Fat cars, and I don't mean phat.....

[larchmont]

From today's NY Times:

(BTW check out especially the last paragraph -- "emphasis mine," as they say)


Average U.S. Car Is Tipping Scales at 4,000 Pounds
By DANNY HAKIM

DETROIT, May 4 - Detroit was recently ranked as the nation's most obese city by Men's Fitness magazine. Perhaps it is no surprise, then, that the Motor City's chief product is also losing the battle of the bulge.

The average new car or light-duty truck sold in the 2003 model year tipped the scales at 4,021 pounds, breaking the two-ton barrier for the first time since the mid-1970's, according to a report released by the Environmental Protection Agency last week.
Advertisement

The fattening of the nation's automobiles is a principal reason that average fuel economy has stopped improving and the nation's consumption of crude oil has been swelling: all else being equal, moving more weight takes more energy. Add in the additional pollutants and greenhouse gases released by burning more fuel, and it is not surprising that the upsizing trend is condemned by environmental groups.

But ranged against them in an increasingly bitter debate are industry lobbyists and conservative groups who argue that girth is good, for crashworthiness and because people want more space and power, though Honda is a notable dissenter in the industry.

At the center of the debate is the Bush administration's proposed rewriting of national fuel economy regulations. Though work on the plan is still in its early stages, one important aspect of it could lead automakers to make their vehicles even heavier on average. Environmentalists are distressed by the plan, but it has not been embraced by the auto industry, either.

In recent months, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has been flooded with nearly 50,000 letters and detailed comments about the plan. Many have come from organizations with an interest in the outcome - automakers, lobbyists, environmental and consumer groups - but the majority have been from individuals, some of them angered by increasingly tanklike vehicles and others by the claims of industry lobbying groups that S.U.V.'s will somehow be regulated out of existence.

And there are other motivations. "One of the things that triggers asthma is air pollution, and vehicular emissions are a significant source," said Dr. Ronald Saff, an asthma specialist in Tallahassee, Fla., concerned about rising asthma rates. Dr. Saff, 45, wrote a letter asking the agency "to make S.U.V.'s safer for families and the environment.".....

The E.P.A.'s weight statistics show that the average weight of a 2003 car or light-duty truck, like a pickup, sport utility, van or minivan, was heavier than in any model year since 1976, when the average peaked at 4,079 pounds. Just five years later, after the oil shocks of the 1970's, the average had fallen by more than 20 percent, to 3,202 pounds.....Average fuel economy peaked at 22.1 miles to the gallon in the late 1980's, according to the agency, but has eroded since then to 20.7 miles for the 2003 model year......
New noncommercial vehicles are actually even heavier than the statistics show, because the largest vehicles sold to consumers, including Hummers and Ford Excursions, are not classed as light-duty, so they are not covered by fuel economy rules or counted in average weight calculations. They are also exempt from many safety standards and crash-test requirements.

Government studies say these giant vehicles are increasing the overall number of deaths in accidents, mainly because of the threat they pose to people in cars they hit in collisions. The administration's plan does suggest that manufacturers be pressed to slim down the heaviest of the heavyweights, like the Hummer......

Traffic deaths in the United States rose to 43,220 last year, the most since 1990. Before the S.U.V. boom, the country had the world's lowest highway death rate, taking miles driven into account, but it now ranks behind at least eight other developed nations.....

......Honda, which makes some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles, said its own research found that dimensions, design and materials often made more difference than weight. Honda cited government statistics showing that midsize cars have lower death rates than sport utilities, and that smaller S.U.V.'s do better than midsize S.U.V.'s.



Well, a couple of things. That Honda thing at the end is right in line with what my instinct has always been -- that I'm safer in a more-nimble vehicle. The stats have always seemed to show sort of the opposite, but I didn't care, because I was very confident that at least for me it's correct that I'm safer in a more-nimble vehicle. And now I guess the stats show it too.

And.....a little off the subj, but: The car makers use the size of SUV's to classify them as "trucks," to get around some restrictions like MPG standards. Well, you can't have it both ways, right? So, some modest proposals:

If SUV's are trucks, then shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions as trucks? Like, being prohibited from roads that don't allow "commercial traffic"? Or, if the "commercial traffic" thing won't fly, at least the things that apply to "trucks," like, lower speed limits in certain areas, and being prohibited from the left lane?

C'mon, let's get behind it!


And not just to keep the SUV's off those parkways and out of the left lanes, but to help get people to stop buying them.

[ChinchillaX]

Its because of SUVs and cars like the BMW 7-series.

[sjlee]

Interesting that they lumped SUVs, minivans, vans and pickups in with that article, since the title reads "car". Shouldn't it have read "Average US passenger vehicle..."?

[sjlee]

Its because of SUVs and cars like the BMW 7-series.

Definitely true about the SUVs... especially with the big ones like the H2, Expedition, Excursion, Escalade and Navigator around.

It's funny... with gas prices going up you'd think that people would want to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, but instead SUVs are everywhere and cars reminiscent of the 70s are being introduced (e.g. Chrysler 300).

[larchmont]

......Honda, which makes some of the most fuel-efficient vehicles, said its own research found that dimensions, design and materials often made more difference than weight. Honda cited government statistics showing that midsize cars have lower death rates than sport utilities, and that smaller S.U.V.'s do better than midsize S.U.V.'s.....
About smaller vs. bigger SUV's (don't know what to make of the phrase "midsize SUV's")..... :donno:
The first time I needed to rent an SUV to haul stuff (first of 2 times), I got a Toyota RAV4, which was almost delightful. Consumer Guide describes the handling (at least at low-speed) as "very competent, even entertaining," and that's true. And even at any speed, it's quite good. It weighs less than 3000 lb, and the MPG isn't bad -- low 20's. I don't think very many people would bitch about SUV's like that. (The CR-V, by the way, is much bigger.) Of course you can't haul that much, which was why I got a bigger one the next time.

About what SJ said, I think (or hope) that the trend began reversing, even before the spike in gas prices, because of changing attitudes.

[sjlee]

About smaller vs. bigger SUV's (don't know what to make of the phrase "midsize SUV's")..... :donno:

Yeah, there are many cars that are starting to straddle different "classes"... like the Pacifica... is that a minivan or an SUV? Forrester... SUV or hatchback/station wagon?

I think that the categories that vehicles fall into depend on a combination of marketing, reviews (e.g. magazines) and consumer perception.

In general, small/compact SUVs refer to the RAV4s and Element (plus the old CR-Vs)... midsize SUVs refer to Highlanders and Pilots (and new CR-Vs)... large SUVs refer to the Sequoias and Escalades.

Of course, there are exceptions... how in the world can the CR-V and the 4Runner both be considered midsized (by Edmunds)?

[ChinchillaX]

big SUVs these days are equivalent to the big station wagons of the early '70s. I don't know why these SUVs remain so popular, even with these sky high gas prices.:dunno:

[bob shiftright]

big SUVs these days are equivalent to the big station wagons of the early '70s. I don't know why these SUVs remain so popular, even with these sky high gas prices.:dunno:

The Hummer H1 weighs in at 7558 pounds and the Excursion 7190 pounds which is about the weight of TWO station wagons (one large, one small) from the 1970s!

NYMEX unleaded gas closed at $1.314 for June delivery today ..... still waaaay below the cost of the bottle of water in my cupholder, so the answer is: SUVs remain so popular because the price of gasoline is nowhere near the spot that would motivate most people to conserve.

SUVs are wildly popular all over the world, and some of the biggest gas guzzlers are European, where gas is $4-$5/gallon. My "best guess" is that it would take a retail price of $7-$8/gal. to significantly influence US buying patterns.

http://www.mbusa.com/media/images/main/models/G55_main.jpg

[kiteboy]

Of course, there are exceptions... how in the world can the CR-V and the 4Runner both be considered midsized (by Edmunds)?

It's based on the EPA definition, which is based on interior volume.

http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/info.shtml#sizeclasses

Compared to the exterior, the CR-V is quite large on the inside.

When you see high prices at the pump, remember the SUV (and 300C) drivers are getting nailed far worse than you.

[larchmont]

.....SUVs remain so popular because the price of gasoline is nowhere near the spot that would motivate most people to conserve.

SUVs are wildly popular all over the world, and some of the biggest gas guzzlers are European, where gas is $4-$5/gallon. My "best guess" is that it would take a retail price of $7-$8/gal. to significantly influence US buying patterns
I think Bob's basically right. I would be surprised if the actual "breaking point" is that high -- I'd guess that here in the U.S., even just $4 a gallon would be enough to have a very significant effect on the market for gas guzzlers. But there seems little doubt that current price levels are nowhere near high enough to keep very many people from getting whatever car they would like.

[Whatchamacallit]

The H2s, Escalades, Expeditions, and Excursions all need to go on a diet. . . like some of their owners. :naughty:

I marvel at how Honda (and Toyota too) manage to build light-weight vehicles with good to exceptional crash test results. The result is gas efficient cars, not just nimble enough to avoid accidents, but also with good track record for safety when you need it.

Just goes to show, good engineering can go a long way.

[Whatchamacallit]

Believe most of the people who steer these behemoths drive one because they can afford one.

Raising gas prices will put -some- dent in their wallet but I suspect the price hike will eventually have more impact on the middle class folks driving medium sized automobiles.

[bob shiftright]

I'd guess that here in the U.S., even just $4 a gallon would be enough to have a very significant effect on the market for gas guzzlers. But there seems little doubt that current price levels are nowhere near high enough to keep very many people from getting whatever car they would like.

Here's my thought. In, say, the UK (This is the country that makes Land Rovers, Range Rovers, Rolls-Royces and Bentleys, I'd point out.) most people probably figure fuel costs into their transportation purchase decisions. At, say, $5/gallon.

However in the US, income is significantly higher than in the UK, GDP is $25,500, vs. $36,300 in the USA.

So at $36,300/$25,500 x $5 = $7.12/gallon, people here will begin to notice.....

BTW, I'm NOT predicting $7.12 gasoline ... this year. :)

[sjlee]

Yeah, I agree. The price would need to be right up there before people will actually start changing the types of vehicles that they buy.

I was in Paris a few years ago, and I was surprised at how few SUVs were on the road. Most were compact cars (like the Mini), and there were motorcycles/scooters everywhere. Parking is also very bad over there. Between that and the really high gas prices they pay, I think that SUV sales are limited to the very wealthy.

By the way, I paid $2.219/gal for premium unleaded this morning. :(

[bob shiftright]

Yeah, I agree. The price would need to be right up there before people will actually start changing the types of vehicles that they buy.

I was in Paris a few years ago, and I was surprised at how few SUVs were on the road. Most were compact cars (like the Mini), and there were motorcycles/scooters everywhere. Parking is also very bad over there. Between that and the really high gas prices they pay, I think that SUV sales are limited to the very wealthy.

By the way, I paid $2.219/gal for premium unleaded this morning. :(

Since Paris streets were planned by the Romans, or at least before anyone even conceived of automobiles, microcars like the "Smart" and the 2CV are a natural.

But out in the 'burbs and the country, I was more struck by how MANY American-made SUVs there were on the road, and that so many like Jeep Cherokees were turbodiesels....

BTW, the only one I saw blow a horn at a dawdling tourist in rural France was a Range Rover with French plates.

http://www.personal.psu.edu/users/s/l/sll907/London/Cars/London_SmartCar.jpg

[hip]

What's wrong with this picture...

The majority of the people who buy SUVs and trucks as personal transports are "baby boomers." Now most boomers were responsible for the Japanese invasion of smaller cars in response to the first gas shortage during the 70's.

Since boomers "rebelled" and resented what the establishment" was doing to the earth they started "earth day" and recycling and you get the picture.

Now how is it that some 30 years later, not only have to forgotten what they rebelled about, but have acutally come full circle and created a bigger eco mess than their parents. They not only drive more fuel ineffeciient vehicles, but drive more often and waste more fuel.

So what changed and went wrong? Too many ganola bars? :tardsmash

[larchmont]

What's wrong with this picture...

The majority of the people who buy SUVs and trucks as personal transports are "baby boomers." Now most boomers were responsible for the Japanese invasion of smaller cars in response to the first gas shortage during the 70's.

Since boomers "rebelled" and resented what the establishment" was doing to the earth they started "earth day" and recycling and you get the picture.

Now how is it that some 30 years later, not only have to forgotten what they rebelled about, but have acutally come full circle and created a bigger eco mess than their parents. They not only drive more fuel inefficient vehicles, but drive more often and waste more fuel.

So what changed and went wrong? Too many ganola bars? :tardsmash
Baby boomers in '70's: no money, no kids, and no stuff = small cars

Baby boomers now: money, kids, stuff, and are very stupid = SUV's

[bob shiftright]

They're even in LOVE with SUVs in Germany!

CLICK (http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=6177) for Auto Bild SUV test.

http://www.chartoftheday.com/20030827.gif

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.png

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/images/gas_price_gallon_70-01.gif

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/images/gas_cpi_adjusted_70-01.gif

[bob shiftright]

Baby boomers in '70's: no money, no kids, and no stuff = small cars

Baby boomers now: money, kids, stuff, and are very stupid = SUV's

Who was buying THESE gas-guzzlers back in the 1970s? Not grampa, I'm sure!

http://www.classiccar.com/photopost/data/613/1::69Roadrunner-FrontAspect-med.jpg

[larchmont]

They're even in LOVE with SUVs in Germany!

CLICK (http://www.autobild.de/test/neuwagen/artikel.php?artikel_id=6177) for Auto Bild SUV test.

http://www.chartoftheday.com/20030827.gif

http://www.randomuseless.info/gasprice/gasprice.png

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/images/gas_price_gallon_70-01.gif

http://www.energy.ca.gov/gasoline/images/gas_cpi_adjusted_70-01.gif
Yes, it's easy to lose sight of it, but when inflation is taken into account, gasoline's current cost isn't particularly high from a historical standpoint.

[insman]

Believe most of the people who steer these behemoths drive one because they can afford one.

Raising gas prices will put -some- dent in their wallet but I suspect the price hike will eventually have more impact on the middle class folks driving medium sized automobiles.
Well, in the climate in which I have chosen to live (West Va.--the Randy Newman line, "only a man half blind on whiskey would choose to make this place his home," comes to mind--and I am a native), I need one (SUV) from November until March, so I have one. I do plan to look real hard at the new RL next year. For the same money I paid for my 04 Explorer, I can get the RL with AWD. I need it for traction in these mountains.

But, I agree. I see the doctors and lawyers all driving SUV's or pickup trucks, and you know why? Style. And they have the money to put $2.00 plus gas in them. I can't. The Explorer is parked and will be parked until the first snow. I'd much rather drive the TSX anyway :mardi: .

[larchmont]

Well, in the climate in which I have chosen to live (West Va.--the Randy Newman line, "only a man half blind on whiskey would choose to make this place his home," comes to mind--and I am a native), I need one (SUV) from November until March, so I have one. I do plan to look real hard at the new RL next year. For the same money I paid for my 04 Explorer, I can get the RL with AWD. I need it for traction in these mountains.

But, I agree. I see the doctors and lawyers all driving SUV's or pickup trucks, and you know why? Style. And they have the money to put $2.00 plus gas in them. I can't. The Explorer is parked and will be parked until the first snow. I'd much rather drive the TSX anyway :mardi: .
Welcome! You didn't exactly say whether you have a TSX but it sounded like you did, so I did a little "research" :D and I see that you do!

Insman has good taste in cars. :D

Except, I'm not sure what you mean about those doctors/lawyers etc. having "style." I like SUV's as much as the next guy.....well actually that's a lie, I hate SUV's..... but I can understand that SUV's and pickups have a purpose. But I don't see the "style." I didn't even think that the devotees thought those cars have style. :donno:

[insman]

Welcome! You didn't exactly say whether you have a TSX but it sounded like you did, so I did a little "research" :D and I see that you do!

Insman has good taste in cars. :D

Except, I'm not sure what you mean about those doctors/lawyers etc. having "style." I like SUV's as much as the next guy.....well actually that's a lie, I hate SUV's..... but I can understand that SUV's and pickups have a purpose. But I don't see the "style." I didn't even think that the devotees thought those cars have style. :donno:

I guess it's a rural thing. Everyone around here (including the ladies) has to have a truck or SUV. The kids in school get excited over a F-150 or Escalade, not a TL, TSX, or 05 Mustang. You want to talk about ricer cars? We have ricer trucks! Ever see a pickup truck with a big wing on it? Come here. It really looks silly.

Love my TSX. Handles better than most of the cars I've owned (which includes several Mustangs, including a SVT Cobra, and a Taurus SHO) and that little engine is amazing. I have no need for more power (well...I do, but I'm satisfied).

[larchmont]

BTW, Insman, ever heard of Coolfont? We had a great vacation there a few years ago.
Bought some great swimming trunks there, had the nice logo and everything. Then I accidentally threw them in the garbage. :jeffy:

[insman]

BTW, Insman, ever heard of Coolfont? We had a great vacation there a few years ago.
Bought some great swimming trunks there, had the nice logo and everything. Then I accidentally threw them in the garbage. :jeffy:

Coolfont? It's not familair. What part of WV were you in? It must be up north.

[larchmont]

Coolfont? It's not familiar. What part of WV were you in? It must be up north.
I guess so:

http://www.coolfont.com/images/uploaded/ACF775.jpg

[Whatchamacallit]

Well, in the climate in which I have chosen to live (West Va.--the Randy Newman line, "only a man half blind on whiskey would choose to make this place his home," comes to mind--and I am a native), I need one (SUV) from November until March, so I have one. I do plan to look real hard at the new RL next year. For the same money I paid for my 04 Explorer, I can get the RL with AWD. I need it for traction in these mountains.

But, I agree. I see the doctors and lawyers all driving SUV's or pickup trucks, and you know why? Style. And they have the money to put $2.00 plus gas in them. I can't. The Explorer is parked and will be parked until the first snow. I'd much rather drive the TSX anyway :mardi: .

Welcome to the community, Insman.

Great analysis there. I'm not pointing the fingers at people who buy and actually USE the assets that a SUV provides. As an avid outdoorsman myself, I realize it definitely makes sense to drive one where conditions call for it. My beef is with people who drive one but don't necessarily need one. The worst are suburban moms driving all alone at shopping malls.

[insman]

I guess so:

http://www.coolfont.com/images/uploaded/ACF775.jpg

Ah, they used to call it something else. I forget now, but I've been there. It is a great place. Maybe I'll drive the TSX up there this summer...

[insman]

Welcome to the community, Insman.

Great analysis there. I'm not pointing the fingers at people who buy and actually USE the assets that a SUV provides. As an avid outdoorsman myself, I realize it definitely makes sense to drive one where conditions call for it. My beef is with people who drive one but don't necessarily need one. The worst are suburban moms driving all alone at shopping malls.

I totally agree. My Explorer is in moth balls until it gets so bad I have to use it. At 2.139 per gallon this evening, who in there right mind would drive a 13 - 16 mpg beast? Soccer Moms and affluent wannabes. I could preach a sermon, but I'll stop there.

[larchmont]

Ah, they used to call it something else. I forget now, but I've been there. It is a great place. Maybe I'll drive the TSX up there this summer...
Yes, Coolfont is great -- and :cool:

:D

Kinda like a poor man's Greenbrier. (It's actually pretty rich itself.)

Trivia question -- about Greenbrier Resort: What's its claim to fame, besides being a world-class resort?

[bob shiftright]

Yes, Coolfont is great -- and :cool:

:D

Kinda like a poor man's Greenbrier. (It's actually pretty rich itself.)

Trivia question -- about Greenbrier Resort: What's its claim to fame, besides being a world-class resort?

Under the Greenbrier.....

http://www.atomictourist.com/images/door.jpg

Which was designed to allow creatures like.....

http://www.hillnews.com/photos/060403/nadler%20jerrold%202%2012%2003.jpg

....to survive all-out nuclear war with the Rooskies, so that even if the remainder of the populace was vaporized, we would all be vaporized with the happy thought that Congress would survive.

Later, they figured out that the Rooskies weren't as stupid as they looked and probably had a 100 megaton warhead aimed right at the Greenbrier.

Also, if only Congress were to survive, there wouldn't be anyone left on the planet who actually knew how to do anything.

[larchmont]

Leave it to Bob to come up with one of his virtuoso posts!

BTW I didn't know that the Rooskies knew. (I guess you mean that they did.....)

[bob shiftright]

Leave it to Bob to come up with one of his virtuoso posts!

BTW I didn't know that the Rooskies knew. (I guess you mean that they did.....)

Stanley Kubrick knew, so I'd guess the Rooskies knew, too.

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9903/08/kubrick.obit/strangelove.jpg

(IMO the best movie ever made.)

[larchmont]

Stanley Kubrick knew, so I'd guess the Rooskies knew, too.

http://www.cnn.com/SHOWBIZ/Movies/9903/08/kubrick.obit/strangelove.jpg

(IMO the best movie ever made.)
Well, a few things.....

I had to do some googling to have any possible idea about what Bob means.

I gather that's Dr. Strangelove? (Never saw it -- gotta catch it some time.)

Also BTW I guess that's Slim Pickens? Love that guy -- even though I know him only from two minor roles: Blazing Saddles, and a guest spot in a Mary Tyler Moore episode (of all things).

And, about Dr. Strangelove: From my brief googling, it doesn't exactly seem like Kubrick necessarily "knew," and certainly not about any specific location, unless I'm missing something.

Thanks for the reference!


Gotta catch that flick.....

[bob shiftright]

Well, a few things.....

I had to do some googling to have any possible idea about what Bob means.

I gather that's Dr. Strangelove? (Never saw it -- gotta catch it some time.)

Also BTW I guess that's Slim Pickens? Love that guy -- even though I know him only from two minor roles: Blazing Saddles, and a guest spot in a Mary Tyler Moore episode (of all things).

And, about Dr. Strangelove: From my brief googling, it doesn't exactly seem like Kubrick necessarily "knew," and certainly not about any specific location, unless I'm missing something.

Thanks for the reference!


Gotta catch that flick.....


No, I think it was still classified "Top Secret" back in 1964 when they filmed "Strangelove", so I don't think Kubrick included a map with an arrow pointed at the Greenbrier, but come on! The worst way to keep something secret is to tell someone in Washington!

[Strangelove's plan for post-nuclear war survival involves living underground with a 10:1 female-to-male ratio]

General "Buck" Turgidson (George C. Scott): "Doctor, you mentioned the ratio of ten women to each man. Now, wouldn't that necessitate the abandonment of the so-called monogamous sexual relationship, I mean, as far as men were concerned?"

Dr. Strangelove (Peter Sellers): "Regrettably, yes. But it is, you know, a sacrifice required for the future of the human race. I hasten to add that since each man will be required to do prodigious... service along these lines, the women will have to be selected for their sexual characteristics which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature."

Soviet Ambassador de Sadesky (Peter Bull): "I must confess, you have an astonishingly good idea there, Doctor."


Edit: The bunker was "compromised by an investigative reporter in 1993" but an ex-KGB agent wrote about it in a book in 1977. So the KGB informed us, the taxpayers, before the Media Establishment let us know. Kubrick alluded to it in the movie. I would not be shocked if the KGB actually participated in the construction and saw the plans before Eisenhower and Kennedy!

[larchmont]

.....an ex-KGB agent wrote about it in a book in 1977. So the KGB informed us, the taxpayers, before the Media Establishment let us know.....
Did some brief googling to see if the book or the guy's name would come up easily (they didn't). Do you happen to know?

[bob shiftright]

Did some brief googling to see if the book or the guy's name would come up easily (they didn't). Do you happen to know?

I found it on a Google search. No, I didn't bookmark it. The KGB guy probably wasn't half as weird as Peter Sellers playing Strangelove.

[larchmont]

Got it!

Found this on a message board of something called the American Patriot Friends Network:


Back in 1977, I sat at a Tonys Bar and Pizza in Beckley, West Virginia getting drunk with 5 college professers across the street from Beckley College. He said he was a newspaper reporter from Russia.
In 1992, this reporter left Russia and went to the US Congress under a hooded head on C-Span testifying that Russia is lying and the Sino-Soviet Pact is going to attack the USA some day. He -- Lunov - also said that 100 to 300 nuclear suit case bombs were missing.
(Note: In 77" Lunov told us about the Greenbrier Bunker. We found out -through his book "Through the Eyes of the Enemy" that he was a KGB officer. Lunov was a high ranked KGB agent and warned the USA. Congress and the Clinton FBI scoffed at him.)


Edit: Found it on Amazon. The guy's name is spelled "Lunev," but I wouldn't be surprised if it's pronounced Lunov, so, as oral history goes, that dude's transliteration is right fine.
BTW the book sells a fair amount.

[bob shiftright]

Anyway, I doubt they could extract 535 members of Congress and their aides at a moment's notice. Appreciate how well they evacuated the Capital on September 11, with the 757 that hit the Pentagon actually coming their way. Probably 100 members and 900 nubile interns is a more realistic estimate, exactly the ratio suggested by Dr. Strangelove.

BTW, assuming that they believed the bunker was really bombproof, the ones to hide it from were the taxpayers, not the KGB, for obvious reasons!

[larchmont]

Anyway, I doubt they could extract 535 members of Congress and their aides at a moment's notice. Appreciate how well they evacuated the Capital on September 11.....
What about how well they "evacuate" NY just on any spring or summer Friday evening?
Or how well they "re-vacuate" it :D on Sunday evenings?

Which reminds me: Afternoon traffic around here lately has been absolutely the worst. But that's another story.....

http://www.tsxclub.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1826

[insman]

Leave it to Bob to come up with one of his virtuoso posts!

BTW I didn't know that the Rooskies knew. (I guess you mean that they did.....)

Hell, I did. I knew most of the folks that worked in the "bunker" and even got a glimpse of it once while operational (by accident). On of my best friends worked there (though I didn't know it until after he was transferred). I live about 20 miles from the place. It wasn't much of a secret around here...

[larchmont]

Hell, I did. I knew most of the folks that worked in the "bunker" and even got a glimpse of it once while operational (by accident). On of my best friends worked there (though I didn't know it until after he was transferred). I live about 20 miles from the place. It wasn't much of a secret around here...
HOLY $#(T!!!!!!!

Does that mean our government is even stupider than we think?

Larchmont, who is reminded of that line from the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain." :D

[insman]

HOLY $#(T!!!!!!!

Does that mean our government is even stupider than we think?

Larchmont, who is reminded of that line from the Wizard of Oz, "Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain." :D

"The Hotel," as it is called around here, always refused to answer questions or even acknowledge anything about it. The guy who ran the TV repair shop in town was the guy who ran the bunker. I always wondered how he made a living there. My buddy supposedly worked for AT&T and even drove an AT&T truck. In fact, I had a dark gray suited guy come by to talk to me one day, asking me if I knew what my friend did. I said that he worked for AT&T. I found out later he was a CIA guy checking to see if anyone was "talking." I imagine that went on all over Greenbrier County. The problem was (and is) that since everyone knew about it, they just weren't going to tell anyone anything. Of course, a few opened their mouths and they did a TV program about it--after they had moved.

My buddy got transferred to Colorado. They said he worked for Lucent then. I got brave and called Lucent and asked for him (in Colorado). They didn't know him there. So, I called his wife and asked her where he worked these days. "Lucent," she replied. I've always wondered if that isn't the new location for such a facility. Of course, that was several years ago and I don't even know where he is these days.

[Dan Martin]

Lightweight cars will have their day again soon. With the Elise and the Smart hitting NA people are going to take notice.

[larchmont]

Lightweight cars will have their day again soon. With the Elise and the Smart hitting NA people are going to take notice.
Where's the flaming bag?

Larchmont, who knows a lot of people won't get this -- yet. :D

[Dan Martin]

How do I upload a custom avatar? I just see the option of chosing the standard ones...

[TSX 'R' US]

Where's the flaming bag?

Larchmont, who knows a lot of people won't get this -- yet. :D
http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/TSX-R-Us/Smilies/DansOldAvatar.gif

[Dan Martin]

hehehe

I love that smiley!

[TSX 'R' US]

How do I upload a custom avatar? I just see the option of chosing the standard ones...
Hey!! It's Dan!! :wavey:
Yeah...I think that's being worked on right now :)

[larchmont]

http://img21.photobucket.com/albums/v62/TSX-R-Us/Smilies/DansOldAvatar.gif
:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

To Dan: I think you might have to PW a little -- you might need to have 10 posts, or 50 posts, or 5000..... I'm not really sure. :D

Or, maybe the PTB's still haven't worked it out with the new version so that people can do custom avatars????

Admins! Can you help us out on this? We need Dan's avatar bad!!! rrrrrrrrr6

[ortiz]

:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

To Dan: I think you might have to PW a little -- you might need to have 10 posts, or 50 posts, or 5000..... I'm not really sure. :D

Or, maybe the PTB's still haven't worked it out with the new version so that people can do custom avatars????

Admins! Can you help us out on this? We need Dan's avatar bad!!! rrrrrrrrr6

My avatar is not as good as Dan's but I want a custom one to.

[larchmont]

My avatar is not as good as Dan's but I want a custom one to.
And I think we're gonna bust butt to get you one.

Stay tuned.

[BB1_VTEC]

Definitely true about the SUVs... especially with the big ones like the H2, Expedition, Excursion, Escalade and Navigator around.

It's funny... with gas prices going up you'd think that people would want to drive smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles, but instead SUVs are everywhere and cars reminiscent of the 70s are being introduced (e.g. Chrysler 300).
dejavu... 1970s oil crisis... right in the middle of muscle car era... and the big ass whale like cars... remember the caddy tanks???? or chysler tanks? with fins..

[hip]

dejavu... 1970s oil crisis... right in the middle of muscle car era... and the big ass whale like cars... remember the caddy tanks???? or chysler tanks? with fins..

No vested interest in domestics making fuel effecient cars, too much profit in trucks.

I think another article posted indicates they have decided to start producing passenger profitable passenger cars again that are more competitive and profitable?

Can't wait to see what their interpretation of that will be? :woowoo:

[larchmont]

Not that it necessarily matters what somebody's main point was, especially if he didn't make it very well. But this part of my first post got lost in the shuffle:

.....The car makers use the size of SUV's to classify them as "trucks," to get around some restrictions like MPG standards. Well, you can't have it both ways, right? So, some modest proposals:

If SUV's are trucks, then shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions as trucks? Like, being prohibited from roads that don't allow "commercial traffic"? Or, if the "commercial traffic" thing won't fly, at least the things that apply to "trucks," like, lower speed limits in certain areas, and being prohibited from the left lane?

C'mon, let's get behind it!


And not just to keep the SUV's off those parkways and out of the left lanes, but to help get people to stop buying them.

.....and it was my main point. I'm looking to start a MOVEMENT!

[bob shiftright]

And.....a little off the subj, but: The car makers use the size of SUV's to classify them as "trucks," to get around some restrictions like MPG standards. Well, you can't have it both ways, right? So, some modest proposals:

If SUV's are trucks, then shouldn't they be subject to the same restrictions as trucks? Like, being prohibited from roads that don't allow "commercial traffic"? Or, if the "commercial traffic" thing won't fly, at least the things that apply to "trucks," like, lower speed limits in certain areas, and being prohibited from the left lane?

C'mon, let's get behind it!


And not just to keep the SUV's off those parkways and out of the left lanes, but to help get people to stop buying them.

Going back in history.... remember the old "full size" station wagons? The CAFE standards killed them because they were heavier and less fuel efficient than the sedan versions, so minivans and SUVs, which were exempt from some environmental, safety and fuel economy standards, "filled the gap".

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/petroleum/analysis_publications/oil_market_basics/images/Import.gif

If you look at the graph, there were much better times and places to do this. The proliferation of gas-guzzlers has been going on since Gulf War-I but was generally ignored because people needed space and gasoline was cheap. The current administration has in fact tightened standards after years that this issue was placed on the back burner but now 50% of new US vehicle registrations are not cars at all but are light trucks. You can't kill these things overnight without massive economic disruption.

The most popular vehicle sold in the United States remains the Ford F-Series pickup truck. Even "you-know-who" drives one!
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/08/images/20020809-1_ranch8-515h.jpg

If you've been reading your NY Times you know that a lot of large SUVs exceed the weight limit for the Brooklyn Bridge (designed before the motorcar!). NYPD does NOT enforce the current laws. So let's pass even MORE laws? I don't think that's a likely solution. Since the original CAFE standards CAUSED the proliferation of "light trucks" in the first place, it's a safe bet that some unanticipated aspect of this will cause the result to lie 180-degrees away from what you imagine.

[bob shiftright]

20 years ago I would have placed a sliding tariff on imported oil. Back when I had just graduated from college (just in time for Oil Crisis #1) I worked for a chemical company that had built a coal-to-oil conversion PILOT plant in the building next to my lab. Germany ran much/most of it's WW-II war effort on coal-derived gasoline and diesel, if chemists could do it 60 years ago and 30 years ago, it's probably quite possible to do it today. We have 26% of the world's coal reserves, 3% of the oil reserves. The only constraint is cost. (OK, AND the EPA, NIMBY ("Not-In-My-Backyard"), environmental groups, etc.)

BTW I'm not complaining about the current cost of gasoline, only the strategic implications.

http://www.poorandstupid.com/images/20040519gas.gif

[larchmont]

.....You can't kill these things overnight without massive economic disruption....
Fine, let's phase it in over a couple of months. :D

Very interesting other stuff in these two posts, including the coal-to-oil conversion. Didn't know that had been done, nor even that it's possible. I heard a lot back in the early '80's about thinking of converting stuff from oil use to coal use (or something like that), but not the other. I seem to remember that a company/stock named Tosco was hot for about 15 minutes because of this.

BTW the possessive "its" doesn't have an apostrophe (although it sort of SHOULD)...... :D

__________________
(Yes, it's stupidly true.)

[bob shiftright]

Hmmmmm. Well, my favorite Harvard psychiatrist wrote about this very topic today...

CLICK THIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43937-2004May20.html)

[Ferg]

You know, there are some really bright people on this site. I love these discussions, and reading such in-depth insights from folks like Bob Shiftright and hip, and others that I'm sure I've forgotten, and have just insulted. Oh dear.

Sorry.

Antony Chuckovich Fergusiliy, as I would be named in Russia, or a Tom Clancy novel. :D

[larchmont]

Hmmmmm. Well, my favorite Harvard psychiatrist wrote about this very topic today...

CLICK THIS (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A43937-2004May20.html)
Can't jack onto that link without registering! :mad:

Wanna give us the skinny? (Including, who's the Harvard shrink?)
btw I would think that the initials CK would be a good guess for starters.....

P.S. I'm sure Ferg meant me too, I just know it....... :nervous:

[bob shiftright]

...he has an MD from Harvard and he trained in psychiatry at Harvard. He subsequently became a guru on psychiatry for Carter and wrote speeches for Mondale. Later, the doctor truly "cured himself" of his insanity, got a job as a Washington Post columnist and won a Pulitzer Prize.

You can read his columns at townhall.com without registering but apparently with a delay, the latest one wasn't there when I checked.

(Pssssst - register, the Washington Post ain't gonna sell your name to the Republicans!)

Krauthammer was among the first who correctly identified Howard Dean as a complete loon. Of course, he had been trained at Harvard on identifying complete loons!

I just thought that it was interesting that he picked the same topic for a column on Friday.