Built like a Mercedes (?)

Oh, I have been on those... standing room only, and I don't mean on an urban
underground.

DAS

 

Huw wrote:

If you'd go back and READ, I never claimed that I know best (and I sure
as hell don't speak for Clare). I just said it doesn't "feel" like the
right number. I'm perfectly well aware that intuition isn't a
mathematical basis for anything, so stop trying to pick a fight where
there isn't one. Whether the real national average per driver is 12
miles a year or 120,000 miles a year doesn't change my life one iota
either way.

 

It is very gracious of you to admit your feeling was wrong.

Huw

 

Oh, SOUTH Wales.

 

Uh yeah. About that. I'm surprised you got off that easy

 

BTW, all calculations of this type are based on assumptions. These is

False. It is well known how much work can be done with a specific amount of
fuel when applied a specific way. As such, one can calculate how many miles
a ton of goods (or a person) can be moved using various methods. This is not
rocket science, nor is it theory, assumption or guesswork.

One would hope that assumptions wouldn't need to be used given concrete
knowledge and years of testing and engineering.


--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Not in this newsgroup... they all seem to live in the middle of nowhere,

Given that most of us posting in this crossposted nightmare from the AADT NG
actually drive the Dodge trucks in the name of the NG, it would also be safe
to assume that we don't live in urban centers where a truck would be less
needed.

As for me, I live in a small town, and work on heavy mechanical pieces,
mostly dirty ones at that. On top of that, I tow a car trailer. Travel to
any major city is an hour at least, over two in most cases. I drive five
hours to my other home, and at times carry furniture.

A small car simply wouldn't do what I need it to do.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

Given your esteemed leaders new commitment to drastically reduce dependency
on Arab oil over the medium term and the ever higher price of said oil in
the short, medium and longer term, then perhaps your should be prepared for
drastic downsizing whether you like it or not. Otherwise learn to enjoy
bending over and being shafted by the Middle East on a regular if not
continuous basis.

Huw

 

The figures stand up on their own merit. If you have a particular problem
with any aspect, please feel free to highlight it by reference and copying
and pasting it here so it can be analysed. Otherwise your protestations are
only so much hot air.

Huw

 

I'm sure the best available facts aren't five years old, nor are they as
vague as some on here seem to use.

As to digging them up, I've posted links to info proving my point. That Huw
likes his vague assumptions is not my problem. It does however, lead to an
opportunity to be amused at his cost.

--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

He just SAID that he hauls tractors and cars on trailers. Downsizing for
people that actually *use* big pickups for what they're designed for
simply isn't an option. Fortunately, the market is full of cheap used
ones from all the urbanites that used them as status symbols in recent
years

What really strikes me as boneheaded is that Toyota just announced a
humongous replacement for their Tundra truck. Just at the moment the
market is shrinking back to the people who've always needed trucks, and
are highly unlikely to buy a Toyota given that "features" like this
would cost them income, not just loss of stylish transportation:
http://forums.thecarlounge.net/zerothread?id=2438359

 

Oh no. Those numbers are on the *WEB*. They're a valid citation, and
your criticisms of them are not acknowledgeable. How dare you, you
unwashed American who probably drives a <gasp> PICKUP truck! And
probably a DODGE too! After all, NOTHING anyone finds with a search
engine could EVER POSSIBLY be based on flawed statistics or be outdated...

<'scuse me while I jackhammer my tongue out of my cheek....>

 

Stop squirming, it is embarrassing to those that read your posts.
I am the only one who has provided proof here with links to US DOE
information. If you have alternative proof which has the same gavitas and is
more up-to-date, then this is your opportunity to provide it. Please don't
be shy. Please don't be long.

Hot air, buster and fairy stories as you attempt above just fools no-one.

Huw

 

While business use may be justified, the rest of the World has no problem
using much more efficient vehicles. To say you have no alternative is to
submit to a long term shafting. There is a choice. Fairly soon I suspect
things will get distinctly uncomfortable.

Planning for these things is long term and it would be prudent if you
started planning for your leaders aim to come true. It could be fairly
painless as your energy use is so profligate compared to the rest of the
world that quite substantial cuts in percentage terms should be easy and you
would still be comparatively profligate energy users.

Huw

 

Unfortunately, you lack the basic knowledge to be able to comprehend exactly
why you are wrong.

Simply doing the math will get you the reasons why rail travel is more
efficient. Of course, you would have to know the math to run the equations.

I posted links, last week sometime, whether or not you chose to look at them
is unknown to me.



--
Max

"There are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty:
soap, ballot, jury, and ammo. Please use in that order."
-Ed Howdershelt (Author)

 

They are official US Government department figures, not imagined figures
from some Usenet windbag who revels in the size of his tool. If you wish to
say that they are mistaken or false then please do prove it. Carry on.

Huw

 

Thing is, we don't know the data for every single car in an area (unless,
e.g., it's a street and we have asked every owner in the street) so we take
averages which are "assumptions" for the purposes of a calculation.

Similarly in market surveys only a few hundred or a thousand people are
asked. The assumption is that the sample chosen reflects a region or
country. The assumption may be reasonable, tested many times, but it is
still an 'assumption'. An assumption does not have to mean a random number
plucked from the air or fished from the bottom of someone's gut.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

[...]

[...]

 

Changing the subject fools no-one but yourself. Your continued fairy stories
are less convincing with practice. If you have can show either the US DOE to
be mistaken or the figures for railways compared to road vehicles provided
by me to be substantially mistaken then please do so in the appropriate
place. This particular thread of the conversation is about average road
miles per car [in case you hadn't noticed]. Further bluster only serves to
dig you a deeper hole.

Huw

 

The figures are so overwhelmingly in favour of road transport that even if
there was a significant error in favour of road, the road transport and
argument for closing the railways would still be overwhelming and
compelling. Government hasn't got the balls to do it though. They prefer to
tax road transport to burn it on rail. The bus is just so much more
efficient than the train there is no possible argument. I have one perfectly
comfortable car that averages 70mpg and will exceed 90mpg when trying.
Running this with only one driver is more fuel efficient than a train let
alone having between two and four people in it.
The facts are plain for all but the terminally blinkered and donkey stupid.

Huw

 

In the US, the _average_ is close to 2 cars per household. For a
while I was in a household with 5 (all driven regularly)