Fuel Resources

[gow589]

Fuel Resources

I have heard people complain about "Soccer Moms" burning the planets resources in "SUV's" yet these same people worship supercars, race cars, bikes, burning fuel without a productive cause. Many have been quite critical of these "Soccer Moms" in burning our children's resources. Where does one draw the line? Why is it ok for some one to burn fuel at a track then criticize some one half way across the world for having an interest in a car different than theirs?

Where do we draw the line? What is acceptable and what is not...And why. Is our interest in cars double sided?

[Matra et Alpine]

Fuel Resources
....
Where do we draw the line? What is acceptable and what is not...And why. Is our interest in cars double sided?

First, because much mroe fuel efficient cars exist to do the school run in.
SUVs are 95% about image and 5% actually need them.

I'll try to find the reference but years back ( it might well ahve been during the 70s fule crisis ) it was pointed out that ALL the fuel used in competition was a TINY fraction of the fuel used daily for transport. Very few people compete and rqace/rally their cars compared to the billions who commute around the world

It was somethgin like a whole F1 weekend foir ALL the vehicles involved used less fuel than ONE 747 flight.

Not quite the ame arugment as the soccer moms but it's worth getting the consumption into context

[drakkie]

are you also meaning the fuel wasted by using sportscars etctera??? these cars also use more fuel to perform more, but without having a real use... i agree that suv's should be banned as they try to do in some cities, for their SIZE. I dont agree that suv's which use more fuel should be banned while there are cars, like sportscars, that also use more to no real use... there are less sportscars hten suv's, yeah, but if you ban suv's for their fuel economy, you should also ban sportscars. im talking about sportscars and NOT race cars, ok ?

[gow589]

First, because much mroe fuel efficient cars exist to do the school run in.
SUVs are 95% about image and 5% actually need them.

I'll try to find the reference but years back ( it might well ahve been during the 70s fule crisis ) it was pointed out that ALL the fuel used in competition was a TINY fraction of the fuel used daily for transport. Very few people compete and rqace/rally their cars compared to the billions who commute around the world

It was somethgin like a whole F1 weekend foir ALL the vehicles involved used less fuel than ONE 747 flight.

Not quite the ame arugment as the soccer moms but it's worth getting the consumption into context

Ok, But,

First I disagree that SUV's are 95% image. In fact since wev'd discussed this I have been looking at them. Most SUV's are not large anymore, are not agressive, and are often not that atractive. The largest SUV's (if you call them that) would be Vans. Few people drive vans for image.

As far as how much fuel you burn at a road rally, wouldn't you wrather compare individual to individual. I mean if I race my car on a weekend and burn a couple tanks of gas, I personally have wasted more fuel than any soccor mom.

If you compare what a 747 burns to what a road rally burns whould you not also have to compare what soccor moms burn vs 747 and other industry.

My point is everyone waste resources in their own way. If you are burning fuel in a sports car over the weekend, some one else is doing their hobbie and wasteing other resources. (Damn I can't spell!).

Is the comparason fair?

[gow589]

are you also meaning the fuel wasted by using sportscars etctera??? these cars also use more fuel to perform more, but without having a real use...

Either, the question as a whole is what is acceptable.

[gow589]

I have asked the question but let me give you my opinion.
We don't need to restrict sport racing
Soccer moms are getting a bad and unfair rap
We do need to work toward the future but
the sky is not falling.

I also believe as we run out of fuel, we will transistion to new recources.
I also think we can work 2x as hard as we are now, create more problems then solutions and only save ourselves a few years at most.

I also believe theat there is more change in our regulations than it apears. If you look back over time, a lot has been made in 50 years. If you look back over one year, it seems nothing has happened.

[Matra et Alpine]

first alreayd pointed out the 747 isn't matchign the Q, so lets not get off on it. BUT worth remembering in the worlds view of fuel wastage.

Reaturning to SUVs. AWD is inefficient and doens't give ANY advatange on the school run.
MOST SUVs are MUCH heavier than a car needs to be. Check out things like Smart FourFour !!
More weight means more wasted fuel.

Sportscars versus ordinary cars is equally true.
BUT we get back to comparing VOLUME.
So 399 Enzos are fuel-wasters.
Compared to the millions of SUVs it's irrelevant !!

It's the NUMBERS that make the big differences.

On the sportscar argument, well their is a goal in having and driving a sportscar. It's about performance. So you are 'gaining' something desirable in terms of TRANSPORT> But for all those SUVs that are *IMAGE* then it's not really a trasnport thing is it, it's vanity. THAT was the point about soccer-moms !!

So there are 52 folks in the UK driving Alpien A610s.
We get 30mpg when we're drvign point to point and 15-20 mpg when we're playing on tracks.
Compared to the 4 million cars commuting each morning do our 52 cars doing 30 rather than 50mpg make a difference ? yes, but small.

In quality circles it is always taught that in solving any problem a technique called Pareto is employed. Basically it says fix the WORST offending problems first and THEN move on to the others. So our 52 A610s are in line for coming off the road and I accpet that, but we've millions of others before we address mine Now I'm lucky to also have access to a 45mpg family car which I use for most of the family and city commute.

Another point as a classic car enthusiast that is relevant especially as so much of our power is coming from gas and oil fired stations. It takes LOTS of energy to build a new car. MUCH more than all the pollutants and energy inefficiency of an older car. So keeping a car doing 40mpg instead of buying a new one doing 50mpg is actually BETTER for the environment. Just you won't find any government or manufacturer supporting or pushing that viewpoint as it loses revenue

[gow589]

I don't agree with you. 1 person "Aka soccer mom" can change what she does, drive a different car and gain 5mpg.

One other person can change what they do, not drive on the track at all (15mpg doesn't sound good when it was not necessary driving in the first place).

Both persons can change what they do and make an impact. Does it really matter who is in the bigger group?

[gow589]

AWD suv's are not the norm. In fact, over the last couple years the trend is for much smaller SUV's. This trend is comtinuing. Isn't this what is important? 2 Reasons for that. First, the government was slow to regulate SUV's. Second, a lot of poeopl sy they like SUV's for their size but what it really is is visibility. I have a small Jeep I would much rather drive than my wifes car. It is not ig but sits up higher. It is much easier to see whats going on sdown the road and everything in your environment. It's one of those things where after you have driven with a higher point of refference it's hard to sit low again. It's not about the car in front. It is easier and more comfortable viewing even when no other cars are around. The SUV does not need to be big.

[gow589]

Here is a related question. Our Emission laws are so restrict we are reequired to burn a richer mixture than we should. This is because they do not want the combustion to become hot enough to make I think nitroux oxide. This cost us about 2mpg.

Are the cars in europe burning the same mixture?

On a side note, with all the benifits of deisels, our emissions simply won't allow it. As desils get better emisions, and technology grows we will see more.

[Matt]

Large trucks and SUVs far outsell the smaller SUVs. High performance cars are not driven as everyday vehicles. There are also much quite a bit fewer of them. There's also safety issues in mind, not just environmental. Normal-sized vehicles fare much better against another normal-sized vehicle than they do against an SUV or a full-sized truck. Also, you maybe able to see fine around the car in front of you when driving your jeep. But, can the person behind you see around you?

[gow589]

Large trucks and SUVs far outsell the smaller SUVs. High performance cars are not driven as everyday vehicles.

Do you have a source for that? I look outside and I count several small cars before I see an SUV and the SUV's I see arn't that big (with ocasional exception). Any high production car such as a Vette are comonly used as everyday cars.

Also, you maybe able to see fine around the car in front of you when driving your jeep. But, can the person behind you see around you?

Actually yes, 3 jeeps in a row have better visablility that 3 Saturns in a row. It's not just about the car in front. It makes a big difference to the horizan as a whole.

[Matra et Alpine]

I don't agree with you. 1 person "Aka soccer mom" can change what she does, drive a different car and gain 5mpg.

One other person can change what they do, not drive on the track at all (15mpg doesn't sound good when it was not necessary driving in the first place).

Both persons can change what they do and make an impact. Does it really matter who is in the bigger group?

Yes, coz in terms of finite resource it is the maximum change that can be made that will make the difference.
So a few thousand trackdays or a few million soccer-moms.
One makes a bigger change than the other.

However, lets' remind ourselves that ANY change is worth TRYING to get in place to reduce consumption.

It's not about cars and trasnport. The REAL problemare the processes and materials that REQUIRE hydrocarbons and for which there are NO alternatives. Running out of some of those means MUCH bigger issues for mankind than a few transport problems

[Matra et Alpine]

It's not about the car in front. It is easier and more comfortable viewing even when no other cars are around. The SUV does not need to be big.

I have an Espace for towing horses, so I now exxactly what you mean about visibility.

BUT, that's a false premise, becuase if EVERYONE is in big cars the advantage is lost.

What is MOST important in safety for others and ourselves is learning to read risk in the road ahead an dadjusting our driving to suit. I'm on record as proposing that EVERYOEN should have to pass a motorbike test and ride a motorbike before being allowed in cars. it teaches a MUCH HEALTHIER respect for driving within the limits of your safety zone :0

[gow589]

Does anyone have any sources for how much fuel/oil the earth has left and at what rate we are burning it at. That info has to be published somewhere.