So what happens when 100LL is gone anyway?

In Texas they (pickups) are used to hold the empty beer cans and long
necks, when driving down the road. It also takes skill to get the cans
in the bed when driving 70-80 due to their light weight and the
airflow around the pickups body.

We have the "Don't mess with Texas" program that precludes throwing
trash (beer cans or long necks) out along the highways, hence one of
the attractions of pickups )

Big John
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` `````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````

On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 00:23:16 GMT, Matt Whiting
wrote:

Roger wrote:

On Mon, 25 Jul 2005 19:17:12 GMT, George Patterson
wrote:


Roger wrote:

However it's not as simple as just choosing to go to smaller more
efficient cars. In many cases it's just not practical, safe, or
economical. In many cases, if not most, the little European car would
not be safe or practical here.

Maybe not, but it *is* as simple as using smaller, more fuel efficient engines.
The full-size Ford pickup of the 60s came with a 2.3 litre engine of about 60
hp. Today, the smallest engine available is 4.2 litre of 202 hp. That is not
needed for either practicality, safety, or economy.


No argument there. My point is over all the little cars of Europe
are, in most cases, not praticle here.

Now to get rid of the pickup truck as the Red Neck symbol of
success:-))

Actually, a pickup or SUV is the yuppie symbol of status. Real rednecks
actually USE their trucks.


Matt

Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make.

When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
from its own inertia, so the differance between a large vehicle and a
small one is not that great. But when a small vehicle hits a large
vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
occupants.

"Cub Driver" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 26 Jul 2005 16:24:39 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote:

We will never "run out" of petroleum, it will just become so expensive
that
we won't use it for fuel.

Well, the first part is certainly right.

Note that a good part of the runup in petroleum over the past five
years was due to the bear market in the dollar. If a dollar lost 30
percent against a basket of world currencies, then the income from a
$25 barrel of oil has dropped to an effective $17.50. To maintain the
same buying power outside the U.S., the petrocountries have to raise
the price by 43 percent, or to $37.50 (I'm doing this in my head, so
all figures are approximate).


Very true but it doesn't help us in the US that other people have not seen
the same rise that we have.

And that's before China's and India's boom economies are factored into
the demand side. Thank God Europe and Japan are in the economic
toilet!

Some of this imbalance has now been corrected, of course. The dollar
today is about where it was a year ago, and that eventually means a
bit of relief for the (U.S.) fuel consumer.

Actually it just means that the US consumer will see the same
increases/decreases as the rest of the world.


I don't think though that we will soon stop using petroleum for fuel.
Rather, we are likely to see widespread use of gas-electric hybrids
and the widespread introduction of composite materials to make
lighter, stronger cars. No reason we couldn't see a 100 mpg hybrid by
2010.

This is the way I see it too, evolution not revolution.

Mike
MU-2

Sport Pilot wrote:

The latest analysis of the Hindenburg disaster I read was that the
accident was not caused by leaking hydrogen. Rather it was the
unusually high nitrate in the dope and aluminum powder for the dope
pigment. If you look at the films the fabric is burning at a very high
rate, the hydogen cells ignite well behind the fabric.

interesting, I wasn't aware of that.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

Sport Pilot wrote:

Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make.


When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
from its own inertia,

The vehicle needs to protect the occupants from THEIR OWN inertia by
decelerating them as smoothly as possible. Because passenger cars will
crumble their complete front in a crash the occupants have more
traveling distance available for deceleration. Most Trucks and 4WDs are
built very stiff so the deceleration is harder.

so the differance between a large vehicle and a
small one is not that great.

How big the difference is you would have to consider specific vehicles.
My point is that the difference is not in favor of the supposedly "safe"
big trucks, as many people would believe.

But when a small vehicle hits a large
vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
occupants.

As I said. The lighter vehicle has to take more total deceleration to
the point of accelerating backwards, therefore acting higher forces on
it's occupants. The truck will decelerate less. As it is stronger built,
it will suffer less structural damage of course.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

We can use all those SUVs and pickups for landfill.

Almost all Yugo's are already in the landfill. While I suppose when
the Gulf and WOT baby boomers are grown, the amunt of SUV's will
diminish, I doubt pick up trucks ever will.

Friedrich Ostertag wrote:
Sport Pilot wrote:

Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make.


When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
from its own inertia,

The vehicle needs to protect the occupants from THEIR OWN inertia by
decelerating them as smoothly as possible. Because passenger cars will
crumble their complete front in a crash the occupants have more
traveling distance available for deceleration. Most Trucks and 4WDs are
built very stiff so the deceleration is harder.

so the differance between a large vehicle and a
small one is not that great.

How big the difference is you would have to consider specific vehicles.
My point is that the difference is not in favor of the supposedly "safe"
big trucks, as many people would believe.

But when a small vehicle hits a large
vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
occupants.

As I said. The lighter vehicle has to take more total deceleration to
the point of accelerating backwards, therefore acting higher forces on
it's occupants. The truck will decelerate less. As it is stronger built,
it will suffer less structural damage of course.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

Friedrich,
I think you must be tinkning of SUV's built in the 80's or somewhere
else. The modern SUV has plenty of crush built in the design. I know
thae Mercedes Benz led in this area, but Crylsler (whom Mercedes merged
with) and others were not far behind. Many crash tests indicate that
on many American SUV's, some extra stifness is still needed around the
passenger compartment.

All I can say was my 1983 Ford Bronco with 33.5 tires and you needed a
ladder to get in , and a parachute to get out got rear ended. Police said
est speed of the fullsize 84 Caddy was around 65 mph. My bumper got bent,
and had to replace the tailgate (it was not that bad,but cost was worth it
to replace the skin). The Caddy was totaled with the entire front of the big
car crudhed to the windshield. The fellow driving was not hurt, I had a
pulled back from being rear ended. But nothing serious. If I had of been in
a small car I would not be typing this today!

Patrick


"Friedrich Ostertag" wrote in message
...
Sport Pilot wrote:

Try driving a Pickup and an economy car (no,
don't..) into a solid wall and you will find that your chances of
escaping injury or death are actually greater in the ecomony, at least
if it is of fairly recent make.


When hitting a brick wall the vehicle has to protect the occupants
from its own inertia,

The vehicle needs to protect the occupants from THEIR OWN inertia by
decelerating them as smoothly as possible. Because passenger cars will
crumble their complete front in a crash the occupants have more traveling
distance available for deceleration. Most Trucks and 4WDs are built very
stiff so the deceleration is harder.

so the differance between a large vehicle and a
small one is not that great.

How big the difference is you would have to consider specific vehicles. My
point is that the difference is not in favor of the supposedly "safe" big
trucks, as many people would believe.

But when a small vehicle hits a large
vehicle, the large vehicle almost always has less damage to itself and
occupants.

As I said. The lighter vehicle has to take more total deceleration to the
point of accelerating backwards, therefore acting higher forces on it's
occupants. The truck will decelerate less. As it is stronger built, it
will suffer less structural damage of course.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress

Amazing how far from the originial topic this thread has strayed : )

My guess W P is that if your Bronco needed a boarding ladder, you had a
big susp./body lift on it and the Caddy went under the bumper? Just a
guess here

Sport Pilot wrote:

Friedrich,
I think you must be tinkning of SUV's built in the 80's or somewhere
else. The modern SUV has plenty of crush built in the design. I know
thae Mercedes Benz led in this area, but Crylsler (whom Mercedes merged
with) and others were not far behind. Many crash tests indicate that
on many American SUV's, some extra stifness is still needed around the
passenger compartment.

there certainly are improvements and I was thinking about trucks more
than SUVs to be honest. Especially the more modern types built upon
passenger car type undercarriage probably are pretty much up to
passenger car standards in crashworthyness as well, point taken. About
those built on truck platforms I'm not so sure.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal email please remove 'entfernen' from my adress