Slashdot Mirror
White House Issues New Gas Mileage Standards
Hugh Pickens writes "NPR reports that the Obama administration has signed off on the nation's first rules on greenhouse gas emissions and set new fuel standards to meet a fleet-wide average of 35.5 mpg that will raise current standards by nearly 10 mpg by the 2016 model year. Although the new requirements would add an estimated $434 per vehicle in the 2012 model year and $926 per vehicle by 2016, drivers could save as much as $3,000 over the life of a vehicle through better gas mileage, according to a government statement. 'We will be helping American motorists save money at the pump, while putting less pollution in the air,' says Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. Dave McCurdy, leader of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, a trade group representing 11 automakers, says the industry supports a single national standard for future vehicles. 'Today, the federal government has laid out a course of action through 2016, and now we need to work on 2017 and beyond.' As the auto industry seeks to emerge from ashes, many manufacturers already are trying for the right mix of approaches, experts say. Some will try to sell more hybrids. Others are introducing not-so-gas-guzzling SUVs. They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta."
Won't this just make people buy new cars less often?
A lot of the total carbon emissions from a vehicles lifetime are incurred in construction (extensive high-energy metalworking)
Keeping a car a longer time might use more fuel but less manufacturing carbon emissions result.
Personally I worry that the result of this will be leaden, electronics/batteries-loaded vehicles that lurch and rumble along on their hard suspension due to the extra weight of systems to reduce emissions...
I live in hope of someone designing a mid-sized car with ultralightweight materials and putting a slow-running non-turbo diesel in it with high gear ratios and the maximum possible low-rev torque setup - economy and long life without complications. And while I'm dreaming, I'd like a pony
I have been a user for about 10 years. This ends Feb 2014. The site's been ruined. I'm off. Dice, FU
They may also push slightly downsized and small cars, such as the Ford Fiesta.
I've been to America several times and there are a few things that prevent this happening. First of all the Fiesta is far too small for your average American consumeer. These cars sell massively here in Ireland but they just won't work in America because you'll hear all of the horror stories about how they're not safe because they're small. Realistically the average weight and size of your average American citizen is a lot more too.
The problem is that I saw the VW Golf (you call it Rabbit now) all over the place in San Francisco, LA and Vegas. That sounds great except I only saw them in two sizes: 1.8l and 2.5l engines. You look at that same car in Europe and they sell better at the 1.4-1.8l range. What's the point in going to a smaller car if the engine is still big? I can only imagine if the Fiesta was to be pushed it'd have a 1.6l engine anyway.
Much in the same way that I think the Hybrid market was mostly lip service I think this isn't enough either. If you need a powerful car get one, if you don't then just get an economical one. Even with hybrids, it'd have made just as much sense for your averager American to switch to a 1.5l car to begin with because all of the cars out there are already overpowered or desperately inefficient - they're all automatic for a start! Just imagine the savings if every American switched down 30% in their engine size, more if your average Joe forget about his oversized petrol powered SUV and drove a modest saloon.
Let me put this another way; I look forward to electric or decent hybrid cars at a minimum. In the meantime I drive a SEAT Leon which is a badge-engineered VW Golf. I drive the 1.9TDI variant and on one 55l tank of diesel I drive 900-1050Km (550-650 miles roughly). I know that's diesel rather than petrol but the point is efficiency and it puts out the same horsepower as a 1.6l engine which would get you a good 450 miles plus per tank.
Forget the massive forced changes which will be rejected by the public - just start by reducing engine displacement and increasing efficiency. And hey, would it kill you to write the engine size on the back of your car like we do in Europe...awareness is half the battle!
I never get used to these constant resurrections
For survivability you don't want "sturdyness", you want the car to be crumply. The crumpling absorbs the crash energy so the occupants don't. Lighter cars also means lower crash energies. Lighter cars are less likely to crash in the first place owing to better handling and manuverablilty.
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
If you read through it, you'll notice they allow all-electric cars to count as zero-emission vehicles, when in actual practice, the emissions depend on where you get the energy from.
So, each manufacturer gets an allotment with a cap for any electric cars they churn out.
But someone in a state which makes electricity from coal - like Wisconsin - creates more emissions pollution using the same all-electric Chevy Volt car than someone in a state using hydroelectric, nuclear fission, solar, wind, and tidal like Washington State.
In Seattle, our utility is carbon-neutral - no emissions. In Madison it's carbon-heavy - coal.
Another thing to notice is that the mpg requirements vary based on the footprint of the vehicle.
So if you made a very thin batmobile you could get sucky mileage and be "better" than a car with twice the mpg that has a small footprint like a Smart Car.
Of course, none of this will prevent somebody installing an industrial electric turbine in their batmobile to go 0 to 60 in 0.9 seconds - cause all-electric dragsters outrace even the best gasoline or diesel vehicle. Unless you use jet fuel.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Fuel economy standards are actually a stupid way to reduce petroleum usage. A far more effective way to do this would be to put a hefty tax on gasoline, and then the market can decide what the optimum trade is for fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, tax is such an incredibly dirty word in politics that this is just flat out impossible; anybody trying to do such a thing would not merely be voted out of office, they'd very likely be lynched.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
Worse, my 2005 Toyota Corolla gets BETTER gas mileage than this.
Seriously, WTF? By the time this goes into effect, my ELEVEN YEAR OLD CAR will still beat the requirement for NEW cars!! I get 40mpg on the highway, and 35-36 or so around town.
We have the technology to do at least 5mpg more than this in 6 years. I wouldn't be surprised if we could do 10mpg more than this.
I wish we could actually enact a law with some value, instead of it being neutered by special interests. We have the technical expertise to do so much more. It's sad that we lack the political will to do so.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Until those who are driving around overweight behemoths are made to pay for their huge negative externalities. E.g. with mandatory sentences for manslaughter every time they bump into a smaller car and kill someone, increased taxes, etc. It's hardly fair that those who do the responsible thing are penalized.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
Ford makes class leading cars in the UK. Not just "average cars" - they make genuinely desirable, high quality, class-leading cars in several size/usage classes with some of the best handling and best engines available.
There is no reason for them to be selling shit in the US, which is essentially what they are doing with all but their trucks. They make some amazing vehicles, and do so profitably in Europe.
The engines they sell *right now* in the UK are way, way above what these CAFE proposals are mandating. They don;t even need to do any reseach so there;s no "bankrupting" going on - they just need to bolt those engines into the US models, or just tweak the UK models slightly so that US licence plates fit onto the back (ours are thinner but wider) and Bob's your uncle.
Maybe also tweak the screen slightly - I remember a story somewhere about the US safety requirement for airbags is to assume the occupant is not wearing a seatbelt, so the screen has to be more upright to account for this in some models. Just lobby to have that common sense thing changed and we're done.
The big automakers in the US like to hide behind that "oh woe is us, it will cost too much and we don;t have the time to do the R&D, and the margins are too low" wailing, but they are really just dragging their feet. Ford is *very* competitive in the European market, and has innovated and picked its game up to get itself there, in the commercial and the consumer market. Hell, the light commercial it sells is the word for van in the uk: Transit Van, and you can't turn left without seeing a Focus, Fiesta, Mondeo, Ka and occasionally the odd Galaxy (I'm afraid the French have pretty much sewn up the soccer mom van market - it's the only segment Ford doesn't have a class leader in).
With some minor tweaks here and there (nowhere ear enough to bankrupt them), Ford could sell its Euro models in the US and be right on top of those regulations. Even if they skipped out all of their diesels (which are outstanding) and only sold the petrol ones, the lowest mpg petrol Focus they sell is 35.3mpg - for the automatic one. The worst diesel automatic does 48.6mpg (best does 74mpg, but you need the manual gearbox).
>>I guess everyone should just buy a 2005 Toyota Corolla and be done with it all. Oh wait...
Didn't we try that last summer with the Cash for Clunkers program?
And, as an added benefit, it turns out that Toyotas go even faster than expected.
Overall, the U.S. transportation sector accounts for 33 percent of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions and highway fuel consumption for 20 percent.13 Other greenhouse gases from the transportation sector such as methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons contribute an estimated 23 million metric tons of carbon equivalent,14 which is equal to about 5 percent of transportation carbon dioxide emissions.15 The remaining two thirds of U.S. emissions are attributable mainly to the industry and to industrial and commercial buildings and the energyusing devices they contain; this includes emissions from the generation of electricity, nearly all of which goes to the industrial and buildings sectors. The numbers show that U.S. greenhousegas emissions cannot be sufficiently reduced by focusing on motor vehicles alone, but neither can they be sufficiently reduced without a significant effort in the transport sector.
I got them from Ford's UK site, so presumably UK gallons - divide by 1.2 for US values, which makes the worst petrol automatic Focus 29.4mpg.
FWIW Ford is becoming quite competitive once again in the US as well. The 2010 Fusion has won numerous awards and is favorably reviewed against its peers. Quality ratings are consistently rising and are now as good as or better than their Japanese competitors. The new line of "ecoboost" turbo engines, finally replacing the trash version of the Focus with the superb model available in Europe, the introduction of the new Fiesta - all of these things are conspiring to resurrect Ford's passenger car line and sales are rising to match.
Alan Mulaly has done great things for that company and I hope he continues.
Tell that to VW, who use the same engines in their US models - the Euro engines exceed the US emission requirements and have for some time.
The other safety differences tend to be about things like the screen issue I mentioned - a US requirement being to assume the passengers are not wearing a seatbelt, affecting the angle of the windscreen.
When 16 ships can emit as much pollution as every car on the planet
The story you're pointed to is about SULFUR.
Sulfur is is component of pollution, and talking about it in reference to gasoline makes about as much sense as talking about it in reference to urine. (Gasoline generally has very little sulfur in it).
Your statement about the 16 ships producing more "pollution" than all cars has to be about the most misleading statement I've ever seen modded up on slashdot.
AccountKiller
You've been taken by the oldest ploy in politics. They are telling you "these regulations aren't for you, but are for someone else". All government regulations are for you. The government is only capable of passing regulations on people and the burden of any government action will ultimately fall on your shoulders.
Think about it this way, will these new regulations affect your ability to buy the car of your choosing? Yes, it will because manufacturers will need to balance the number of low mileage vehicles they sell with the number of high mileage vehicles to maintain an average that meets the regulations. That means they will change their line-up and may charge higher prices to dissuade customers from buying the lower mileage vehicles. Ultimately, that means that low mileage vehicles will either not be offered, or will be offered at a price that some will not be able to afford.
Does this bother manufacturers? You bet, because the resulting line-up will be less appealing, and that means fewer sales. Should you be bothered as well? Most certainly absolutely yes! You may no longer be able to buy/afford a vehicle that meets your needs once these regulations take effect.
I agree strongly with the parent. Light weight carbon fiber cars can have extremely high crash safety if they are engineered intelligently. Indeed, my suspicion is that they can be more safe than steel cars. It is all a matter of engineering structures that will efficiently absorb shocks. I can imagine structures that would have carbon fiber parts that would come under tension in impact situations, and would fail in a cascading fashion throughout an impact event, thus absorbing and perhaps isolating the shock from a crash. I suspect that the crash behavior of carbon fiber cars could be "fine tuned" far more than steel structures. We can see the potential safety of carbon fiber structures carried out in Formula 1 race cars, that absorb crash impacts that are at least an order of magnitude more severe than anything a regular driver would ever experience.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
For survivability you don't want "sturdyness", you want the car to be crumply.
All that liberal science claptrap is just a bunch of nonsense. I always judge things with my gut, and my gut says that sturdy stuff don't break. Them liberals believe in hippy crap like "inertia" and that hippy Newton and his "Laws of motion". I believe in the strength of American Steel.
AccountKiller
No, we're in the shitter because our constitution grants a minority party veto power over the majority of people who want government to work and actually accomplish things. Raise taxes on the very wealthy, lower taxes for average people, reduce sales tax, give more funding to K-12 and higher education, improve the health care system's quality and availability, fix our crumbling infrastructure; these are all things that the majority of Californians want, but our nearsighted attempts at expanding democracy (ballot initiatives and requiring super majorities to accomplish basic tasks) have paralyzed our government.
The money is there, we could balance the budget tomorrow, but a handful of Republicans who hate the government, hate taxes, and hate the middle class are perpetuating the crisis while at the same time running on a platform that claims government doesn't work. So guess what they make sure happens when they get into office; they make sure government doesn't work, just like they say it doesn't.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
That doesn't change the fact that we remain a nation of wasteful asses, who prefer disposable trash over quality goods. As long as the net value of imports exceeds the net value of exports, we are doing it wrong.
I've just purchased two new T-shirts. I could have gone to Walmart, and paid something like ten bucks for them, imported from almost anywhere in the world. Instead, I bought Carhartt T-shirts, which cost me 30 bucks, or 15 dollars each.
From long experience, I know that those cheap T-shirts would wear out in a year, give or take a little bit. My Carhartt T's last between 6 and 8 years. Not only have I purchased better quality, but someone in America was paid for making those T's. Each person involved in the production of those T's paid some tax, and whatever they profited after taxes will almost certainly be spent in America, to better an American's life.
A couple shirts doesn't mean much, in the grand scheme of things - but if 350 million American made a similar decision each and every day, our economy would begin to turn around.
"Just Say NO" to disposable worthless trash. Shop around, and get value for your dollar. Sometimes, that might mean purchasing an imported product - but not all the time. Not even most of the time!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
I really hate the push for mandatory reduction in fuel consumption. One of the primary ways they do this is by reducing the drag coefficient, which means lowering the roof. I am 6'5" and I cannot find a car that fits me anymore. It used to be that trucks and SUVs had much more headroom, but even now when I try the newer models, the roof is so low I cannot sit up. Besides serious discomfort, it also adds severe safety hazards. Most people don't think about the roofline, but because they keep on lowing the roof, my vision gets cut off at the top of the window. The consequence is that I cannot see strait out, but I have to look down. When I come to a stoplight, I cannot see the lights unless I lean into the passenger seat. I once ran a red light and my wife screamed... I didn't even see there was a light because it was above my vision. I don't have a problem with reducing emissions, and, protecting our environment is important, but please don't push a 'one size fits all' car on me that was made for someone 8 inches shorter than I am!
The income gap is frightening, and it's getting worse. The most disturbing trend is that most of those people made their fortunes by simply manipulating money in creative and novel ways, finding new schemes and techniques to move funds around in different ways for a profit. They produce nothing of value, contribute nothing to society, and are actually actively working to make the world a worse place for the majority of the population. The perpetuate debt-slavery, kick people out of their homes, and ship jobs overseas all in the name of short term profits. The free market breaks down when there is no regulation because people cannot and will not consider long term stability and sustainability over short term pleasure and gains. It's a flaw of humanity, but it IS one that we can overcome--and we must to survive.
The majority of what happens on Wall Street should be illegal. It's not only unproductive, it's harmful, it's toxic, it kills and drives millions into poverty and wage-slavery to perpetuate a system that benefits 1% of the population at the expense of everyone else. When the 99% wake up and realize they are getting a raw deal, then we'll see real change but right now too many people are convinced of the lie that if they work hard enough and sacrifice more and more that some day they will be part of that 1%.
When they realize the American Dream they've been sold is a lie, that the top 1% have created a system that ensures they'll never get ahead, then we'll see real change.
And not soon enough will it come.
If you build it, nerds will come. Soylentnews.org
Frictional force exerted at the road is given by weight * coefficient of friction [u]. Since weight = mg that all boils down to mgu.
Lateral acceleration at a velocity v on a curve of radius r = v^2 / r. Since F = ma, The
lateral force = mv^2 / r.
As long as the first force is greater, the car is gripping. When it ceases to be, you skid. The limiting case is where mgu = mv^2 / r. The m cancels out, and you, sir, fail @ science.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."