fuel / air plug-in hybrid:
"Air Cars: A New Wind for America's Roads?"
link:www.csua.org/u/mth (finance.yahoo.com)
106mpg, 800 miles range without plugging-in. |
| 2008/9/25-30 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:51304 Activity:nil |
9/25 "BART gets an equivalent to 249 miles per gallon during the peak
commute hours."
http://www.bart.gov/news/barttv/?&cat=27&id=362
\_ I assume that 249 miles per person per gallon, which means my
carpool gets 120.
\_ That's correct. My carpool of two on a Prius only gets 102. --OP
\_ Do they publish their data? What's the MPG during off-peak?
What's the total MPG for all operational hours?
\_ According to link:csua.org/u/mgc they use 300 GW/year of energy, at
a cost of $31 million; according to link:csua.org/u/mge they carry
1.3 billion passenger miles a year. If gas is $3.80 a gallon,
then that's the cost equivalent of 160 person miles/gallon. I'd
like to know the pollution equivalent, too, but that sounds like
more work to calculate.
then that's the cost equivalent of 160 person miles/gallon
overall. Anyone want to calculate the pollution equivalent?
\_ http://www.google.com/search?q=gallons+per+mile |
| 2008/9/4-8 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:51061 Activity:nil |
9/4 Can someone point me to any well-regarded sites for GPS information?
(something similar to http://dpreview.com for digital cameras, but for GPS)
I'm mainly looking for in-car/dash-mount GPS, but I need to read up
on the different methods available for live-traffic. I could also
use a site where I can narrow down my possible choices by features.
Thanks!
\_ Don't. I live in LA. I spend over 2-3 hours a day on THE I-10
I-110 and I-405. Don't. I bought a GPS w/ live traffic report
from Costco. The delay is over 10 minutes, so by the time you
get out, live traffic condition is already over. It is very good at
looking at the past, but not the present. Traffic conditions in
LA is too dynamic for this sort of stuff. You'll be going at
0MPH with yellow dots while 60MPH with red dots. It is totally
useless. My advice is to get the fuck out of Los Angeles instead
of wasting money on GPS. PS I returned my GPS from Costco.
\_ If you were a real Los Angeleno you would know their proper
names:
The Santa Monica Freeway, The Pasadena Freeway and the San Diego
Freeway. Go back to Tofuville. |
| 2008/8/7-13 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50807 Activity:moderate |
8/7 JD Power dependability study:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080807/ap_on_bi_ge/autos_dependability
"Toyota's Prius hybrid was the top-ranked vehicle in the compact car
segment."
Hybrid cars are not inherently less reliable.
\_ But how will it be in 10 years? 15? Will it end up in a
scrap heap sooner than a gas car?
The Prius compared to a Camry or Accord (or Chevy Malibu)
* more expensive, and also costs taxpayers with rebates
* worse crash test ratings
* less comfortable (less room, especially in the width, rear),
no seat height adjustment, no telescoping steering column.
\_ "headroom is cavernous and there's a tad more rear-seat
legroom than in a Camry or Ford Crown Victoria."
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius/2008/testdrive.html
* batteries and electronics have their own environmental cost
* Prius is slower, has poor handling and worse braking. (This
is also a safety issue.)
\_ Prius has higher peak torque at lower RPM as well as lower
curb weight than even Camry V6 and Accord V6. It can
accelerate faster from low speed.
curb weight than Camry 4-cyl and even Camry V6.
accelerate faster from standstill.
\_ It's still slower overall though.
\_ Yes, 0-60mph at 10.4sec. But the Prius was never meant
to be a performance car.
* Prius looks weird.
\_ Maybe that's one compromize Toyota had to make in order to
achieve a Cd of 0.26 with a 5-passenger car.
In summary: people buy it to impress other people with their
supposed environmental concern.
\_ Why are you comparing interior room of a compact car with that
of mid-size cars? If the Prius were as big as Camry or Accord,
it wouldn't be a compact car, would it?
\_ I don't really care how it's classified since the real world
distinction doesn't matter much. The Prius has a longer
wheelbase than most compacts and it costs a ton more than most
compact cars. It is a fair bit bigger than a Yaris.
If you compare it to a Mazda 3 or VW Jetta it still loses out
on price and performance. The new VW TDI isn't cheap but
at least performs much better than Prius with similar MPG.
IRS announced a $1300 credit on those now...
By the way:
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius/2008/review.html
"The 2008 Toyota Prius is a full-featured *midsize* car..."
\_ Hmm. Wheelbase, right? Let's see:
Civic Sedan: 106.3in wheelbase
Prius: 106.3in wheelbase
I guess by your logic the Civic Sedan is also a mid-size
car then.
Civic Sedan: wheelbase 106.3in
Prius: wheelbase 106.3in
I guess by your logic the Civic Sedan is a mid-size car
also.
And the cost, right? Let's see:
BMW M3 Sedan: $53800 MSRP
Prius: $21500 MSRP
I guess by your logic the M3 Sedan is an extra-full-size
car then.
I guess by your logic the M3 Sedan is an extra-extra-full-
size car then.
VW TDI? Do you mean the 2009 Jetta Diesel? Let's see:
Jetta Diesel: 29 city, 40 hwy, 33 combined
Prius: 48 city, 45 hwy, 46 combined
Similar MPG? Well, if you say 33 and 46 are similar ......
(And how much is a gallon of diesel again?)
Similar MPG? Well, if 33 and 46 are similar ......
\_ I don't know that you can trust the EPA estimate for
this car with the "revised EPA procedures". VW claims
a lot better, and it got AMCI certification for
38 city/44 hwy. Ok, so not as good as a Prius with
more expensive fuel. But, it is a normal car with
much better performance (more fun to drive) and I
think more luggage space. And a bit cheaper.
It will emit more CO2 though.
\_ By "rebate" do you mean the fed tax credit? That already ended
for the Prius last year.
\_ Ok. Weird. They still have tax credits for non-Toyotas.
http://www.irs.gov/irs/article/0,,id=176409,00.html
\_ Is it possible that someone could buy it because of a genuine
environmental concern? I don't own a car, mostly because of
a genuine environmental concern and I seriously doubt that my
lack of car ownership impresses anyone.
\_ Well maybe they just don't know and want to feel good about
it. Marketing tells us that hybrids are wonderful for the
environment. Your lack of a car is far better than having
a Prius. Tons of people at my silicon valley work bought
Priuses. Very few of them would bike to work. But they
feel like they are saving the environment because they have
a hybrid.
\_ I used to ride the Line M bus across the San Mateo Bridge
to go to work. I did that for 5yrs. But when my son
started going to daycare, I went back to driving. -- OP
\_ I bought a Prius out of genuine environmental concern. I'm
my late 30s, have a wife and two kids and a soccer-dad
in my late 30s, have a wife and two kids and a soccer-dad
minivan, and I leave work early everyday to pick up my kid
from daycare, and I take my kid to the office when daycare is
on holidays. So whatever flashy car I get is not going to
help me impress any hot women or anyone else.
on holidays. So even a flashy car is not going to help me
impress any hot women or anyone else. And since I carpool
with my kid, I don't need a hybrid to use the carpool lane.
-- OP
\_ Pretty much everyone I know who bought one did so for the
carpool lane privilege.
\_ The Prius acccelerates as well as most 4 cylinder cars and
handles better. Are you thinking of the old Prius?
http://preview.tinyurl.com/6h6stg
\_ Not really... not compared to a gas Camry for instance.
http://www.edmunds.com/toyota/prius/2008/testdrive.html
"Wow, this is a strikingly slow car."
\_ From the very web page that you cited:
"Given the leisurely nature of most motorists'
acceleration habits, many will only occasionally notice
the Prius' power deficit."
"a 0-60-mph sprint of 10.4 seconds. Given the leisurely
nature of most motorists' acceleration habits, many will
only occasionally notice the Prius' power deficit."
"Crummy steering feel "
\_ From the very web page that you cited:
"It is, however, tremendously easy to turn at any speed,"
"Sub-limit brake response is awful "
"Base model's soft suspension and fairly skinny,
economy-based tires allow marked cornering lean and
noseplow." (from your link)
\_ From the very web page that you cited:
"Everyone should be happy with the ride comfort, which
provides a buttoned-down, big-car feel to a lightweight
car. Compared to fuel-efficient compact cars, the Prius
feels almost Lincoln-like as it softly damps road
imperfections."
\_ A soft dampened ride is what 60 year old women want.
In fact, the entire car sounds perfect for a 60 year
old woman. For people who like to drive it's hideous,
but Prius doesn't claim to be a driver's car. It
just claims to save fuel, which it does. I wouldn't
buy one. In fact, I wouldn't drive one if you gave
it to me for free.
\_ "slow"? Depends on the situation.
Camry 2.4 4-cyl: 161 lb-ft @4000rpm, curb wt. 3307lb
Camry 3.5 V6: 248 lb-ft @4700rpm, curb wt. 3483lb
Accord EX: 162 lb-ft @4400rpm, curb wt. 3408lb
Accord EX V6: 254 lb-ft @5000rpm, curb wt. 3567lb
Prius: 295 lb-ft @0-1200rpm, curb wt. 2932lb
(not counting torque from engine)
Now imagine starting from a red-light.
\_ I have no problems with hybrids or even electrics (see Tesla) if
they are regular cars with a different engine and drivetrain.
The Prius is different just to be different and the people who
drive them *want* to be seen as different. It's actually a pretty
shallow and feel-good thing. I think it's that same appearance
which is more important than any actual environmental concern.
Now that more manufacturers are making hybrids that otherwise
look and act the same as any other car I don't see a point to buying
an ugly and underperforming POS like a Prius.
\_ So why is Prius still the #1 selling hybrid when there are
a bunch of good hybrids like the Camry Hybrid and SUV hybrids?
\_ Because those cars don't say "HEY LOOK I DRIVE A HYBRID".
It is also cheaper than a Camry Hybrid.
http://preview.tinyurl.com/5gjcvj
\_ Yeah, CAMRY, really impresses WOMEN!!! Women with BABIES
\_ Exactly his point. People drive Prius for shallow
reasons instead of Camrys.
\_ More or less shallow than people who buy sportscars?
\_ People who buy sportscars aren't claiming to
be saving the world by doing so.
save the world.
\_ I have no problem with Prius or Prius drivers. I have problems
with people who live in FUCKING SOUTHERN CAL. Dumb asses
who drive 2-3 hours a day in LA. All that PLASTIC LOOK and
BOTOX additicts and BEVERELY HILLS WANABES and SUPERFICIAL
assholes living in HUGE MCMANSIONS and drive 2-3 HOURS a
day in/around LA. LAME!!! I also think people who
drive the fucking ugly Accord Hybrid are dumb. I mean,
who the fuck pays that kind of money to drive a fucking
Accord Hybrid with pretty much the same MPG as regular
Accord with extra 100HP? Why don't you spend that money
on a sports car? Fucking LAME TARD. FUCK I want to
key scratch all fucking dumb ass Accord Hybrids in Pasadena.
Stupid dumb asses. I guess they're so used to being told
they're stupid that they don't GET IT anymore.
\_ Bad troll, no cookie. |
| 2008/8/1-5 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50759 Activity:nil |
7/31 "You Know Gas Prices Are High When Texans Start Driving Golf Carts"
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121746229279198963.html
'"You wouldn't think it, but it's a chick-magnet," says the unmarried,
40-year-old chemical engineer,'
'The Peterses' cars get about 30 miles from a full charge, ...... or
two cents a mile. Compare that with 20 cents a mile for a car that
goes 20 miles on one $4 gallon of gasoline.' |
| 2008/7/25-30 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50693 Activity:nil |
7/25 Does anyone have JBL sound system in their cars? I bought a 2004
Toyota Sienna without getting the JBL option, and a 2008 Toyota Prius
with the JBL option. Listening to the same CD in both cars when
parked, my Sienna sound better than my Prius, in that the sound is
more full rather than just loud, and closer to a home hi-fi. Is JBL
really worth the money? |
| 2008/7/15-23 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50578 Activity:nil |
7/15 http://www.newsweek.com/id/145876 Move over Tesla, a cheaper electric car is on the horizon! \_ The RAV4 EV wasn't that expensive. \_ Why do you say 'move over tesla' when the linked article is actually about the next model of tesla? \_ What I mean is "Move over, expensive car for rich people. FUCK Y'ALL RICH PEOPLE who benefited from tax breaks from F*** Y'ALL RICH PEOPLE who benefited from tax breaks from GWB and Reagan, now we poor suckers can drive EV as well!" |
| 2008/7/9-11 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50520 Activity:nil |
7/9 http://www.slate.com/id/2194989 Buying a brand-new Prius vs. buying a certified pre-owned Corolla. The former is greener (manufacturing energy usage included). \- i dont understand why they dont talk about the typical calculus which is "keep current car or buy prius". it seems silly to assume a car will be bought. that was an interesting point about spending prius premium on other avement measures, but again, i dont think that's typically why people are buying cars. realitically you would reasonably factor in things like the HOV lane access. \_ Isn't that no longer a factor? \_ Not sure I really buy this conclusion. Doesn't it depend on how many miles one drives? \_ It uses an average of 15000 miles/yr, which is the number that EPA uses to estimate annual fuel costs. EPA uses to estimate annual fuel costs. -- OP \_ Skimming the article it seems to imply I'm buying a pre-owned Corolla with 0 miles, but then isn't counting the cost of building the Corolla because it is pre owned. Huh? Why not magically buy a pre-owned Prius with 0 miles on it that costs 0 energy to produce? You need to depeciate the production cost of a car over its lifespan, not all at purchase time. (which yes I'm aware makes the prius even MORE efficient, but somehow with a glaring hole in the dude's logic like that I'm not exactly in a charitable mood when it comes to trust.) |
| 2008/6/9-12 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50195 Activity:nil |
6/8 6 Ways You're Wasting Gas - Yahoo! Autos Article Page:
http://www.csua.org/u/lq7
\_ Dumbest article evar! Why does common sense continue to masquerade
as news articles?
\_ Because a lot of people don't seem to have much common sense? |
| 2008/6/1-2 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:50114 Activity:nil |
6/1 why is Ford pushing plans to sell HYBRID giant fat man SUVs
that get 20 mph. yeah what the hey its a hybrid, big whoop.
I for one welcome our new masters, Toyota. I'm too old to learn
Japanese. |
| 2008/5/7-9 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49895 Activity:nil 53%like:49912 |
5/6 Spy shots of the redesigned 2009 Prius
http://www.csua.org/u/lfd
The current (because Insight is out of production) king of MPG will
get even higher MPG.
\_ all look the same |
| 2008/4/21-5/2 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49793 Activity:nil |
4/21 Think car. 0 emission and 124 miles per charge:
http://think.no/think/content/view/full/290
\_ It reads "zero *local* emissions." Nonetheless, "an energy
efficiency three times that of a traditional combustion engine
car" is still pretty impressive. |
| 2008/3/24-27 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49546 Activity:nil |
3/24 X Prize for 100mpg vehicles: http://www.csua.org/u/l3w I think the 100mph requirement for the mainstream category is too high. Something like 85-90mph will be more useful. OTOH I think it should add a crash test requirement to that category. \_ Put up your own prize money. |
| 2008/3/12-17 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49439 Activity:kinda low |
3/12 US Use of Public Transportation Highest in 50 Years
http://www.greencarcongress.com/2008/03/us-use-of-publi.html
\_ Where's Los Angeles?
\_ "In 2004, the latest year for which the data is available, all
modes of public transit accounted for 49 billion passenger miles;
total vehicle miles travelled in the US is around 3 trillion per
year." Sigh, still way too little to be significant. I hope high
gas prices are steering more people to public transit.
\_ Why is this something you hope for?
\_ So assholes like you who live in the make belief world
of endless energy in Southern Cal will realize that
you're raping mother earth and killing everyone else.
\_ We have practically endless energy. It's called nukular.
I am more concerned about you Prius-driving idiots
using all of our precious water for your batteries.
\_ One needs to add water to the Prius battery??
\_ No, but the generation of power requires water.
Unless you go nukular, which "green" people oppose.
\_ One doesn't charge the Prius battery with
electricity from electric company. (Unless you
modify a Prius to become a plug-in.)
\_ We must force people to live in the true Urban Utopia for
their own good.
\_ No, just let the Invisible Hand do its work. |
| 2008/3/7-11 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49384 Activity:nil |
3/7 Stuff like this can make the cities even more desireable places
to live. Imagine urban mobility without sharing the bus or
having to hunt for a parking place:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080307/sc_nm/usa_minicar_dc_1
\_ That "stuff" is called the bicycle, scooter, and motorcycle.
Stupid.
\_ ya know, not everyone shares your vision of Liberal Urban Utopia.
Despite the obvious rise and demand of city homes, the number
of people moving to suburbs still outstrip the number of people
moving to cities. The increase supply of city homes still cannot
meet the growing needs of our nation. As long as suburbs are
more affordable, there will be people moving to suburbs.
\_ OMG, now my car would actually be a useless little dink box that
every idiot has drooled over, left their condoms in, used to shoot
up, and I'm going to get busted for the drugs and god only knows
what that some idiot left in it before me. Fortunately I dont have
to carry anything bigger than a water bottle so this vehicle is
just perfect! I'm ready for Urban Utopia!
\_ This is new?? How is this different from the Toyota PM that has
been announced for a while?
http://www.toyota.com/concept-vehicles/pm.html |
| 2008/3/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49353 Activity:low |
3/6 http://www.csua.org/u/kyy (Yahoo! Finance) "The average cost of owning and driving a car 15,000 miles a year is $7,830 according to AAA. SUVs are even more costly, at $9,990 per year." Wow! \_ I guess that sounds about right. My cost has been less than half of that (~$3k/yr) but I drive near half as much. That also doesn't include resale value of my car, but my car won't have much in that department. And of course I'm not including taxes and environmental costs associated with owning and driving my car. \_ How long does it take to grow $652/mo into $1M? By my calculations, about 25 years, if you invest in the stock market. So I can retire at least 10 years early by getting rid of one car. \_ Or by getting a efficient dependable used car. Say a late 90's/early 00's corolla. \_ $652/mo is average. Even an older car costs almost that much. \_ Gas (15k mi/yr): $145/mo for 30mpg at $3.50 a gallon Depeciation on a car that old: negligible, say $50/mo. Insurance: ~$50 mo. \_ Are you out of your mind? $50/month?! I wish. I pay $2400/year for two cars with no accidents or tickets. \_ If you pay that much for an 8-9 year compact car without comprehensive or at least a really high deductable, you are paying way too much. \_ Depends on what coverage you want and I wouldn't drop comprehensive. I had my 1993 Honda stolen and I was glad I had it. \_ When your car is worth ~4k comprehensive adds up to the price of your car pretty damn quickly. \_ Eh. $400/year is worth it for $4K. Repairs: less than $50/mo. That's a about half the cost. Not so bad. (Oh and 15k miles a year is a lot for a car that you can live without. If you are doing 15k miles on a bus that is going to SUCK.) \_ http://www.csua.org/u/kz9 (even without any depreciation, that is $5100/yr) I trust Edmund's numbers better than yours. \_ Depeciation looks like I was high. (See how by year 5 it is ~50/mo. Taxes are going to be lower because you bought it used. Insurance is going to be lower because you shouldn't have comprehensive. Financing is non existant if you buy it used. Gas I seem to be a bit high. So knock OFF 10-20/mo. Mantenance/repairs seem silly high to me, I've never needed to spend that much on my car. |
| 2008/2/23-26 [Transportation/Bicycle, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49222 Activity:nil |
2/23 Suburban loving conservative leaning family oriented people will
suffer from record high gas prices. Meanwhile, stinky bike riding
Linux loving liburals sneer at everyone else with
"I told you so [wrt to Peak Oil]!"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12400801
\_ key word: troll
\_ What about Prius-driving environment-loving conservative-leaning
family-oriented people like me?
\_ You have children? You don't RIDE BIKE? You are further right
than that sellout Feinstein? You are a traitor to mother earth
and all clear thinking people. |
| 2008/2/15-18 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49151 Activity:high |
2/14 It took me over 2.5 hours to drive from Santa Monica to Arcadia,
a distance of 38miles, or 15MPH. What the hell is wrong with
Los Angeles and why do people actually want to live in LA? God
I can't wait to get out of this shithole the time comes.
\_ Maybe for the H07 CH1X?
\_ Dude, take the 405N to the 118 and it won't take 2.5 hours.
\_ You DUMB FUCK I will still need to get to 210 which will
FUCK IT UP as badly as I-10/I-60. FUCK YOU DUMB FUCK.
\- motd road rage!
\_ There is no traffic eastbound on the 210 between the
118 and 134. After that you are almost there and can even
take the street if you want. And if you are taking the 10
or the 60 from SM to Arcadia at any time other than the middle
of the night you are obviously the dumbfuck. You proved
it with your ridiculous 2.5 hour commute.
\_ No. 210 going through Pasadena towards Azusa is a
total suicide. You obviously haven't driven that part
in the past 5 years where there were plenty of new
homes sprawling in Azusa/Glendora making the commute
a total nightmare. !op
\_ So don't take that part of the 210 and get off in
Pasadena and take the street to Arcadia. Up until
that point (where 210 and 134 meet) there is no
eastbound traffic on the 210.
\_ Are you proposing taking big streets like
Huntington (slow slow) or side streets with
a bunch of stop signs? 15MPH on 210 is actually
faster than Huntington at stop+go @25MPH, and
faster than small streets at stop+go @15MPH.
\_ You aren't going to get to Arcadia without
doing one of either:
1) Taking the 210
2) Taking sidestreets
However, it's a small part of the overall commute.
Personally, I would take Walnut to Foothill.
\_ Why not take the 105 -> 605 and into
Arcadia the back way? Ten years ago this
would have been the fastest way, but I have
not driven in LA in a long time.
\_ This can work depending on time of day.
605 can get traffic. 118 literally
never has traffic ever that I have seen.
\_ Getting onto 118 from 405 is DUMB.
The 405/101 junction fucks everyone
one. In short, LA is one of the WORST
\_ Yes, but you aren't on it long.
Of course you know best because
your way took you 2.5 hours.
planned cities I've ever seen and
I hope it gets nuked so that we can
rebuild it from scratch. FUCK LA.
\_ You are seriously proposing turing the 33 mile trip
into a 57 mile one? Why not take the 134 East through
the Valley?
\_ Traffic. The fastest distance between two points is
not necessarily a straight line. 57 miles at 70 mph
is a lot faster than 38 miles at 15 mph.
\_ Taking your road rage to the motd?
\_ Obviously what's wrong with the LA metro area is it's got
a lot of sprawl and has crappy mass transit.
\_ All traffic problems come down to too many people in too small
an area with insufficient means of transit (all means) to get
from any arbitrary A to any B.
\_ nice tautology. so what is the implication of rail
being able to deliver five times the carrying capacity per
land unit? -tom
\_ 5x the capacity is only useful if there are 5x the number
of commuters who share a similar route and schedule.
You need to solve the real world problem and not a
theoretical one based on non-existent distributions of
commuters. A train from Pasadena to Santa Monica will
be nice, but :
1. It will make so many stops along the way it that won't
be as fast as it seems.
2. Lots of people still need a way to get from the
terminal to their jobs. What we see a lot of in LA
is people buying *TWO* cars and leaving one at each
end of the station. This creates other problems
like parking and gridlock near the stations.
\_ You're being disingenuous; cities all over the world
(including some in the U.S.) have effective rail
infrastructures that reduce congestion. -tom
\_ Rail can reduce a certain amount and most major
cities/regions have some sort of rail system. But
it is not and can not be the primary method of travel
for the majority of people no matter how much you
scream "rail! ride bike!" on the motd.
\_ Do you need me to list the counterexamples? -tom
\_ Sure, go ahead if it makes you feel better, but
no one is going to rebuild our entire country
to fit your sardine fantasy lifestyle. We are
spread out because a) most people want space
and b) life is more than living in an apartment
next to bart so I can get to work. You can't
build a rail system that allows me to get
everywhere in a reasonable time. Please
proceed by posting list of EU cities with
rail systems and insanely high density rates.
\_ Cities all over the world were not built around
the automobile. Given that much of the Western
US was what do you propose other than forcibly
relocating people to create your own utopia? At
this very moment rail does not make sense in
most of this country given the existing situation
and if you build it they may not come for
decades during which you run your rail at a
tremendous loss.
\_ I mostly agree, but if we wait for $10/gallon
gasoline first and then start building an alternate
transportation infrastructure, we are going to
be in a world of hurt. It is not a bad idea to
at least imagine what a post-auto world would
look like. Then again, maybe by then everyone
be driving electric smart cars and we can have
our suburbs and clean air to boot. But I don't
think we should count on that happening.
gasoline first and then start building an
alternate transportation infrastructure, we
are going to be in a world of hurt. It is not
a bad idea to at least imagine what a post-auto
world would look like. Then again, maybe by then
everyone be driving electric smart cars and we
can have our suburbs and clean air to boot. But
I don't think we should count on that happening.
\_ We can always drive smaller cars. Even tiny
motorcycle-like trikes or whatever I think
would be more popular than trains. The freedom
of cars is not something I think people are
going to just give up. We could regulate a
small auto weight/size for use within urban
zones. I would have no problem using tiny
vehicles as long as the safety was there.
\_ I agree. I would have a hard time
giving up the freedom of my vehicle.
I'd rather ride a motorcycle than sit
on a train with smelly people.
\_ Freeways run at a tremendous loss, too. It
would not be significantly more difficult to
put in a rail system than it is to do freeway
expansion; it certainly would be easier to do
a train crossing than the new Bay Bridge for
example. (And the new Bay Bridge won't even
increase capacity!) If we put in real
high-speed rail on the *existing* rail
right-of-ways in the Bay Area, and coordinated
it all under one agency instead of the mishmash
we have now, we'd have a fine system. It's
ridiculous to suggest that it's technically
or financially infeasible; the only problem is
politics. -tom
\_ It's financially unfeasible and I've told
you why, but you keep choosing to ignore me:
You have to keep operating the freeways at
the same time you build out the other
infrastructure and you will probably
always have to operate a major highway
system in addition to mass transit (e.g.
Autobahn in Germany). Where is the cost
savings in this? What you get is a savings
in time in exchange for the increased cost.
If that's the situation then toll roads
are a better solution because only those
whose time is most valuable are contributing.
Besides, I don't think SF is really the issue.
It's small and BART works fine for what it is
(getting people to<->from downtown). I want to
know what you do in Orange County or Ventura
where most people are not commuting to<->from a
downtown.
\_ It's not financially infeasible; it's been
done all over the world. Per
passenger-mile, trains are less expensive
than roads, so any investment you make in
trains instead of roads reduces your
overall costs. Oh and by the
\_ You are missing my point. You want
to add rail to the existing roads
infrastructure. This is a net expense.
Whether it has been done elsewhere
is irrelevant. Your suggestion will
cost taxpayers more money. I am not
debating whether it will be
beneficial or not. However, it will
be expensive because you cannot
make investments in trains
instead of roads. You will have to
make investment in trains IN
ADDITION TO roads and trains are not
cheap. How much they cost relative
to roads is not relevant because you
still need the roads.
\_ Here's a hint: A huge amount of
money will be spent on NEW ROAD
CONSTRUCTION in the Bay Area in
the next 30 years. That money
could be spent on rail instead
and provide MORE CAPACITY for the
same amount of money. -tom
\_ How much new road construction
can there be? It's pretty much
all built out. Is it enough
money to build and maintain a
rail system? How many people
will the rail serve versus the
highway? Capacity is not really
an issue.
\_ What planet are you living on?
There are lanes being added
all over the Bay Area and
they're digging a new bore
of the Caldecott. -tom
\_ Is it enough to build
and maintain a rail system?
How many people will be
served versus the highway?
\_ Yes, and more. At least,
that's true everywhere
else in the world and
there's no reason to
expect the Bay Area would
be different. -tom
\_ I challenge your
claim that more
people would be
served by spending
road expansion
funds on rail than
on roads, but if
it's true I support
your position. I
just highly doubt it.
\_ Rail serves more
passenger-miles
per dollar, more
passenger-miles per
land unit, more
passenger-miles per
energy input and
carbon output.
What other measure
would you use for
serving people? -tom
\_ Because roads are more useful than
trains. The invisible hand has
chosen freedom over socialist
utopia.
\_ Well, no, actually the U.S.
government has heavily
subsidized auto travel, while
requiring the train system
to pay for itself. If
it hadn't been for government
regulation and intervention,
U.S. cities would still have
decent rail systems. The hand
was the hand of self-interested
auto-makers, not the market.
And everywhere the government
hasn't heavily subsidized roads,
people choose trains. Not for
100% of their trips, but for
more than enough to pay off
on the investment. -tom
\_ BART doesn't pay for itself.
And when rail is installed
people don't use it if
they can avoid it. Most
people prefer to drive
if given a choice. If
rail was a good idea
then it would be able to
pay for itself. I have
no doubt that roads could pay
for themselves. In fact,
the toll roads in OC do
pay for themselves.
Maybe some day in the
future there will be so
much traffic that more
people will turn to rail
but we're not even close
to that day yet so why
bother with it? Should
we install infrastructure
for flying cars now, too?
\_ Actually, where decent
rail is installed people
do use it; do you have
evidence that they don't?
-tom
\_ Gold Line. It takes an
hour by rail to
get where it takes
20 minutes by car.
Of course you used
"decent" as a
weasel word,
because any rail
that people don't
take is clearly
not decent.
\_ Is it high speed?
No. -tom
\_ You aren't
going to have a
bullet train
serve closely
spaced stations,
are you? Your
list of
requirements is
growing.
\_ Once again
with the
strawman. -tom
way, the Bay Area was built out on rail
infrastructure. My house was built in
1916, and it's a block from what used to
be a train station. Trains went all the
way through the east bay flatlands and
through a tunnel (now closed) to the
further East Bay. Almost all of SF,
Oakland and Berkeley were built before
the advent of the single-occupant auto.
The trains are gone due to a combination
of perverse incentives and criminal
conspiracy, but it's absurd to suggest
that it's impossible to have rail transit
in the Bay Area. -tom
\_ Not impossible, but unnecessary and
expensive. And most existing development
in the Bay Area was not done based on
rail. I mean, LA was built on rail
also (Henry Huntington) but let's be
realistic about then vs. now in
terms of existing distribution of
housing, jobs, and retail. Most of
that came post-WW II and was based
on the auto.
\_ Are you interested in the facts at
all? San Francisco, Oakland, and
Berkeley all hit their population
peaks in 1950, at a time with
relatively low car ownership.
The outlying suburbs would be
much better served by high speed
rail than by, say, driving on 80
through Berkeley. -tom
\_ Served to do what exactly? Your
trains are intended for universal
transport without requiring any
auto transport for the general
population?
\_ Why do you keep coming back to
this straw man? Oh, right,
because you have no facts and
no argument. -tom
\_ LA needs more freeways!
\_ L.A. people check traffic first, then drive: http://sigalert.com
\_ We also know to stay the hell off of certain freeways at
certain times (and some all of the time) if we can help it.
My girlfriend used to manage runners for the film industry
and they rarely even took the freeways - even during the middle
of the day.
\_ Like I said it's a mystery why people fucking love to
live in LA. Smog, rude drivers, traffic. What a shithole.
\_ Because weather is overrated.
\_ I guess it depends on what's important to you. People
from small towns would say the same about SF or any
other city and people from cities scoff at people who
live in rural areas. Both have advantages, but cities
represent more opportunity. LA has a lot more going
for it than most cities in many ways. Traffic and parking
are issues, same as they are in SF and NYC. I really like
SF but to me it's very provincial compared to LA and
the weather *does* matter a lot to me.
\_ Great cities of the U.S.:
New York City, Los Angeles ... and that's about it.
\_ NYC >> SF > Chicago >> LA
\_ San Jose
\_ SF is a footnote of a city. Chicago is a great
city, but the weather is terrible. Not that the
weather in NYC is great either, but if you have
to choose then NYC has the edge.
\_ http://www.csua.org/u/ken
Who is the Global City here?
\_ No idea what that means, but on your
same web page you will see Chicago
scored 10 points and SF scored 9. In
reality that's too high, too, but I'm sure they
are lumping "Northern California" together
into "San Francisco".
\_ I totally agree. I absolutely hated LA/UCLA and couldn't
wait to move back up here.
\_ What you hated was your own situation, not the city.
\_ Actually there is some truth to this b/c I totally
did not like UCLA. But the fact that LA was always
congested, the drivers were rude and the smog did
little to help. I just can't imagine why anyone
would want to live in LA. The Bay Area is a much
nicer place to live (even Fremont).
\_ The drivers here are not rude and stupid? I want
to know where you're driving so I can drive there
too.
\_ I'm in Cupertino/SJ but I live like 2 miles
so I only take local roads during off hours
and never see anyone on the streets.
from work so I only take local roads during
off hours and never see anyone on the streets.
When I was driving to Menlo Park via 85-101,
I used to have flashbacks to the 405. Still,
I much prefer the bay area, at least the
traffic moves most of the time.
\_ You prefer the yucky fart of Prius loving hippies?
\_ To the smog and congestion of LA, yes.
\_ If you hate it so much why don't you move now? |
| 2008/2/6-7 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49083 Activity:nil |
2/6 Does it cost a lot to replace tires on a Prius? Do the low-rolloing-
resistance tires cost more than ordinary tires?
\- according to my prius associates, it was $600 to replace theirs.
\_ http://priuschat.com/forums/fuel-economy/41166-tire-replacement-dilemma-2.html
\_ http://priuschat.com/forums/prius-main-forum/34100-tires-michelin-destiny-s.html
\_ http://preview.tinyurl.com/yvl7zt (priuschat.com)
http://preview.tinyurl.com/yv6l4c (priuschat.com)
Get the ComforTreads, comfy and nice, just 2-3MPG less. |
| 2008/2/6-7 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49081 Activity:nil |
2/6 "Toyota to Start Sales of Lithium-ion Plug-in Hybrids by 2010"
http://www.toyota.co.jp/en/news/08/0114.html
It's no longer rumor. |
| 2008/1/25-2/2 [Recreation/Food, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49011 Activity:nil |
1/25 Which reduces carbon footprint more: buying a Prius, or becoming a
vegetarian?
\_ Killing yourself.
\_ Moving out of Los Angeles and dating Asian (they eat less).
\_ But you'd do more heavy breathing and consume more condoms.
\_ RIDE BIKE!!!!!
\_ Dumpster Diving.
\_ Smaller carbon shoes. |
| 2008/1/24-31 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:49005 Activity:nil |
1/24 Some hybrid car models shut down the engine when the car is not moving.
How do you warm up such a car in the morning?
\_ the car does it for you. |
| 2008/1/4-8 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48883 Activity:very high |
1/3 Why are home prices steady in the cities and collapsing
in the suburbs?
link:preview.tinyurl.com/2nj3gu (Twin http://Cities.com)
\_ This article really only sort of answers that question. A better
question is, why did the home prices in the suburbs get so out of
whack in the first plae?
whack in the first place?
\_ They weren't out of whack. This should all be obvious. There
are more jobs in the city so price/sqft in the city is higher.
Not everyone can afford that or wants to live in a city so
suburbs spring up around them and more around those in rings.
As prices decline, they first decline further from job hubs and
work their way back in. If things continue city prices (which
IMO are just as out of whack) will also fall.
\_ Hmm... you're not the swami...
\_ There are a lot of theories about this, but you should
know that in many large cities the prices are less than
in the affluent suburbs. Whether the market thinks the
cities or the suburbs are more desirable changed over time
from suburbs to cities to suburbs. Now the pendulum is
swinging back to cities again. However, there are still
many cities in this country in which living in the heart
of the city is not exactly desirable as compared to the
suburbs. Imagine, say, Detroit for example. It's not
really about 'job hubs' or 'shopping' or 'transportation'
or 'land' or 'schools' or 'crime'. It's about all of the
above plus the perceptions of the market at a given time.
\_ Heh, while reading your reply I was going to say 'Detroit'
as an example where what I said isn't true. But, yes, I
agree with your expanded version of what I said. All those
things are closely linked.
\_ In most cities worldwide, housing in the city costs more
per square foot than in the suburbs. This is even true
in most large American cities, which were designed for
easy automobile access. There are exceptions of course,
but even in Detroit there are some very nice neighborhoods,
like Palmer Woods. I don't think that "the suburbs" was
ever considered more desirable than the city center in
Paris, London, Tokyo or Cairo.
\_ Really? Where did the royal family of France live?
Every city might have some affluent areas, but in
more than you might think the suburbs are
considered more desirable. It's only recently that
people have moved back to downtowns after years and
years of flight to the suburbs. "Price per square
foot" isn't a good metric to consider to evaluate
desirability even though it might seem so on the
surface. I think overall price needs to be considered.
What fraction of people with $20M to spend on a place
choose to buy in Manhattan versus The Hamptons, for
instance. The suburbs of many cities are quite affluent,
reaching or exceeding the prices for the best real
estate in the city. Consider San Diego. Downtown San
Diego does have a lot of expensive real estate, but the
most desirable properties are in La Jolla, Rancho
Santa Fe, and other suburbs. This is echoed more
often than not across the nation from Miami to even
SF, where the truly rich often opt to live in places
like Atherton and Ross instead of the city proper
(Pacific Heights notwithstanding).
\_ Short answer: I'd bet that anyone with a
business/job in NYC and $20M has a place there and
likely also a place in the Hamptons or some other
distant non-business location. Cities and suburbs
both have good and bad areas. In a city, there is
simply physically less space available so all prices
are likely to be higher than in the suburbs, all
else being equal. I'm quite happily living in my
very suburban town in part because I know there is
no way I could buy a similar place in SF or anywhere
else closer to work for anything close to what I
paid for my house. $/sqft counts.
\_ $/sqft is not enough information on its own.
People don't usually buy or rent residential
property on $/sqft terms, although for
commercial real estate it is common. Imagine
if it wasn't a case where you "couldn't
afford a similar place" but rather "a similar
place doesn't exist". You need to account for
variables other than cost and square footage.
\_ A similar place to my suburban home does not
exist in SF in that sense, true. But to get
the same size yard, two car garage, space on
all sides of the structure, etc, would cost me
$1.5m to $2m or so when I last checked a few
years ago. If I had that much money for
housing I'd leave the state. And yes it
pretty much comes down to $/sqft. That is the
easiest way to measure the price of a home
compared to other homes. That is *the* major
factor for comping a house in an area. You
don't comp against a different sized home.
\_ Your last sentence is exactly why
$/sqft doesn't matter so much. You
don't comp against a different sized
home. Within a class of housing it
makes sense to compare in $/sqft, but
not otherwise. I would argue that you
cannot comp a house in SF to one in
Mill Valley based on $/sqft.
\_ Why do you claim that? Do you really
think there are no houses the same
size as the houses in Mill Valley?
If you really believe that, you don't
really know much about the SF
really know anything about the SF
housing stock. Comp Forest Hill or
St. Francis Wood vs. Mill Valley.
\_ No, it's because other factors
come into play. No appraiser
would choose SF houses as comps
for Mill Valley houses even if
they were the same size.
they were the same size. In fact,
he might not compare two houses
in Mill Valley by size alone. My
appraisal teacher gave an example
of a 6,000 sqft. house built by a
retired couple that only had two
bathrooms: a massive master bath
and a powder room downstairs. The
house appraised at much less per
sqft. than most other houses the
same size. This is an example why
pricing per sqft. does not make
sense for residential real
estate. For warehouse space, say,
it makes perfect sense.
\_ So warehouse space is worth the
same in Oakland as in Marin?
same in Oakland as in Marin, per
square foot?
\_ I'm sure it's fairly close,
except Oakland might cost
more if it's associated
with shipping but then
that's a feature.
\_ I would be astonished if that
were the case, since the land
is worth so much more in
Marin and rents are so much
higher there:
http://www.csua.org/u/kf7
Oakland data from NAI:
http://www.csua.org/u/kf8
Bulk warehouse rent - $5/sq ft
Industrial land price is
$300-750 k/acre
http://www.csua.org/u/kf9
SF data from NAI:
Bulk warehouse rent - $9/sq ft
Land price - $1.6-6M/acre
Marin data from NAI:
http://www.csua.org/u/kfa
Warehouse rent - $14/sq ft
Land - 800k-$1.3M
\_ What is there about your suburban home
that makes it so unique that there are
no homes in SF similar? I bet that you
are wrong. There are plenty of neighborhoods
with big yards, quiet streets, clean, lots
of parking, etc.
are wrong. There are plenty of homes with
big yards, quiet streets, lots of parking
etc.
\_ Not at any price I would pay and the
schools still suck and crime in the
city is still higher, etc. With enough
money I can get almost anything, but
why would I want to spend that much
money to get something that is actively
worse in important ways?
\_ Maybe I need RV or boat parking,
equestrian trails, or who knows
what I find value in. Maybe being
around smelly hippies all the time
annoys me or I just don't like fog.
\_ You can't pick and choose specific wealthy suburban
enclaves and compare them to the neighboring city.
If you want to compare suburban San Diego to
San Diego proper, include National City and
Spring Valley in your calcualtions. San Diego
Spring Valley in your calculations. San Diego
is kind of a tough one anyway, since La Jolla
and Rancho Santa Fe are part of the city proper.
There are always going to be some wealthier and
some poorer areas in both cities and suburbs, but
overall the cities are going to tend to be
more desireable and therefore more expensive.
more desirable and therefore more expensive.
Didn't we already have the billionaire discussion
a few months back? Far more billionaires call
San Francisco home than the outlying suburbs, though
Atherton wins on a per capita basis. Consider that
there are 5X as many people living in the SF suburbs
than in SF proper though and you can see where
people with unlimited resources tend to congregate.
The per capita concentration in the Bay Area is
much higher in The City than in the suburbs overall,
though there are some very prestigious suburbs
that appeal to a minority of wealthy people.
There was no such thing as a "flight to the
suburbs" in most of the world. Do you really
think that Parisian suburbs were ever more
desireable than the city center? Tokyo? London?
desirable than the city center? Tokyo? London?
\_ To the royal family the Parisian suburbs were
more desirable, and they could live anywhere
they wanted. The Japanese royal family didn't
live in Tokyo either. You are correct about
London. You don't need to include National
City or Spring Valley. You just need to look
at the top end, because those are the people
with choices. Of course poorer people are
going to be in Riverside versus Los Angeles.
In that sense, proximity to a city does
influence value. However, my point is that in
most US cities it does get more and more
expensive, on average, as one gets closer to
the city but only to a point. Malibu is not
closer to the urban center than Hollywood.
Atherton is not closer to the urban center
than the Sunset District. You cannot just
assume that the main factor here is proximity
to an urban center. It's just *ONE* factor.
BTW, Rancho Santa Fe is not part of San Diego
proper. La Jolla is, but it's very clearly on
the outskirts of town. I would argue that the
most desirable property is that which is
convenient to a major urban center without
actually being in it, although this is
changing as more people are moving back to
the cities recently. I think with
telecommuting becoming more common the trend
will again reverse and people will leave the
city centers.
\_ Well, fundamentally, suburbs are boring.
They have had an image as either
a good place for raising a family, or perhaps
for people who want a quiet life, or want to
live closer to nature. Royalty and other famous
people or the ultra rich may have different
concerns.
I've known a lot of people in the south bay
area who commute here from SF. Which is crazy.
But they do because it's a city they like to
live in. There are a lot more things to do
and people around. I think this is the
historical normal thing.
Bad city management policies are probably to
blame for the reverse situation. e.g. crime,
cleanliness, pollution, transit options and
usability, parks that aren't full of
hoodlums/homeless, housing programs that
backfire, etc.
\_ There's a reason so many people who get
married and have kids move to the suburbs.
Quieter, safer, cleaner, better schools,
etc. If you're at that stage of life you're
not looking to party all weekend or come
back at 3am from a night of clubbing with
someone you didn't know an hour earlier.
\_ There are plenty of SF neighborhoods
that are clean, quiet, safe, have good
schools, etc. Just none that are in the
price range of your typical suburban
commuter.
commuter. And they are mostly full of
middle aged executives with children.
Maybe you would call them "suburbs
within a city" but they really aren't.
\_ Good schools? So SF has ended their
mandatory lottery system for schools
and my kids would go to the nearest
school like any real city? And what
would it cost me to send my kids across
town for a randomly chosen school?
\_ You can always send your kid to
private school, if you can afford it.
\_ We don't really have any fundamental
disagreement, though I think your
characterization of The Versailles as part of
the Paris suburbs circa 1700 is off the mark.
It was more like a rural village before the
King showed up. If you don't think proximity
to jobs is the primary determinant to land
(and therefore home) value, what do you think
*is* the main factor? -PP
\_ What you are missing is that both the
suburbs and city center are proximate
enough that other variables begin to
matter more. We aren't talking about LA
versus Banning for the most part. We are
talking about SF versus Lafayette, both
of which are proximate enough that the
proximity to jobs is not the prime factor
and instead "quality of life" issues
dominate. People in Marin, East Bay,
Palo Alto, Los Gatos, and so on are close
enough to high-paying jobs without having to
live in the city proper. In fact, many
of those jobs aren't even in the city proper.
I would argue that most people who choose to
live in SF do so because of lifestyle
concerns and not proximity to jobs. In
some ways SF is an affluent suburb of
Silicon Valley.
\_ As someone commuting from the suburbs to
the Valley, no, they're not that
proximate. I chose to have a nicer home
in exchange for 2 hours of driving every
day. It is not a trivial commute. If
pricing/quality/size was similar to where
I am I wouldn't be where I am, I'd be 5
minutes walk from work.
\_ Palo Alto and Los Gatos are probably as
close (in commute time) to as many high
paying jobs as most of The City, but I
don't think that is true for most of
East Bay or Marin. Your last sentence
is not true. Most SF residents work in
The City. Do you have any evidence that
more people commute from SF->SV than
visa versa? Traffic on the 101 would
indicate otherwise.
\_ I bet a lot of people who live in
Palo Alto work within a radius as
large as SF, too. So what? In
terms of population centers, SF is
really more of a suburb than a
real city.
\_ A suburb to what city? Now you
are just babbling. You might
be able to make the claim that
it is a small city or something
but to claim that it is a suburb
is just bizarre.
\_ San Jose
\_ I haven't been part of this
discussion, but anyone that
would assert that SF is a
suburb of San Jose is an
idiot. Ditto for someone who
would assert that the French
court located in Versaille
because they preferred to
live in a suburb of Paris.
Conceptually, suburbs didn't
exist until the automobile
was invented. -dans
\_ Why did they live in
Versailles instead of
in the city then if
not because they
preferred it? I also
do not think San Jose
was a suburb of SF
historically, but the
way the two cities are
trending SJ will eventually
dwarf SF. It's already
true that the SJ suburbs
have almost grown all
the way to SF and not
vice-versa (SF suburbs
growing to SJ). SF is
a small city and will
eventually be Long
Beach to SJ's LA.
\_ My point was that
Versaille is not a
suburb of Paris. As to
why the court set up
shop in Versaille, I'm
not really up on my
French history so I
can't say, and my hunch
is neither are you.
And, of course San Jose
will dwarf SF. San
Jose has room to
expand, and San
Francisco is
constrained to a
peninsula. Manhattan
is the wealthiest
burrough of New York
per capita (and
possibly overall), but
it's not going to grow
because it's an island.
I don't see Brooklyn or
Queens surpassing
Manhattan as the
cultural or monetary
epicenter of New York
city... ever. You're
going to have a hard
time making the
argument that San
Jose's urban sprawl is
somehow going to
elevate it to the
importance of LA. -dans
\_ When I realized I was
arguing with an idiot,
I stopped. I though of
the obvious example
of Brooklyn, but why
waste my time? -PP
\_ Not only is
Brooklyn part of
NYC proper, but
it's clearly adjoined
to Manhattan. You
should have used New
Jersey as an example.
However, San Jose is
not in a similar
situation. It and
its suburbs are
cities in their own
right. In many ways
the South Bay is more
relevant than SF
is and if that trend
continues SF will be
a wealthy enclave.
It is important to
note that the growth
in the Bay Area is
not radiating away
from SF. Instead, the
growth is radiating
from SJ. You might
have a point about
the limited land area
if areas close to SF,
but not in SF, were
growing. However,
that's not really the
case. Many of the
communities adjacent
to SF are not seeing
dense growth as a
result of proximity
to SF. In fact, the
population of SF is
fairly stagnant.
Fairly recently it
was actually
declining. SF
has enough land
to be twice its
population easily,
but it is fading
into irrelevancy.
I grant you that
it is far from
there yet, but
that is the trend.
BTW, Versailles
is 10.6 miles
from the center
of Paris. It's
clearly a suburb.
In fact, Wikipedia
says "Versailles...
is now a wealthy
suburb of Paris."
I only bring this up
to illustrate that
the allure of
suburban living is
not directly tied to
affordability. Lots
of people can afford
an equivalent place
(in terms of size)
in the city and still
choose not to live
there for other
reasons. It is
not always true
that a city is
more desirable (on
average) or more
expensive than its
suburbs. For decades
after the
construction of
highways downtown
was a place to avoid,
not a place to aspire
to live.
\_ 10.6 miles today
constitutes a
suburb, but before
the automobile
it was full-on
rural.
\_ Actually 21km
which is 13 mi,
but who's
counting?
\_ You're clearly an
idiot who's never
spent any serious
time in New York.
-dans
\_ I was born and
raised there
and trying to
say that one of
the five parts
of NYC isn't a
part of NYC is
just dumb.
_______/
\_ Amazing. Not only
does your reading
comprehension suck,
but you're a liar
too! AWESOME! -dans |
| 2007/12/3-6 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48738 Activity:nil |
12/3 2009 Toyota Prius Plug-in Hybrid Prototype: Tokyo Test Drive
http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/new_cars/4227944.html |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48615 Activity:low |
11/12 Anyone can read Japanese here? The mileage ratings for the Japanese
Prius range from 27.0km/L to 35.5km/L, which translate to 64mpg to
84mpg. The 2007 US EPA rating for city is only 48mpg. Is the Japanese
city driving condition really that different?
http://toyota.jp/prius/ecology
BTW, what's "10.15 mode" vs. "JC08 mode"? Thanks.
\_ Hybrid mileage is a hard thing to measure. EPA recently had to
totally change the hybrid rules to make the results more in line
with real world usage. Before that the Prius was a lot higher.
\_ Just a guess: Japanese pollution emmissions are less stringent
and that leads to an increase in fuel economy.
\_ Before that the results for non-hybrids cars were a lot higher
too.
\_ Just a guess: Japanese pollution emissions are less stringent
and that leads to an increase in fuel economy. For example, I
believe the Subaru WRX was not available in the US for a long
time because of pollution emissions.
\_ I follow changes to the Corolla engines (not so much with the
Prius), and I know that Toyota moved to using direct injection
in their Japanese engines in 2003, which results in better gas
mileage. They can't do this in the US because gasoline in the
US contains far too much sulfur. US gasoline content was slated
\_ What are you talking about? My Lexus uses direct
injection and so do a lot of other Toyota cars.
\_ That was the reason cited *by Toyota* for not using
direct injection *in that engine* *at that time*.
Running gasoline with high sulfur content in a lean burn
direct injection engine leads to sulfur fouling of the
catalytic converter. You could get around this with a
catalytic converter with a much more expensive catalyst
or by changing the fuel/air mix. However, the point
holds: this is a concrete example of an engine technology
with better mileage in Japan than in the US because of
more stringent Japanese environmental regulation.
to reduce the sulfur content in 2006 (from 300ppm to 30ppm),
but this was postponed indefinitely under pressure from the oil
companies. I'd be surprised if that development wasn't in the
Prius engine by now. So yes, environmental restrictions are
part of the difference in gas mileage between US and Japanese
Toyota engines, but it's (at least in part) because of *more*
stringent environmental requirements in Japan. Incidentally,
in addition to improving gas mileage, the switch to direct
injection also increased horsepower and torque in the 2003
Corolla.
\_ Cool info. What about Honda Accord engines? Why did they
change the engine in 2006/7? It sounds very differently
during startup, and revving.
\_ I wish American car companies put this much engineering effort
into their products, instead of figuring out how to sell the
average consumer fucking 100 pound chromed cow ramming barriers
on the front of their SUVs. Seriously, who needs that shit?
\_ Cool info. What about Honda Accord engines? Why did they
change the engine in 2006/7? It sounds very differently
during startup, and revving.
\_ Men who haven't had good sex in over 10 years and need to
overcompensate because otherwise they would have to admit
that at half of the reason for that is them. Just ask
MR Women-don't-like-sex guy.
\_ Yes, and the other half of the reason is that women don't
like sex, which you seem to ignore completely. |
| 2007/11/12-16 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid, Transportation/Car/RoadHogs] UID:48610 Activity:nil |
11/12 The smart cars only get 33/40?
http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/2007-11-11-smartcar_N.htm
\_ My 82 Datsun 720 diesel pickup beats that. -scottyg
\_ My whimpy '87 Ford Escort Pony 4-seater used to get 38mpg
overall.
\_ Under the standard American test environment (fat 300 pound
man), yes.
\_ That's worse than the Prius which seats 5 (or 4 if you are the
standard American size.)
\_ Check out the "What about safety?" section. Can a car so tiny
really be that safe??? BTW how come our NHTSA doesn't conduct
crash tests at 50mph?
\_ Because a 50mph crash is going to kill you. Anyone who survives
a wreck at those speeds is very lucky someone got them to a good
hospital immediately and owes their lives to the first
responders.
\_ "...... Schembri's team hauled in one that was smashed in the
rear in a 50-mph test. There was no intrusion into the
passenger compartment."
\_ Generally, the larger a vehicle is, the more dangerous it is.
\_ huh? The heavier it is, the safer it is to the occupants.
It's not safer for the others on the road....
\_ The larger the vehicle, the more dangerous for others
and the more likely to get into an accident in the first
place since handling will be worse. But once in an
accident, the heavier vehicle general is safer. Of
course SUVs have more lax safety standards, so ...
\_ The Smart Car weighs 2400 pounds, which isn't really all
that light. The Yaris weighs less and the Fit and Mini
about the same.
\_ Smart cars are not bought for gas mileage but for the ability to
park anywhere easily I think.
\_ No, smart cars are imported for the tiny little Asian people
who live in American cities (e.g. San Francisco). These are
the same tiny little Asians who like to buy tiny little Hello
Kitty toys and have tiny little yuppie Yorkshire Terriers.
\_ Uhh dude, EUROPEAN. |
| 2007/11/1-5 [Transportation/Car, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48516 Activity:moderate |
11/1 http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/10/31/BAUIT3FBN.DTL&tsp=1 "Each car costs about $15,000 to convert. The program is being funded by the California Energy Commission and the state Air Resources Board." God damn idiots. \_ Dude it's a test. Those things cost more. Moving to all electrical power means you have centralized power production. Which means less waste, less emissions and less spillage. (If you fill up a tank of gas and spill a few drops that's as much pollution as burning the whole thing given our good smog regulations.) In the scheme of things 10 cars at 15k each is nothing. Start caring about stuff that matters. \_ laugh.. batteries are the dirtiest things on the planet it also takes a lot of energy to make batteries, to make eletricity, tons of nasty chemicals to make computer chips to control these things. \_ Can you point me to research on the effects of batteries and chips in aggregate vs. the effects of fossil fuels in aggregate? It's a nice bit of devil's advocacy there, but where's the beef? -dans \_ Chips? Or Crisps? Or French Fries? \_ Freedom Fries \_ That's a huge cost. There are much more cost-effective ways to reduce emissions. There's no reason to test this, it's nothing new: it's just using really expensive batteries. Total waste. It's 100 cars, not 10. How about just simply buying modern, cost-effective, efficient small cars with conventional diesel technology? Offer people high trade-in deals for their old polluting cars. \_ No, it's not a huge cost. Seriously. The tests are expensive. The batteries are expensive. Tech goes down in price. And read the article. 10 cars. 100 families. 8 weeks each. \_ Ok fine, I didn't see that. Still an utter waste of effort if you ask me. What will we learn from this program? Why should CA funds be used for this rather than say Toyota's? \_ Because it is in California's long range interest. As I said, the money involved is pretty damn minor. Start actually looking at what is spent where and start caring about things that actually matter. Let me give you a hint. In general state funded grants are a benefit to society. \_ Really? Where do I sign up for my grant? I would like to benefit society. \_ You welcome to write all the grant applications you want. However you'd better have a good explanation of what the money will be spent on, as grant fraud is frowned upon. Oh wait, you are just talking out of your ass aren't you? \_ Gee being frowned upon would be horrible. Anyway, I'd like to hereby frown upon this hybrid grant. \_ I frown upon your frowning upon their frowning upon the general frowning upon. \_ Grant proposal to give me lots of cash to provide benefits to society: You (the gvt) give me (the recipient) lots of other people's money you don't care about (tax payers) to live a life of luxury and slack. Goal: one less grumpy tax payer. Improvement to society is lessening of grumpiness among citizens. Why do you think my grant proposal requires me to commite fraud? You're so cynical. commit fraud? You're so cynical. \_ for that same extra $15k you could buy a small electric NEV like say Xebra to use instead of the prius for 'short trips'. And then still have the prius. \_ Yes, if the tech never gets cheaper than $15k it will never be a real solution. However the tech WILL get cheaper than $15k. \_ or 100 cheap bikes! And none of them would use any gas or electricity at all. RIDE BIKE!!! \_ You're an anti-environmental terrorist! If you truly cared about the environment you wouldn't ride a bike. You'd walk. Do you have any idea how much energy went into designing, marketing, producing, and shipping your bike? Then there will be repairs and the entire industry behind the spare parts mill. And then you'll eventually get a new one and the cycle of death continues! If you loved this planet you would walk. \_ Are you walking bare-foot, or are you walking with shoes and socks that also required energy for designing, marketing, producing, and shipping? \_ Duh, no of course not. That's why your feet will get tougher over a short period of time. Before the modern era you think cavemen wore Nike's? Sheesh, get over your big bad modern environmentally destructive self. Ride Bike! if you want to rape the Earth. USE FEET! if you're at one with the planet's life energies. \_ everyone already has shoes and clothing so it's an overlap \_ The more you walk, the faster the shoes wear out. -- PP \_ ditto with bikes but less parts to repair \_ But which one costs less per mile? \_ probably the bike, if you're trying to optimize for cost/resource saving. A cheesy racing bike is expensive to maintain, but a good touring bike is quite cheap. -tom \_ earth hater. \_ The more you live, the faster you will die. \_ the more you drive, the less intelligent you are. - Miller, the Repo Man. \_ http://www.edrivesystems.com has been building the same thing. \_ yes, but in Los Angeles. \_ yes, but ONLY in Los Angeles. |
| 2007/10/27-29 [Transportation/Car/RoadHogs, Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48461 Activity:low |
10/26 Looks like the suburvan lifestyle is about get a lot more expensive:
http://www.csua.org/u/juh
"Such pricing strategies could make a car five times more expensive
to operate, Heminger said."
\_ Well what do ya expect from a jew controlled liberal outlet.
As for "... a new poll shows that many Bay Area residents are
ready to take those steps [to live in smaller houses, higher
gas taxes/tolls]." Sorry buba, but the general rule of thumb
is that the more people save in N Cal, the more people will
waste in S Cal. In another word, for every unit of Prius driven
in N Cal, there will be a near linearly proportional number of
Hummers that'll be driven in S Cal.
\_ I don't know about road tolls, but higher gas taxes is good because
it directly correlates to the amount of CO2 a car produces. I live
in Fremont.
in Fremont and work in San Mateo. |
| 2007/10/10-14 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48285 Activity:high |
10/10 Is it just my imagination or it seems like the new Civic is bigger
than my 1987 Accord?
\_ I don't know, but my impression is that car models generally get
bigger and bigger over time. The 2008 Accord is classified as
full-sized sedan.
\_ Yeah, I've noticed that too. I have a theory.
1. People buy car for price and fuel effeciency.
2. People like car, but give feed back they "wish it was larger"
3. Company makes car larger.
4. Repeat until car is discontinued because it no longer has 1.
\_ Oh, and the only exception I know of is the discontinued
Celica, where the last model year one seemed smaller than the
1980 one which my dad has when I was a kid. -- PP
\_ Yeah, each model gets bigger and bigger but they introduce
new tiny cars to fill the gap (like the Fit).
\_ 5. American people get fatter and fatter but want the
same car.
\_ Honda's fucked. Civic Hybrid sucks. The new Accord's butt ugly.
What else? Lame management and PM; the souped up Accord Hybrid
is one of the many major fuck ups. What the hell were they
thinking when they created the Accord Hybrid monster?
http://cars.ign.com/articles/731/731869p1.html
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/03/no-hybrid-for-the-new-2008-honda-accord-diesel-in-2009
\_ Diesels kick ass, now that we have better fuel standards I hope we see diesel
everything.
\_ I hope we see diesel hybrid.
\_ I think the batteries and expense are not really worth it.
There's more to the picture than just max mpg.
\_ Diesel and electric engines are about as complementary
as you can imagine two technologies to be. Diesels
are best at providing steady power at its optimal rpm
forever, electrics are good at variable loads, but lack
range. Most heavy industrial equipment, along with
ships and locomotives uses some sort of diesel/electric
hybrid system. The only thing stopping its adoption in
cars is cost. Diesel/electric hybrid cars are already
being developed in Europe; Toyota is likely to develop
one as well now that they have access to Isuzu engines.
Diesels by themselves are very efficient, the only thing
preventing their wide adoption in the States is
brain-dead legislation. Clean diesels compliant with
US emission standards will likely lose 15-20%
efficiency. My opinion of hybrid technology has
improved considerably after doing some reading on the
subject. -- ilyas
\_ The best technology is a society that does not
waste resources (e.g. stop living in the suburbs)
\_ I have a better idea! How about I live where
I want, and you go fuck yourself!
\_ I have an even better idea! How about I
kill all the selfish assholes who are
destroying our planet.
\_ Out of all the problems which beset this
vale of tears we call Earth you want to
hunt down suburb-dwellers? You are fucking
retarded.
\_ At least we're not so retarded as to
buy a fucking lame Accord Hybrid.
Retard. !op
\_ Yes, a Hummer would be so much
better. Why trash anyone who is
willing to support hybrid
technology?
\_ Hybrid Humvee:
http://www.csua.org/u/jpb
350hp. 0-50mph in 7sec. 18mpg.
Climbs 60% grade at 17mph and
fords 5ft of water.
\_ You are under the mistaken
impression the only point of
hybrids is reducing
emissions and increasing
efficiency. You are wrong.
You are also stupid.
\_ What are the other reasons?
\_ Maybe you should read this
thread. Just a thought.
\_ Huh? Where did you get that
impression? The stealth mode
in the Hybrid Humvee above is
already one reason outside
the two you listed. Another
one is that hybrid can
submerge under water
completely (not too deep, of
course, or else it floats)
w/o a snorkeling kit which
gives away its position. --PP
\_ If so, great. I'm just skeptical of hybrids. I feel
the tax breaks and HOV-lane access were bullshit.
\_ Well, using tax breaks and HOV-lanes for
efficient vehicles is bad enough, but what was
even worse was how, say, a Jetta TDI didn't
qualify for either while essentially matching
a Prius in terms of efficiency (and not having
the complicated manufacture). Hamfisted government
efforts aside, I think hybrids are fundamentally
a good idea, for three reasons. Firstly, hybrids
decouple the generation of power from consumption
of power. This is fundamentally sound
engineering, which is why heavy industry is using
hybrid systems already without any environmental
considerations whatsoever. Secondly, hybrids
replace multiple mechanical systems with
electronics, which, while more complicated than
mechanical systems, are also more reliable.
Priuses are bulletproof, despite being perhaps
the most complex mass produced passenger car
in history. Finally there's the touted
incremental development path towards EV.
Personally, I think the only technology which
isn't ready is energy storage, and mass hybrids
encourage R&D in this area. -- ilyas
I have other reasons I'm sort of biased against
them and the practice of spending lots of money on
cars and treating cars as disposables to be kept only
a few years, but it's late and I'm not up to clearly
formulating these weird ideas.
\_ I think the jury is still out on how
bulletproof the Prius is.
\_ Um, the Prius has been out on the road
since 1997. -- ilyas
\_ And how long have most internal
combustion engines been out on the
road? 10 years is not really a long
time. I'd give it 10 more years at
least before making such a
declaration.
\_ 2009 Prius: http://www.csua.org/u/jo0 --!OP
\_ That's a picture of the concept car, not
of the prius. The third gen prius looks
almost the same as the second gen prius.
In fact, toyota wanted to use lithium
batteries in the third gen, but couldn't
get around the safety issues.
\_ Please scroll down to the text about
the 2009 Prius.
\_ Yeah but if it's so great, it shouldn't need
special government incentives. The batteries
are indeed the main issue: I don't hear so much
about the cost, environmental impact, and
longevity of the batteries. I have admittedly
not studied the issue. I always liked the
flywheel storage concept but I guess it isn't
practical yet, maybe someday.
\_ I hate batteries and like flywheels too.
Toyota does recycle/refurbish most batteries
(it makes economic sense: a lot of battery
components are expensive and can be reused,
and even nickel is getting expensive now).
\_ Government incentives kick-start the process.
At least, that is the theory.
\_ Why is decoupling the generation of power from
consumption of power good? I'd think there is
energy loss both when charging the batteries
with generated power, and when discharging the
batteries to do work. Are these two steps
actaully very efficient?
\_ Because some engines are good at operating
at variable loads, while others are good at
operating at constant loads. Any time
there's a conversion, there's loss, of
course. But the trade off is (apparently)
worth it, since you recover the losses by
leaving diesels in their optimal regime
all the time. Most heavy industry setups
don't even use batteries, but
capacitors (or in some cases even
flywheels). Decoupling is an old idea --
it's why we have powerplants. -- ilyas
\_ I think the main thing is combustion engines
(esp. diesel) can be made to work very
efficiently within certain narrow operating
parameters (RPM etc). So generating it this
way gets the most out of your dino juice.
Battery storage and discharge must be pretty
efficient compared to combustion losses.
(or what ilyas said).
\_ You forgot about the awesomness of the Fit.
\_ Yes, it is a lot bigger. The Accord used to be a small car. The
new Corolla is like a Camry, too.
\_ '87 accord was a 'compact'. Has grown to mid-size and now full-size
(US version). Civic went from "sub-compact" to "compact" around
2000. So yea, it probably is bigger. |
| 2007/10/10-12 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48284 Activity:kinda low |
10/10 the WSJ has a pretty horrible dot portrait on here
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119196377029953821.html?mod=todays_us_nonsub_page_one
\_ Maybe the subjects really are just that ugly.
\_ It's so they can subtley manipulate the picture in order to
\_ It's so they can subtly manipulate the picture in order to
sway opinions.
\_ Honda's fucked. Civic Hybrid sucks. The new Accord's butt ugly.
What else? Lame management and PM; the souped up Accord Hybrid
is one of the many major fuck ups. What the hell were they
thinking when they created the Accord Hybrid monster?
http://cars.ign.com/articles/731/731869p1.html
http://www.autobloggreen.com/2007/06/03/no-hybrid-for-the-new-2008-honda-accord-diesel-in-2009
\_ Diesels kick ass, now that we have better fuel standards I hope we see diesel
everything.
\_ That's subtle? |
| 2007/10/10-12 [Transportation/Car/Hybrid] UID:48281 Activity:nil |
10/10 "Press Release: Betty T. Yee Says Gasoline Use Down for Both the
Month of June and Second Quarter of 2007"
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/071009/20071009006477.html?.v=1
Cool! Whatever it was (carpooling, public transit, smaller cars,
hybrid, ...), it's probably working. I just hope that it's not
because people are leaving the state.
\_ It is because people are leaving the state. None of that
hokey works as long people keep popping out kids. Keep
smoking that bong if you think environmentalism works.
\_ Do you honestly think that the population of the state
of California is decreasing? Pass that bong this way,
brah! |
| 12/24 |