fuel economy in car commercials

"C. E. White" > writes:
>Matthew Russotto wrote:

>> >starter motor generator, with generative braking capability).
>> >VW/Audi also has a highly efficient direct shift gearbox, which
>> >is essentially a computer controlled manual transmission.

>> Which I'm sure they've patented out the wazoo. And which is
>> unlikely to improve economy all that much.

>Hmm..since my 15 yearr old tractor has a transmission that
>is essentially a conventional gearbox that is shifted
>hydraulically by a computer, I can't imagine that VW can
>patent the whole concept.

It's not just shifted hydraulically, it also operates two coaxial
wet clutches; one of which is always "engaged" when the car is
moving. The selection logic pre-selects the "next" gear based on
what the car's doing (it uses various dynamic sensors in addition to
engine and road speed) and the driver commands via pedals and gear
lever. So to change through the gears, the other clutch simply has
to be engaged.

Lots of integration of pre-existing ideas; which may be sufficiently
"novel" for the USPTO.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | I'm a .signature virus!
X against HTML mail | Copy me into your ~/.signature
/ \ and postings | to help me spread!

"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
> Since they're warranted for 8 years, I doubt this is a problem yet.

It's around 100,000 miles, whichever comes FIRST. If the car is over
that, they stop warranting them.

It's not surprising so many Priuses have hard mileage put on them. Alot
of people are buying them to drive in HOV lanes. Those kinds of commuters
are probably going to put on more miles.

"The Real Bev" > wrote in message
...
> You think anybody in power cares about those potholes? Yeah, right.
>
>

That's why higher fuel taxes should only be spent on two things:

1) better roads- road improvement. Add more roads, add different
intersection types, resurfacing, etc.

2) grants to local areas for public transportation projects

I don't see how either one of these are wastes of money. If anything it
will make the roads better to drive for everybody. Public transportation
will get the slugs off the road and better roads will make driving better
and faster.

In article >,
(Brent P) wrote:
>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>>>>Come on, a 1978 Chevy Caprice?
>>>
>>>The alternatives include not letting any of those vintage cars on the
>>>road, or having the government define "classic".
>>>Which is your preference?
>
>> No, the alternative is they must pass whatever emissions regs were in
>> effect in the year in which they were made, regardless of cost.
>
>So much for helping the poor people..... So I take it you oppose the
>exemption for China et al in the kyoto treaty as well?
>
>Then again a car that might not make it's emissions test may be better
>for the environment than replacing it with a new car. (and somewhere up
>the stream it's a new car that comes online even if the owner of the '78
>replaces it with a newer used car) Just consider the pollution and
>energy used in manufacturing a new car.

Not as much as you might think. The auto makers are big into recycling,
for example.

>
>Not to mention, a truely poor running car is a self correcting 'problem'.
It
>will expire in short order on it's own or be repaired without
>intervention from the state.
>

I doubt it. I see smoking, rusted-out hulks from the 1970s still chugging
down the road.

>
>
>
>
>

In article >,
The Real Bev > wrote:
>Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>> "Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>> >The bottom line is it will take higher fuel prices to motivate people
to
>> >change. You are starting to see that pressure with gas averaging over
2.12
>> >per gallon, but it will take higher prices to really push people. Only
by
>> >ending subsidies to the oil industry and forcing drivers pay the full
costs
>> >of using the roads will people make better choices. Of course, higher
gas
>> >taxes are politically hot water.
>
>If you give the government money, they will waste it. We can waste it
>better ourselves.
>
>> Exactly. But I'd rather pay a higher price and have some of it go to
build
>> roads, fund health care, etc., than go to Exxon and Saudi Arabia.
>
>Yeah, like that will happen. More likely we would see more fact-finding
>missions to Aruba for congress and its staff in order to research
>traffic-calming methods, or dam-building projects in the Utah desert or
>subsidies to the National Egg Council for studies leading to improving
>egg production by hormone injections to roosters.

Better than lining the pockets of Enron executives.

>
>You think anybody in power cares about those potholes? Yeah, right.
>

In article ich.edu>,
"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote:
>On Wed, 23 Mar 2005, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
>> for some reason, politicians won't pass laws to get the worst offenders
>> off the roads. In Atlanta, for example, autos older than 24 years are
>> exempt from inspections. And if your car fails, all you have to do is
>> show you spent around $700 trying to fix it and you'll get your sticker.
>
>Non-sequitur and untrue.
>
>Reams and reams of data collected by Federal and individual-state EPAs
>show that the worst polluters are in the 4-to-14-year-old age group, so
>that's where I/M programs focus. No matter how many times you parrot it,
>Lloyd, it simply is not the case that cars older than <fill in the blank>
>years are necessarily gross polluters, while cars newer than <fill in the
>blank> are necessarily clean.

No, but we don't know since the old cars are not required to be inspected.

>
>As a percentage of the on-road fleet, vanishingly few cars older than 25
>years remain in existence, and only a small fraction of those are driven
>on a daily basis. Most such cars are kept as collector vehicles and are
>fastidiously maintained.

Not in this part of Georgia, I assure you.

>
>I and others have been pointing you at EPA's data on this for *years* now
>in various Usenet forums. That you persist in plugging your ears and going
>"LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!" does not make you any more
>correct on the matter now than you were five years ago.
>
>DS
Perhaps that's because I see so many 70s Chevys spewing smoke as they gasp
their way down the road.

In article >,
"Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>> Since they're warranted for 8 years, I doubt this is a problem yet.
>
> It's around 100,000 miles, whichever comes FIRST. If the car is over
>that, they stop warranting them.
>
> It's not surprising so many Priuses have hard mileage put on them. Alot
>of people are buying them to drive in HOV lanes. Those kinds of commuters
>are probably going to put on more miles.
>
>
So cite instances of people needing new battery packs and having to pay for
them.

In article >,
aarcuda69062 > wrote:
>In article >,
> (Lloyd Parker) wrote:
>
>> >Reams and reams of data collected by Federal and individual-state EPAs
>> >show that the worst polluters are in the 4-to-14-year-old age group, so
>> >that's where I/M programs focus. No matter how many times you parrot
it,
>> >Lloyd, it simply is not the case that cars older than <fill in the
blank>
>> >years are necessarily gross polluters, while cars newer than <fill in
the
>> >blank> are necessarily clean.
>>
>> No, but we don't know since the old cars are not required to be
inspected.
>
>Wisconsin inspects vehicles back to model year 1968.
>The statistics for older vehicles is exactly as Daniel describes.
>
>
>> >As a percentage of the on-road fleet, vanishingly few cars older than
25
>> >years remain in existence, and only a small fraction of those are
driven
>> >on a daily basis. Most such cars are kept as collector vehicles and are
>> >fastidiously maintained.
>>
>> Not in this part of Georgia, I assure you.
>
>Does "this part of Georgia" have an air quality problem?

Yep.

>
>> >
>> >I and others have been pointing you at EPA's data on this for *years*
now
>> >in various Usenet forums. That you persist in plugging your ears and
going
>> >"LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA LA LA!" does not make you any more
>> >correct on the matter now than you were five years ago.
>> >
>> >DS
>> Perhaps that's because I see so many 70s Chevys spewing smoke as they
gasp
>> their way down the road.
>
>Then work to change the requirements for emissions tests.

The state legislature doesn't tend to listen to anybody but developers and
the Christian right.

In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> In article >,
> (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article >, Lloyd Parker wrote:
>>
>>>>>Come on, a 1978 Chevy Caprice?
>>>>
>>>>The alternatives include not letting any of those vintage cars on the
>>>>road, or having the government define "classic".
>>>>Which is your preference?
>>
>>> No, the alternative is they must pass whatever emissions regs were in
>>> effect in the year in which they were made, regardless of cost.
>>
>>So much for helping the poor people..... So I take it you oppose the
>>exemption for China et al in the kyoto treaty as well?
>>
>>Then again a car that might not make it's emissions test may be better
>>for the environment than replacing it with a new car. (and somewhere up
>>the stream it's a new car that comes online even if the owner of the '78
>>replaces it with a newer used car) Just consider the pollution and
>>energy used in manufacturing a new car.
>
> Not as much as you might think. The auto makers are big into recycling,
> for example.

Autos are very well recycled, but much of it doesn't end up back in cars.
There is energy consumed in that process too.


>>Not to mention, a truely poor running car is a self correcting 'problem'. It
>>will expire in short order on it's own or be repaired without
>>intervention from the state.

> I doubt it. I see smoking, rusted-out hulks from the 1970s still chugging
> down the road.

It's not the same car every day. If you actually knew anything about the
technical side, you'd know how running like that kills the engine.

In article >,
"Magnulus" > wrote:
>
>"Lloyd Parker" > wrote in message
...
>> So cite instances of people needing new battery packs and having to pay
>for
>> them.
>
> I've read about cases on car forums on the internet- at least 3.


And of course, everything you read on the internet is absolutely, 100%
true. And of course, people post things they're pleased with in correct
proportion to things they're unhappy with.

>
> You aren't going to find much talk of replacing battery packs because
few
>people own these cars, and fewer still have put that high mileage on their
>cars.
>
>
I thought you claimed just the opposite.