Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
#1741
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
>
> Note that it was described as being of "old design, a relative of the Omega
> saloon which disappeared from the price lists earlier this year...coming to
> Britain [as] Vauxhall as a by-product of the decision to launch it in the
Nothing wrong with "old" as long as it's still competitive.
> An additional point is in connection with criticisms elsewhere of designs
> being 'pinched'. The big producers are global and would be foolish not to
> pick designs from all over the place. That said, I am not sure that the US
> companies 'pinch' enough from their overseas affiliates.
GM should pinch just about everything. They actually make some of the best,
most cost-effective products available in their market segments--elsewhere.
--Aardwolf.
#1742
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
> feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
> isn't everything.
Models equipped with the performance running gear have been compared pretty
favorably to BMWs several times, and are about half the price in their domestic
market. The chassis is a pretty good one; it was further reinforced and revised
over the original Opel design back when Holden acquired it, and has been further
upgraded over the years.
--Aardwolf.
#1743
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
> feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
> isn't everything.
Models equipped with the performance running gear have been compared pretty
favorably to BMWs several times, and are about half the price in their domestic
market. The chassis is a pretty good one; it was further reinforced and revised
over the original Opel design back when Holden acquired it, and has been further
upgraded over the years.
--Aardwolf.
#1744
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Dori Schmetterling wrote:
> But if the Monaro is an older design, won't the road-holding and general
> feel be not as good as a more modern design? Straight-line performance
> isn't everything.
Models equipped with the performance running gear have been compared pretty
favorably to BMWs several times, and are about half the price in their domestic
market. The chassis is a pretty good one; it was further reinforced and revised
over the original Opel design back when Holden acquired it, and has been further
upgraded over the years.
--Aardwolf.
#1745
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>
> > And more drilling ain't gonna be enough to help once India and China (at a
> > billion plus inhabitants a piece) become modern, G7-style industrial
> nations.
> > Which they're just about to do.
> >
>
> Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
Not just the SUV owners--pretty much the entire world's fossil-fuel powered
infrastructure. :-/
>
> Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
> What is
> ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
> it will
> eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
> combusion
> engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
> biomass
> production in the country to produce the fuel needed.
Besides it produces some pretty nasty byproducts itself, when burned.
> The choices are going
> to
> be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
> greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
> hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
> But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
> going
> to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
> city of
> any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
> contains
> 10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
> limits,
> where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
Well I'm a little more optimistic regarding the future of hydrogen, what with
the possibility of distributed generation, and the fact that its not persistent
in the environment, like natural gas is (hydrogen rises). The Hindenberg didn't
explode after all--just burned, even after the gas load went. Its problem was
that it was almost totally combustible--the main contibuting factor to the fire
was that it used a fabric dope that was made of powdered aluminum (to reflect
heat) and iron on a nitrocellulose base--i.e. the outer covering was basically
painted with a mixture of rocket fuel and guncotton! But I digress; Hindenberg
aside I've never yet heard of any large-scale hydrogen explosion. And it would
still need _some_ sort of electricity generating infrastructure for production,
anyway. If centralized it probably could not be made totally renewable at least
in the beginning.
--Aardwolf.
#1746
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>
> > And more drilling ain't gonna be enough to help once India and China (at a
> > billion plus inhabitants a piece) become modern, G7-style industrial
> nations.
> > Which they're just about to do.
> >
>
> Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
Not just the SUV owners--pretty much the entire world's fossil-fuel powered
infrastructure. :-/
>
> Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
> What is
> ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
> it will
> eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
> combusion
> engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
> biomass
> production in the country to produce the fuel needed.
Besides it produces some pretty nasty byproducts itself, when burned.
> The choices are going
> to
> be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
> greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
> hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
> But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
> going
> to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
> city of
> any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
> contains
> 10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
> limits,
> where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
Well I'm a little more optimistic regarding the future of hydrogen, what with
the possibility of distributed generation, and the fact that its not persistent
in the environment, like natural gas is (hydrogen rises). The Hindenberg didn't
explode after all--just burned, even after the gas load went. Its problem was
that it was almost totally combustible--the main contibuting factor to the fire
was that it used a fabric dope that was made of powdered aluminum (to reflect
heat) and iron on a nitrocellulose base--i.e. the outer covering was basically
painted with a mixture of rocket fuel and guncotton! But I digress; Hindenberg
aside I've never yet heard of any large-scale hydrogen explosion. And it would
still need _some_ sort of electricity generating infrastructure for production,
anyway. If centralized it probably could not be made totally renewable at least
in the beginning.
--Aardwolf.
#1747
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
> "Aardwolf" <se1aard1@itis.com> wrote in message
>
> > And more drilling ain't gonna be enough to help once India and China (at a
> > billion plus inhabitants a piece) become modern, G7-style industrial
> nations.
> > Which they're just about to do.
> >
>
> Shhh - don't give the SUV owners nightmares. :-)
Not just the SUV owners--pretty much the entire world's fossil-fuel powered
infrastructure. :-/
>
> Using oil as a motor vehicle fuel is totally unsupportable in the long run.
> What is
> ultimately going to happen is the price of gas will be driven so high that
> it will
> eclipse the cost of going electric, and that will be the end of the internal
> combusion
> engine in passenger cars. Alcohol is not an answer, there's not enough
> biomass
> production in the country to produce the fuel needed.
Besides it produces some pretty nasty byproducts itself, when burned.
> The choices are going
> to
> be electric generation plants powered by coal, or nuclear, both of which the
> greens hate, powering the majority of passenger cars, probably with a few
> hardy souls running off natural gas.
>
> But of course you can't tell the SUV owners this, they think that we are all
> going
> to be burning hydrogen in our cars. Just wait until they find out that no
> city of
> any appreciable population density is going to permit a gas station that
> contains
> 10,000 gallons of compressed hydrogen stored in tanks anywhere in the city
> limits,
> where an exploson will remove about 10 blocks from the tax rolls.
Well I'm a little more optimistic regarding the future of hydrogen, what with
the possibility of distributed generation, and the fact that its not persistent
in the environment, like natural gas is (hydrogen rises). The Hindenberg didn't
explode after all--just burned, even after the gas load went. Its problem was
that it was almost totally combustible--the main contibuting factor to the fire
was that it used a fabric dope that was made of powdered aluminum (to reflect
heat) and iron on a nitrocellulose base--i.e. the outer covering was basically
painted with a mixture of rocket fuel and guncotton! But I digress; Hindenberg
aside I've never yet heard of any large-scale hydrogen explosion. And it would
still need _some_ sort of electricity generating infrastructure for production,
anyway. If centralized it probably could not be made totally renewable at least
in the beginning.
--Aardwolf.
#1748
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OfBlb.346$ao4.2182@attbi_s51...
> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>, Joe wrote:
> > "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> > Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
> > said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> > them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
best...
> > He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
> >
> > Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> > terror:
>
> <snip>
>
> Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to
do.
> I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
>
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
>
> http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
>
> http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
>
> Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
> and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
> because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
> do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
> no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
> this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
> viable at the time.
>
> In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
> in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
>
> It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
> elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
> throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
> while we may still be able to.
>
Thanks, Brent. That was a breath of fresh air in a really stinky thread.
Jack
#1749
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OfBlb.346$ao4.2182@attbi_s51...
> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>, Joe wrote:
> > "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> > Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
> > said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> > them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
best...
> > He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
> >
> > Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> > terror:
>
> <snip>
>
> Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to
do.
> I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
>
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
>
> http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
>
> http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
>
> Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
> and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
> because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
> do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
> no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
> this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
> viable at the time.
>
> In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
> in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
>
> It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
> elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
> throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
> while we may still be able to.
>
Thanks, Brent. That was a breath of fresh air in a really stinky thread.
Jack
#1750
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Huge study about safety can be misinterpreted by SUV drivers
"Brent P" <tetraethyllead@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OfBlb.346$ao4.2182@attbi_s51...
> In article <bn6g40$u4osv$1@ID-207166.news.uni-berlin.de>, Joe wrote:
> > "Where are the WMD? Facts, please"
> > Ask Bill Clinton. He said they were there too. Or ask the UN who as a
body
> > said that he had them. Or better yet, ask Saddam who ADMITTED to having
> > them (OK, not a good source). The whole WMD "argument" is weak at
best...
> > He had them, you KNOW it. There is proof of it.
> >
> > Read what Bill Clinton had to say about the matter during his reign of
> > terror:
>
> <snip>
>
> Better yet, read what current office holding democrats urged Clinton to
do.
> I did some googling for the kind of things I remember:
>
> http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/924722/posts
>
> http://www.nci.org/c/c81199.htm
>
> http://www.habitablezone.com/current...es/296525.html
>
> Nothing is particularly shocking until reading who signed these letters
> and said these things. And really that's where my objections come in,
> because Bush took the kind of action that these people wanted Clinton to
> do. But they object to bush doing it. This shows that these people have
> no convictions, no views they are willing to stand up for (at least in
> this regard), they just do whatever they think is more politically
> viable at the time.
>
> In 1998 it was more viable to support that sort of action.
> in 2002-3 it was more viable to object to that sort of action.
>
> It really demonstrates a sad state of affairs with regard to the
> elected officals in this country and part of why we need to start
> throwing almost all of them (regardless of party IMO) out of office
> while we may still be able to.
>
Thanks, Brent. That was a breath of fresh air in a really stinky thread.
Jack