<x-charset ISO-8859-1>--- In biofuel@yahoogroups.com, Keith Addison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> The big concern, according to Becker, is that the Bush administration > would regulate the fuel economy of light trucks by dividing them into > weight or size classes instead of using fleet-wide efficiency > targets. While the current CAFE program has two automotive classes -- > cars and light trucks -- the new proposal would create additional > truck weight classes, with different fuel-economy standards for each > classification. In a nutshell, said Becker, the system would produce > an incentive for companies to add weight to their cars to bump them > up into higher classes and qualify them for looser efficiency > restrictions. Interesting. Apparently the new standard is following the recommendations of the http://www.trb.org/ Transportation Research Board of the National Research Council. Please see the report _Effectiveness and Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) Standards (2002)_, chapter 6, page 113, finding #12. CAFE might be "improved significantly" by making it a system based on "vehicle attributes". The report suggests the different classes on weight even though it states that the old distinctions between car and truck have broken down. > Well, we saw how that went. Now, when bloated Suburbans and Yukons > are the favored modes of transport for groceries, it's abundantly > clear that car manufacturing has been going anywhere but in the > direction of the Pinto. Today a whopping 50 percent of vehicles sold > in the U.S. fit into the light-truck category, up from 20 percent > when CAFE was implemented. Personal opinion here - I'm wondering how many people will get one of these vehicles once the current fad wears off. They aren't as convenient to drive or park. I am waiting to see what the _next_ vehicle these people purchase will be. Think of the mini-van fad a few years ago. Yes, people still drive them but they don't seem to be the biggest happening any more. Secondly, it appears that the auto makers are getting better at putting the features people want into vehicles that aren't so big. The smaller SUVs, what looks like a station wagon with more ground clearance, seem to be on the rise. I'm guessing this is natural, given that the easiest way to roll out SUVs was to base them on existing truck platforms until next generation designs could reach the market. If you remember minivans in the early '80s, the same thing happened. It's hard to complain about the size of light trucks when they include huge vehicles like the PT Cruiser. 8^) > Since 1975, when the standards were first > implemented, automobile-related death rates have fallen by more than > 12 percent and Detroit's revenues have ballooned by more than 300 > percent. So much for the doomsday scenarios. Careful with the statistics. "Safety, as measured by fatalities per hundred million VMT [vehicle miles traveled], has steadily improved since 1930, and it is likely that this general trend will continue. In evaluating the safety consequences of fuel economy measures requiring vehicle modifications, this overall trend must be taken into consideration. Otherwise, safety improvements are likely to be erroneously attributed to changes that are unrelated or even detrimental to safety." National Research Council _Automotive Fuel Economy How Far Should We Go?_ 1992. Interesting read, I'm glad I bought the report in book form to read. If you go back to the first report I talked about, finding #2, page 111, "all but two members of the committee concluded that the downweighting and downsizing that occurred in the late 1970s and early 1980s, some of which was due to CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1300 to 2600 traffic fatalities in 1993." > revealed that an SUV's size and weight give it less precise and > responsive handling, longer braking times, and a higher risk of > rollover -- all serious safety disadvantages. Gladwell also argues > that drivers of large vehicles develop an attitude of invincibility > that leads to recklessness. Yep, people can be pretty dumb at times, and can become their own enemy if they aren't careful. Somewhere I have a reference (dang, wish I could find it at the moment) to this factor not appearing in vans in the same way it appears in other vehicle types (in accident statistics, I mean - vans will roll over easier than cars). The reference was the van drivers apparently are aware of what they are driving and change their behavior to match the vehicle. > > According to Clarence Ditlow, director of the Center for Auto Safety, > new reports consistently show "that heavier vehicles are far and away > more deadly -- these are rolling battering rams that cause more > carnage not only to the car's passengers but to those in the other > cars involved in the crash." In addition to the high risk of > rollover, says Ditlow, most trucks have a steel beam that runs from > bumper to bumper and makes the vehicles very rigid during a crash, > whereas cars have a "crumple zone" that absorbs force so the > occupants don't feel as much of the impact. Is this based on the '91 GAO study? The Insurance Institute for Highway Safety responded in a report that said the decrease in highway death rate since the 1970's would have been greater if the weight reductions had not occurred. We're back to the "agressiveness" of large cars again. The NRCs 1992 study went on to point out (pages 54 and 55) other faults of the GAO research. After discussing these faults (let me know if you want more of the data) the report notes that the safety inpact of downsizing need not be linked to CAFE standards if "sufficient time is allowd, AND IF MEASURES OTHER THAN DOWNSIZING ARE PURSUED. . ." Sorry about the all caps, I can't type the itallics the report used to stress this point. > This crumple zone was in fact one of the innovations developed by > auto manufacturers to make lighter cars safer after CAFE standards > were introduced -- along with air bags, anti-lock braking systems, > and better seatbelt designs. "The assumption that requiring car > companies to develop lighter, more efficient cars is a direct > public-health threat completely ignores Detroit's power to innovate > and an impressive record of technological creativity," said Ditlow. Back to personal opinion here - I had thought that this improvement was from the gov't mandated safety standards, not from trying to meet CAFE levels. Most data I see (again, don't have the source in front of me, sorry) gives safety equipment a weight penalty on the car, not a savings. Same with emissions control equipment. In the early '90s emissions added 25 lbs to a car and 35 lbs to a light truck. > In addition to perpetuating the safety myth, the Bush administration > has been misleading the American public with its argument that > stricter CAFE standards will lead to job loss and damage the economy. So far what I've read shows no support for the theory that CAFE standards will lead to job loss. > Some industry analysts warn that by refusing to jump on the > fuel-efficiency bandwagon, American automakers will perpetually be > six years behind their Japanese counterparts. U.S. automakers counter > that they're just following market cues. "We'd be happy to make more > efficient cars if consumers wanted to buy them. What incentivizes us > more than anything is the demands of the marketplace," said Eron > Shosteck, a spokesperson for the Alliance of Automobile > Manufacturers. "Our problem is that whether or not we produce > fuel-efficient models to meet CAFE standards, American consumers by > and large want bigger cars." Right or wrong, they still have to sell the cars. I can understand their point. If they made cars people wanted to drive (driven a mid-size GM vehicle lately? Ugh!) it might help! > Furthermore, consumer behavior in the United States has not > shown signs of changing in response to higher gas prices. Over the > last four years, gas prices in the U.S. have risen 50 percent -- and > gas consumption has also risen, from 7 million barrels a day to 8 > million. We've gotten into a lifestyle that, while you may not like it, is dependent on cars. Some may live in places where this is not the case, but I've lived in many places in the US so far in my life and I've never lived in a town where there was a really useful public transportation system. Mostly there was _no_ PTS, and where I live now I'm miles from any point of it. Public transport also seems troublesome when you work on an on-call basis, like I sometimes do, where my work day is not set by any schedule. This might work with public transport too, I've just never gotten a chance to try it. Right or wrong, and we can argue that later, the US's problems with public transportation aren't going to change overnight. > Ultimately, American consumers might be persuaded by incentives -- > strong federal tax breaks for clean vehicles, for instance, and > increasingly popular state-level laws that allow owners of hybrid > vehicles to drive in carpool lanes during peak commuting times. Yep, you have to make the vehicles an advantage. Penalties don't seem to work. > What Americans clearly don't want to do is sacrifice style for > substance -- and like it or not, the style of choice these days is > the SUV. Perhaps the silver-bullet argument that'll persuade American > consumers to buy fuel-efficient cars will come in the form of the > hybrid Ford Escape SUV, set to hit showrooms this summer. Or it could > be the forthcoming hybrid Toyota Highlander SUV, or the Lexus RX SUV, > which the company is pledging will have all the power of a V-8 model > with the fuel-efficiency of a Corolla sedan. These hybrids might just > change minds as they turn heads. Sure would be great to have some choices. I wish there was a vehicle that could seat four people 6' tall or taller, plus their luggage, have four- or all-wheel drive for bad weather, could be serviced at a dealer chain that was available everywhere, and cost less than $30K new. You can do that with a sport-ute, but not with a car that I could find. Go ahead, groan about the bad weather. 8^) Around here once you get ouside of town things get bad. I've seen the state DOT plow trucks refuse to plow the road to where we live (along with a few hundred other families) because even the plow couldn't travel the road safely. This year has been better so far, I've only had to run in 4Hi instead of 4Lo to get home from work. I do get a kick out of the "huge size of SUVs" argument. Yes, some are huge. Mostly, I see things like the Explorer on the road, not the bigger vehicles. Perhaps where I live is not like the rest of the US, I don't know for sure. Anyway, I got to see vehicles from a few eras parked together: '48 Ford sedan, '98 Ford Contour, and '02 Ford Explorer. That's an average family car, a smaller than average family car, and what's becoming an average family car. Overall size difference was less than 6" in length. I guess what I'm saying is that increasing efficiency is great for everyone, from reduced fuel use to increased power depending on how you look at it. Performance standards not linked to real world values are not. Hey, I'm open for resonable debate on what I've written. I try to reference real research where others can read the details to see how assumptions were made. Sorry for the few points where I didn't have the data handy. Please post references to the research you cite, so I can read it too. That's how I learn. I drive a vehicle that is rated for use with ethanol and gasoline. Running om gas is cheaper, gets better mileage, and has reduced service requirements on the vehicle. I don't have any diesel experience to compare, but I do hear good things about some of the biodiesel projects. As I'm new to the biofuel area, are there any gasoline alternatives that match the performance parameters of gasoline? Thanks, Ed ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon or Lexmark Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the US & Canada. http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511 http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://infoarchive.net/sgroup/biofuel/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/biofuel/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ </x-charset>
