<Are Subsidies to Oil Companies Ever Justified? The Oil Drum Of Technology and the Future>
<DrumBeat: April 23, 2007 DrumBeat DrumBeat: April 25, 2007>

155 comments on DrumBeat: April 24, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version

Donal on April 24, 2007 - 10:51am Permalink | Subthread | Comments top

The Truth About EPA Mileage Estimates

For example, the 2007 Avalon has inertia weight of 3875 lbs. At 50 mph, with its 3.5-liter engine turning at 1555 rpm, the Avalon generates 91 pounds of drag. Bottom line: the Avalon achieves 39.6 mpg on the HWFET test– as compared to 31 mpg on the window sticker.

The 2007 Five Hundred has a 4000 lbs. inertia weight. At 50 mph, with its 3.0-liter engine turning at 1520 RPM, the soon-to-be Taurus generates 105 pounds of drag. Bottom line: 37 mpg on the HWFET test– as compared to 29 mpg on the EPA window sticker.

Theoretically, the Five Hundred achieves 35.3 mpg at 55 mph, 30.4 mpg at 65 mph, and 22.6 mpg at 85 mph. The Avalon gets 36.2 mpg at 55 mph, 32.1 mpg at 65 mph, and 24.8 mpg at 85 mph.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3549

IIHS and NHTSA Agree: SUV’s Safer Than Cars

So here we are, trying to convince American motorists to abandon their SUV’s for smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, to do their bit to reduce global warming and eliminate the need for messy military entanglements. And along comes a scientific study from a reputable independent organization that concludes that you’re safer in an SUV than a passenger car. Nuts.

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=3580

Saab's Come-On Includes Crashing Around the Arctic Circle

By Jason Harper

Smart car buyers have long taken advantage of European delivery, ... . Buy the car in the U.S. with a sizable chunk off the MSRP, take delivery in Europe, then drive it around on your vacation. Later it'll be sent stateside by sea (most often included in the price).

Swedish carmaker Saab has added an adrenaline option: For a nominal extra fee, buyers can take part in the Saab Ice Experience. This entails flying 200 kilometers (about 124 miles) north of the Arctic Circle and spending three days adventuring around the frosty play land; the highlight is driving 9-3 SportCombis on a frozen lake. On this portion, buyers will be driving not their new cars but ones owned by Saab, which is a good thing, as, er, carnage often ensues.

The driving portion is a mere half-day; other activities include a dogsled ride, a snowmobile trip on the Torne River and a fantastic helicopter flight into the mountains.

Maybe they should call this the Saab Arctic Melting Experience.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601093&sid=ayaM9P4vO2NQ&refer=home

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Unfortuantely, bigger is usually better, when it comes to crash safety. A lot peak oilers use that to justify buying Explorers and Expeditions.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
graywulffe on April 24, 2007 - 12:52pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

If you're worried about safety, I think the idea is that one should do everything they can to avoid getting into an accident. I suspect that driving a smaller, nimbler vehicle may have some gains in this area over a big, heavy SUV.

Also... What about SUV-SUV collisions? And I've seen more than one large SUV squished by an 18-wheeler. A Ford Excursion flattened vertically between a truck trailer and a concrete wall was an eye-opener. It seems that semis and busses don't enter into the mental safety equation for many people.

Car safety is a very complicated question. No easy answers.

-best,

Wolf

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 12:58pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Oh, I agree. People are not rational when it comes to safety. They worry about their cars being crushed by an SUV, or about pesticides on apples. Then they drive to McDonalds without wearing a seatbelt, while smoking a cigarette.

That said...if the issue is 18-wheelers, you're probably in even more danger in a Corolla or Prius than you are in an Expedition. It's the difference between the weights of the vehicle that counts.

Maybe there is an advantage to a "nimbler" vehicle, but face, it, any "green" car is not going to be nimble. Nimble = high power per weight, which is the opposite of efficient.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on April 24, 2007 - 1:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Having survived a double collision with an 18 wheeler at highway speeds in a VW Scirocco (wt. ~2,000 lbs), I disagree.

What saved me was the stiffness to weight ratio.

Trucker fell asleep @ the wheel and "merged" into my front door. The car bounced and he hit it again (rear) and then I went into a wild spin.

My injuries were from the seat belt (internal bleeding) and a concussion from the sudden acceleration (explains some of my current behavior :-) And some light scratches from flying glass.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 1:33pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Sounds like what saved you is that it was a sideswipe, not head-on collision.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
AlanfromBigEasy on April 24, 2007 - 1:43pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The second collision collapsed the rear bumper & hatchback.

The VW bounced both times rather than a major structural collapse. More weight, less stiffness = no bounce; just collapse.

I would have died in a Hummer.

Best Hopes,

Alan

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 1:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The second collision collapsed the rear bumper & hatchback.

And may have been designed that way. "Crumples zones" are part of passenger vehicle design.

That is one thing people don't consider about SUVs and minivans. Since they are considered light trucks, they are not required to meet the same safety standards that cars are. Also, roads are not designed for them. A high vehicle like an SUV or minivan will vault right over guardrail designed for cars.

However, both SUVs and roads have become a lot safer, simply because they are so popular. Guardrail has been redesigned with SUVs in mind, and SUVs and minivans are increasingly being held to car safety standards.

But if you're driving an older SUV, or on a road that hasn't been rehabbed recently, you are facing hazards car drivers are not.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
greenish on April 24, 2007 - 8:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Simpsons episode "Screaming Yellow Honkers"

Marge: Good Lord. How am I supposed to get in this beast?
[opens the door. A mechanized stepladder unfolds from
the doorsill] Hmm. Well, that's a nice feature. [gets
in]
Not much headroom, though. [the sunroof opens, allowing
her hair to spring out] Ooh! Well, I guess I can drive
it for a little while.
[the patter of little feet is heard, and then the kids
jump into the back seat]
Lisa: But mom, I read that sport-utility vehicles are more
likely to be in fatal accidents.
Bart: Fatal to the people in the other car. Let's roll.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 24, 2007 - 9:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

LOL!

It's twue, it's twue!

SUVs did have a higher rate of fatalities because they were prone to rollovers, with their high center of gravity. But once that became an issue, the manufacturers fixed it.

Fatal to the people in the other car is also true. Particularly "t-bone" collisions. The SUV is so high it comes in over the side-door reinforcement of a car. People get killed even when they are wearing their seatbelts in fairly mild collisions.

They are trying to fix that by changing the design of car doors, but of course, that doesn't do anything for all the older cars on the road.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on April 24, 2007 - 11:20pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

SUVs did have a higher rate of fatalities because they were prone to rollovers, with their high center of gravity. But once that became an issue, the manufacturers fixed it.

You can't fix physics ;) Active rollover control uses the braking system to attempt to reign in a vehicle that's out of control, but it ain't magic. The types of circumstance where SUVs tend to rollover are where they lose traction and then suddenly regain it while traveling sideways.

Also, Alan is correct above. Race cars are the perfect example of this in that you can have ~1200lb machines (indy, irl, F1) hitting walls at 180mph and the driver steps out with only minor injuries. Similar situation for nascar, ~3000lb machines, with wall and car on car action that would pancake and kill anyone in any 3000lb road car. The biggest problems with road cars are weak restraints and "cabin intrusion." Weak restraints allow you to flop around in the car and bash your head and body on stuff. "Cabin intrusion" is what everyone's always worried about - that is, hitting something, and the car smushing and coming into the passenger compartment. If people were really concerned about safety they'd wear helmets, it would cut deaths in half if not more.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on April 25, 2007 - 12:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

The way to fix it is to force the SUVs to have bumpers at the same height as everything else.  If this means they have to have disproportionately low bumpers and people don't like the look, so much the better.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
oregon7 on April 26, 2007 - 12:32am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

OK folks, what's this constant attack on SUVs? Surely the major problem preventing our investment in energy alternatives is the low price of oil, and surely SUV drivers are doing us all a favor by burning through the stuff faster, and thus bringing us to the point where it will be economical to invest in alternatives sooner.

Now, you want to say that we need all the time that we can get? But as long as the price is low, do you really believe that private investors or the governments will move toward alternatives?

So, while I bike to work every day, let's all praise the SUVs which are burning through the fuel, and thus through the illusions, that lie a the base of our current economy, and hastening the arrival of economic realities that will make more forward looking investments and policies possible.

Also, from a climate change perspective, we need high fuel prices sooner... not later, so again, let's all praise SUV owners, and in fact let's require all cars to be constructed with heavy armor plating for passenger protection of course... but more importantly to decrease gas mileage and hasten the end of the oil age.

You think I'm kidding?

I'm not sure. I might not be.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
ET on April 24, 2007 - 4:50pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Then they drive to McDonalds without wearing a seatbelt, while smoking a cigarette.

What the 'Homo-Americus' branch of the human race is evolving to?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
garyp on April 24, 2007 - 1:04pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Get a volvo then. They will beat large chunks of metal in the safety stakes.

Or just mandate that all trucks need an iron bar at the back, somewhere around head height for an SUV (but normal cars would go under). Active safety selection.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
graywulffe on April 24, 2007 - 1:45pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"Active safety selection."

LOL!

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
thomas deplume on April 24, 2007 - 2:49pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

A recent study by State Farm Insurance showed that children are 50% more likely to be injured in a SUV than in a smaller vehicle.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Substrate on April 24, 2007 - 10:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

There's also been a steep rise in children being smushed from backing SUVs, due to the poorer rearward visability.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on April 25, 2007 - 10:21am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

SUVs have lots of issues and I agree with the view that these are genuine problems. But a "steep rise in children being smushed from backing SUVs"? Cites please. I find that hard to believe. And no, I won't accept any "common sense" argument. As we all have seen, what someone thinks is "common sense" is often defied by the real statistical distribution of events so I'd want real data for this one.

And no, I do not drive an SUV.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 25, 2007 - 10:44am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

No, this is true. It's not just SUVs. It's also pickup trucks, which have become insanely popular in the U.S. over the past couple of decades.

People don't realize how bloody huge the blind spot is for some of these vehicles. They did a story on it on CNN, with a row of trucks and SUVs, and a traffic cone behind each one, representing how long the blind spot was. Some of them were just incredible.

Drivers unaware of rear blindspots accidentally backing over more small children, experts say

Some of the trucks and SUVs had blind spots that extended almost 50 feet (15m) from their rear bumpers. Most drivers have no clue that the blind spot is so large.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
GreyZone on April 25, 2007 - 10:57am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So where is the statistical data supporting the assertion? How many more children are dying than from cars?

I simply want to see the statistics but somehow I don't think you or anyone else have any real data here, just an assertion based on an observation.

P.S. You might be surprised at how poor rear visibility is in sedans with raised/larger than normal trunk space but I don't see people calling for action against those sedans.

Ghawar Is Dying
The greatest shortcoming of the human race is our inability to understand the exponential function. - Dr. Albert Bartlett

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Leanan on April 25, 2007 - 11:05am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

So where is the statistical data supporting the assertion? How many more children are dying than from cars?

Study: More Children Dying In Trucks' Blind Spots

Slow-moving front- and backover accidents happen more than 2,400 times a year, according to a Centers for Disease Control study, and most victims aren't more than 1 year old.

More than 60 percent of the accidents involved a larger vehicle, such as an SUV, van or truck, the study reported.

And so far as I know, the only "action" being called for with SUVs is technology to reduce the blind spot. Cameras, mirrors, obstacle detection systems, etc.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Yosemite Sam on April 25, 2007 - 2:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

One think to note is that the Prius sedan with its raised trunk has a wide-angle TV camera that comes on when the car is put into reverse. The driver watches it on the screen that normally tells you how many MPG you are getting.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
musashi on April 24, 2007 - 2:41pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

IMO people play the odds, no one really cares about the car as much as they care about the cost of personal injuries. If you consider the number of illegals and people in general that drive with no insurance or woefully underinsured it isn't hard to see why people will try to hang on to their tanks as long as possible.
I have no problem riding the bike, but I rather see my daughters in a large vehicle.

As the economy gets worse this condition gets worse and worse, things will have to collapse to quite some degree before they start getting better.

Or you can put a very stiff tax on fuel, this would fix the problem on several levels at the same time.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Engineer-Poet on April 25, 2007 - 12:08am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

This is one more reason to have a lot more internal immigration enforcement; just getting rid of all the drunk, uninsured, etc. illegal alien drivers would help fix the perception of SUV's as being necessary for safety.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
m005e on April 24, 2007 - 2:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Currently we see numerous news stories about the high foreclosure rate of subprime mortgages. A recent article titled "Is It Too Late to Get Out?" Housing Bubble Boondoggle by MIKE WHITNEY and published at counterpunch.com contained the following:

"the Federal Reserve and the five other federal agencies that regulate banks issued this statement just last week:

"Prudent workout arrangements that are consistent with safe and sound lending practices are generally in the long-term best interest of both the financial institution and the borrowerInstitutions will not face regulatory penalties if they pursue reasonable workout arrangements with borrowers."

Translation: "Rewrite the loans! Promise them anything! Just make sure they remain shackled to their houses!"

One of the points he makes in the article is that these foreclosures will have really bad consequences affecting most of the economy.

I began to wonder about the number of auto loans and what they are worth. What would happen if we experienced sudden gasoline shortages and the "news" came out that shortages and high prices will become part of the landscape for some time to come if not forever. What would I do if I was a youngster with a $500/month car payment? (Actually I have absolutely no knowledge of what auto's cost and what the monthly pay back would be, but 500 may be close.) What would I do if I had that monthly bill, no gasoline, AND my job is shaky because what won't be if gasoline is really expensive and not always reliably available? I might just say, "take it, it's yours" to the lender.
What would the lenders do with all those bright red BMW's and multi-featured SUV's? Would that be something sort of like the mortgage foreclosure (possibly much smaller though ) phenom?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Francois on April 24, 2007 - 2:57pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Giving it back to the lender is what I would do. Bad credit is going to be a non-issue once PO awareness sets in.

Francois.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
totoneila on April 24, 2007 - 3:03pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Unless you are forcibly drafted into the Halliburton work programs to workoff the debts. =(

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
tate423 on April 24, 2007 - 3:30pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Better....insurance fraud. My car got stolen and turned up burned to a crisp on the East Side. Damn...can I have my money now?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

155 comments on DrumBeat: April 24, 2007

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Show without comments | PDF version