Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: 150 mpg

  1. #11
    BadlandsVikings's Avatar
    BadlandsVikings is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    26,564

    Re: 150 mpg

    Lets buy one of those instead of the submarine.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    224

    Re: 150 mpg

    "Prophet" wrote:
    Looks like a good car

  3. #13
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,278

    Re: 150 mpg

    "hx38596" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    It's interesting...

    0-60 in 16 seconds is a little extreme... and I would bet that it doesn't meet US safety standards with all that lightweight material.
    But it definately shows what can be done...
    It says that when it comes to America it will have a turbo option that will take it from 0-60 in 10 seconds ;D. I think it must be as safe as a motorcycle and those are legal so I don't know why this wouldn't be, and if it is those laws should be changed.

    I don't know if I would buy one but I imagine alot of people would.

    regular vehicle @ 30mpg over a 150,000miles = 5000 gallons @$3 a gallon(will go up before 150,000 miles)=$15,000.
    this thing @ 150mpg over 150,000miles = 1000 gallons @$3 a gallon = $3,000 total lifetime savings of $12,000. Not as much as I thought, but still significant.
    Definitely significant, but the effect will be even less pronounced in the US.
    The 0-60 in ten seconds model is a 3 cylinder, as compared to a 2-banger in the 150 mph model.
    I would assume that will bring the mph down below 100.
    Plus safety considerations for motorcycles are different that those of cars, particularly because there are different laws regarding who can operate cars vs motorcycles, and who can as passengers in cars versus motorcycles.
    Example:
    You souldn't be allowed to drive you infant baby home from the hospital in one of those things.
    Exactly, this is a pipedream.
    Suburbans and such are much safer.

    /in O&G business.
    Suburbans are much safer for the accupants only. For every one person that is saved because they were in one 4 people are killed because they were hit by one.
    The bumpers are so much higher than most cars that they cause neck injuries to the car drivers. Plus because of their size they do not handle as well so someone in them is more likely to be involved in an accident.
    Also IMHO drivers of large SUV's and trucks are more aggressive, probably because they know that in an accident they will win.

  4. #14
    NodakPaul's Avatar
    NodakPaul is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    West Fargo, ND
    Posts
    17,601
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: 150 mpg

    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "hx38596" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=42583.msg726613#msg726613 date=1203704187]
    It's interesting...

    0-60 in 16 seconds is a little extreme... and I would bet that it doesn't meet US safety standards with all that lightweight material.
    But it definately shows what can be done...
    It says that when it comes to America it will have a turbo option that will take it from 0-60 in 10 seconds ;D. I think it must be as safe as a motorcycle and those are legal so I don't know why this wouldn't be, and if it is those laws should be changed.

    I don't know if I would buy one but I imagine alot of people would.

    regular vehicle @ 30mpg over a 150,000miles = 5000 gallons @$3 a gallon(will go up before 150,000 miles)=$15,000.
    this thing @ 150mpg over 150,000miles = 1000 gallons @$3 a gallon = $3,000 total lifetime savings of $12,000. Not as much as I thought, but still significant.
    Definitely significant, but the effect will be even less pronounced in the US.
    The 0-60 in ten seconds model is a 3 cylinder, as compared to a 2-banger in the 150 mph model.
    I would assume that will bring the mph down below 100.
    Plus safety considerations for motorcycles are different that those of cars, particularly because there are different laws regarding who can operate cars vs motorcycles, and who can as passengers in cars versus motorcycles.
    Example:
    You souldn't be allowed to drive you infant baby home from the hospital in one of those things.
    Exactly, this is a pipedream.
    Suburbans and such are much safer.

    /in O&G business.
    Suburbans are much safer for the accupants only. For every one person that is saved because they were in one 4 people are killed because they were hit by one.
    The bumpers are so much higher than most cars that they cause neck injuries to the car drivers. Plus because of their size they do not handle as well so someone in them is more likely to be involved in an accident.
    Also IMHO drivers of large SUV's and trucks are more aggressive, probably because they know that in an accident they will win.
    [/quote]

    LMAO. Talking about pulling stats our of you jiggly butt...
    I don't think a single part of that is true!

    EDIT:
    I did see a study a while ago that indicated that there was a minor correlation between aggressive drivers and the type of car that they drove.
    Sports cars and SUVs did top the list.
    But the largest correlation by far was with age.
    College age kids were much more likely to be aggressive on the road.
    I am sure with a little bit of googling you can find it - I am not motivated to do so right now, and it actually has nothing to do with the original post of this thread.
    Zeus wrote:
    When are you going to realize that picking out the 20 bad throws this year and ignoring the 300 good ones does not make your point?

    =Z=

  5. #15
    jmcdon00's Avatar
    jmcdon00 is offline Jersey Retired Snake Champion, Moto Trial Fest 2: Mountain Pack Champion, LL City Truck 2 Champion, Arithmetic sequence Champion, Troops Tower Defense Champion
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    8,278

    Re: 150 mpg

    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    "jmcdon00" wrote:
    "hx38596" wrote:
    "BloodyHorns82" wrote:
    "NodakPaul" wrote:
    [quote author=jmcdon00 link=topic=42583.msg726663#msg726663 date=1203707494]
    [quote author=NodakPaul link=topic=42583.msg726613#msg726613 date=1203704187]
    It's interesting...

    0-60 in 16 seconds is a little extreme... and I would bet that it doesn't meet US safety standards with all that lightweight material.
    But it definately shows what can be done...
    It says that when it comes to America it will have a turbo option that will take it from 0-60 in 10 seconds ;D. I think it must be as safe as a motorcycle and those are legal so I don't know why this wouldn't be, and if it is those laws should be changed.

    I don't know if I would buy one but I imagine alot of people would.

    regular vehicle @ 30mpg over a 150,000miles = 5000 gallons @$3 a gallon(will go up before 150,000 miles)=$15,000.
    this thing @ 150mpg over 150,000miles = 1000 gallons @$3 a gallon = $3,000 total lifetime savings of $12,000. Not as much as I thought, but still significant.
    Definitely significant, but the effect will be even less pronounced in the US.
    The 0-60 in ten seconds model is a 3 cylinder, as compared to a 2-banger in the 150 mph model.
    I would assume that will bring the mph down below 100.
    Plus safety considerations for motorcycles are different that those of cars, particularly because there are different laws regarding who can operate cars vs motorcycles, and who can as passengers in cars versus motorcycles.
    Example:
    You souldn't be allowed to drive you infant baby home from the hospital in one of those things.
    Exactly, this is a pipedream.
    Suburbans and such are much safer.

    /in O&G business.
    Suburbans are much safer for the accupants only. For every one person that is saved because they were in one 4 people are killed because they were hit by one.
    The bumpers are so much higher than most cars that they cause neck injuries to the car drivers. Plus because of their size they do not handle as well so someone in them is more likely to be involved in an accident.
    Also IMHO drivers of large SUV's and trucks are more aggressive, probably because they know that in an accident they will win.
    [/quote]

    LMAO. Talking about pulling stats our of you jiggly butt...
    I don't think a single part of that is true!

    EDIT:
    I did see a study a while ago that indicated that there was a minor correlation between aggressive drivers and the type of car that they drove.
    Sports cars and SUVs did top the list.
    But the largest correlation by far was with age.
    College age kids were much more likely to be aggressive on the road.
    I am sure with a little bit of googling you can find it - I am not motivated to do so right now, and it actually has nothing to do with the original post of this thread.
    [/quote]
    Here is a link with some good data about accidents and the affect that weight has on fatalities.
    http://eetd.lbl.gov/ea/teepa/pdf/TRB_Safety_1-03.pdf
    I did read the statistic about 4 deaths cause by suv's for every one that is saved by them in a new york times article, but I can't find it now(I may have put it in a post a week or two ago).
    Here's another link
    http://www.ncpa.org/pd/regulat/pdreg/regmay98b.html
    In two-vehicle accidents, the overall relative death risk for cars of similar weight is 1 to 1 -- but in collisions between the heaviest and lightest cars it is 3 to 1. In accidents involving a car and a pick-up truck it is 3 to 1, and for a car and SUV 4 to 1.
    I couldn't find a link(although I didn't look very hard) to show that the higher bumpers make trucks and suv more dangerous to cars but it seems pretty obvius that if an be truck hits a little car the bumpers will totally miss each other.
    The comment I made about handling again I didn't find any information but I think we can all agree that a big truck doesn't handle as well as a small cars, they don't brake as quickly and they are much more likely to roll over.
    Do you still think that nothing I said is true?

  6. #16
    thepacksux's Avatar
    thepacksux is offline Asst. Coach
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    580

    Re: 150 mpg

    you guys should check out the Chevy volt, due to come out in 2009.
    Runs purely on electric and has a range of 40-50 miles.
    After that it runs a gas engine which powers a generator and gets the vehicle 150 mpg.
    Not ideal for long road trips but for the day in day out drive to work and whatever else i think this is a great idea.
    Interesting to see how much electricity it takes to charge.

  7. #17
    VikingMike's Avatar
    VikingMike is offline Jersey Retired
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Posts
    5,820

    Re: 150 mpg

    7,000 mpg!

    [img width=450 height=175]http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/feeds/us/grn/Green_EcoGeek/4000mpg.jpg[/img]

    [size=13pt]7,000 MPG car wins eco-marathon[/size]

    By Hank Green
    Posted Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:28pm PDT

    Every year, Shell (yes, the giant evil oil company) puts on a little PR banquet in the name of vehicle efficiency called the Eco-Marathon. It's part of the long-standing tradition of oil companies blaming car companies for the excesses of the fossil fuel economy while car companies just as joyfully blame oil companies.
    Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood. - H.L. Mencken

    Come from the land of the ice and snow...

  8. #18
    Schutz's Avatar
    Schutz is offline Team Alumni
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    2,719

    Re: 150 mpg

    "VikingMike" wrote:
    7,000 mpg!

    [img width=450 height=175]http://l.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/feeds/us/grn/Green_EcoGeek/4000mpg.jpg[/img]

    [size=13pt]7,000 MPG car wins eco-marathon[/size]

    By Hank Green
    Posted Sun Mar 16, 2008 10:28pm PDT

    Every year, Shell (yes, the giant evil oil company) puts on a little PR banquet in the name of vehicle efficiency called the Eco-Marathon. It's part of the long-standing tradition of oil companies blaming car companies for the excesses of the fossil fuel economy while car companies just as joyfully blame oil companies.
    That's crazy, although some of it is impractical it just shows there is something wrong with the system.
    No reason cars can't get over 100 MPG.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •