Umm, yeah! If we had less oil consumption, we could just stop importing oil from the middle east!

You don't think that the Middle East would still be essential to low oil prices, even if we did cut our demand? It also isn't like we are forced the Middle East to sell us oil. In fact, good ole Saddam keeps trying to secretely sell extra in violation of UN rules.

In reply to:

---

You don't think that the Middle East would still be essential to low oil prices, even if we did cut our demand? It also isn't like we are forced the Middle East to sell us oil. In fact, good ole Saddam keeps trying to secretely sell extra in violation of UN rules

---

The Middle East could get lost if you guys didn't need their oil.

Right now with Middle East Oil its a case of willing seller/willing buyer.

But - Imagine if the willing buyer side of the deal [thats the US] dropped off since you didn't need to import any oil anymore?

Then your government wouldn't need to keep propping up un-democratic countries like Saudi Arabia and that would save you a bundle of taxpayer dollars each year.

15+ years ago, the US didn't need foreign oil supplies, now you have SUVs and the US imports oil from the Middle East.

Re: Saddam, well Saddam is legally allowed, as per the UN agreements, to sell lots of oil - he's just not supposed to use the money he gets to buy guns, air defence systems, scud missles and stuff like that with it.

He's supposed to buy food and medical supplies etc to keep his people from starving to death, but knowing Saddam its unlikely that he is doing that with every dollar he makes from oil.

"15+ years ago, the US didn't need foreign oil supplies, now you have SUVs and the US imports oil from the Middle East"

That is why we weren't involved in the Middle East 15 years ago? I always wondered about that.

-Biscuits

In reply to:

---

That is why we weren't involved in the Middle East 15 years ago? I always wondered about that.

---

Its one of the reasons, but not the only one.

15+ years ago, Iran & Iraq were fighting each other (Saddam versus the Mullas in Iran) and the US was covertly helping Iraq and was also helping Afghanistan beat the Russians - planting the seeds for bin Laden and his ilk to harvest.

The US got involved with the Middle East again in a big way because of the Invasion of Kuwait and countries like Saudi Arabia figured that Sadam would go after them next once he'd annexed Kuwait so they asked Uncle Sam to help out (or Uncle Sam volunteered - can't recall which now).

And, the US has never left since then.

I think he was being snarky. The US has been chin-deep in the Middle East since at least the formation of Israel in the mid-to-late 40s. We've been eyeball deep since '90.

I'm not going to get in this quagmire of an argument about oil waste, pollution, et al. I just think that SUVs are dangerous because they:

handle very poorly as compared to the cars that people are ``trained'' to drive
the physics (mostly center of gravity and momentum related issues) involved in accidents means that in an accident, injuries are likely to be more common and more severe for all parties in said accident
the fact that bumpers on SUVs are closer to being at car-seated head level than at car bumper level means that the severity of injuries for those in the car in a car v. SUV accident are likely to be greater, and
their physical size means that they obscure traffic to those behind them, making it nearly impossible to predict shifts in traffic flow

I think those are legitimate concerns that get lost in the aggresive attack campaigns being launched against SUVs and their owners. I believe a lot of those concerns are addressable without the demise of a very popular segment of vehicles.

And when the Hybrid SUVs come out, with 50-70 or more MPG then you're really getting somewhere.

Well, as long as we're defying the laws of physics let's just power it with an electrostatic anti-gravity diffusion polarization matricizer with inverse capacitance bias modulation rectification and not use any fuel at all!

A six-foot tall, 4WD, 5500 lb, off-road capable vehicle (which would be a pretty average description of a truck wearing the appellation of "SUV") carrying enough engine and battery capacity to give acceptable acceleration is not likely to deliver "50-70 or more MPG".

[tongue-in-cheek]
Hey, I've got it! We equip all the gasoline pumps with a bit of electronics on the fill nozzle that will read the current odometer mileage of the vehicle and what the mileage was the last time the vehicle was refueled, thus determining the miles traveled. The pump will then dispense only as much fuel as the vehicle consumed if it got 25 miles per gallon. Those with more fuel efficient cars would be able to collect fuel "credits" which they could then sell privately (at whatever outrageous price the traffic would bear) to SUV owners.
[/tongue-in-cheek]

tanstaafl.

bumpers on SUVs are closer to being at car-seated head level than at car bumper level

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Do you USians know those metal bars that stick down from the rear end of semi-trailers? You know what those are? They're the equivalent of car bumpers. They're intended to stop cars from underriding the trailer in an accident, and, not to put too fine a point on it, decapitating the car's occupants. (The next time you're driving behind a semi-trailer, look straight ahead parallel to the ground. You should notice that the bottom of the box is right at neck level. It's disconcerting. You'll never intentionally drive behind one again, and you'll keep your distance when forced.)

Considering that, how many of them have you seen that say something along the lines of ``do not use as a step''? How comfortable does it make you that the thing that's supposed to stop your car hurtling down the road at 55 mph isn't rated strongly enough to support the average (okay -- we're talking truckers here -- heavy) man?

Also, how about the fact that it's more-or-less at hood level and not bumper level? I know that my car's hood deflects when I sit on it. So it's probably about the same strength as the bumper itself.

Doesn't sound like too much protection to me.

In reply to:

---

The US has been chin-deep in the Middle East since at least the formation of Israel in the mid-to-late 40s. We've been eyeball deep since '90.

---

Yeah, but before 1990, you weren't armed to the back teeth and didn't have lots of miltary personnel stationed there - they were all in Germany ready for WWIII, and the US interests were being protected by a proxy army of CIA agents who were doing covert arms deals and black ops and training the locals to fight for Uncle Sams interests where it suited US interests at the time.

Before 1990/Kuwait it was officially: "can't you all just along guys, come on, be nice, or the Ruskies will get you."

And we never overthrew any governments or propped up unpopular ones. Not only that, but the Arabs prior to 1990 actually liked us.

Officially, sure. But the CIA was masterminding all sort of covert actions up to and including overthrowing or propping up governments:

1949: Syria
1953: Iran
1963: Iraq
1973: Iraq (failed)
1979: Iran (prop, failed)
1979: Afghanistan

Not to mention the support of Israel (both moral and with arms) during its numerous invasions of other countries.

Regardless of whether or not it was official, it was well known to everyone over there.

Not only that, but the Arabs prior to 1990 actually liked us.

I highly doubt that as we have been an israeli ally for quite some time.

Still with the irony.

In reply to:

---

A six-foot tall, 4WD, 5500 lb, off-road capable vehicle (which would be a pretty average description of a truck wearing the appellation of "SUV") carrying enough engine and battery capacity to give acceptable acceleration is not likely to deliver "50-70 or more MPG".

---

Yeah, but we're not talking about putting a hybrid power train into a current SUV based on a damn truck chassis design.

We're talking about a fundamental redesign so that the Next Generation Hybrid SUV is not simply a whacking great heavy truck chassis overlaid with even more gas guzzling features.

5500LB ain't a light Truck anymore - never was - thats a 2 tonne monster light truck.

Heck even a top of line modern SUV equivalent from Europe won't weigh anywhere near that and it gets decent mileage right now.

And add in regenerative braking, high energy capacity short term battery storage and you can start to get 50+ MPG without too much thought involved.

Yeah maybe it won't go so well off the road, but like Nike trainers never seem to be used for doing any training, its a moot point.

In reply to:

---

Not only that, but the Arabs prior to 1990 actually liked us.

---

Or was it that they hated you less than the Russians?

Here is the Detroit Project's argument, as I see it.

1. Arabs are pissed at us for being involved in the middle east.
2. We need to be involved in the Middle East because we need oil.
3. SUVs use more gasoline than other vehicles

Therefore, Arabs hate us because some people drive SUVs.

Tell me how this isn't designed to make people hate SUV owners?

-Biscuits

We're talking about a fundamental redesign so that the Next Generation Hybrid SUV is not simply a whacking great heavy truck

Okaaaayyy... so why will your "fundamental redesign" be called a "SUV" and not a "Car"?

What defines an SUV? Bigness. Four wheel drive. An upright (tall) body design. Ruggedness (even if it is just the appearance of ruggedness). Power.

None of these things is conducive to economical operation. If you "fundamentally redesign" the vehicle to overcome these shortcomings, you will no longer have an SUV, at least not an SUV as most buyers would define it.

tanstaafl.

None of these things is conducive to economical operation. If you "fundamentally redesign" the vehicle to overcome these shortcomings, you will no longer have an SUV, at least not an SUV as most buyers would define it.

Yeah, what you are left with is commonly known as a minivan and there are a lot of us SUV owners that for one reason or another do not consider them to be appropriate for our lifestyles.

-Mike

yeah...like...my mom drives one

In reply to:

---

What defines an SUV? Bigness. Four wheel drive. An upright (tall) body design. Ruggedness (even if it is just the appearance of ruggedness). Power.

---

In one word?

Marketing

In reply to:

---

None of these things is conducive to economical operation. If you "fundamentally redesign" the vehicle to overcome these shortcomings, you will no longer have an SUV, at least not an SUV as most buyers would define it.

---

None of these things you mention are mutually exclusive with better MPG and lower emissions per mile from any vehicle including a SUV - provided that the findamental design is sound.

As far as power goes there's lots of options besides 3 hundred cubic inch or whatever V8 engines to drive you forward with the same responsiveness.

It could simply be that Detroit simply puts a high-performance Diesel engine under the hood, and couples it with an hybridised drive train so that when the power isn't needed its not burning loads of fuel and when its needed, the diesel kicks in quickly and keeps the rest - the 4WD, the hi body design, the supposed "ruggedness" and yes, even power.

As far as acceleration goes, you won't beat a electric drive train for that - ever been in a modern electric passenger train (the Accela? one is probably the best known US example).

The acceleration is pretty good - not too different than sitting in a high powered carwith the foot being planted - proably better than an average SUV has now.

And of course, with electric drives you get options like regenerative braking so that when you slow down, the energy normally wasted via brakes) in slowing down the vehicle quickly is captured and stored in electric cells so that the next time you need to accelerate - like when the lights change, you can get moving quickly before the engine has to even increase its revs again - its been idling the whole time - that will save lots of fuel and increase your MPG no end.

Maybe one day, we will all have direct conversion fuel cells and that will be a lot better again - no noisy engine under the hood for a start and clean smooth electric traction all the way.

Maybe those vehicles won't be called SUVs - personally whether its called a SUV, Light Truck, LT:NG or whatever doesn't matter - its still a SUV by "nature" and marketing.

In reply to:

---

Oh yeah, that reminds me.

Do you USians know those metal bars that stick down from the rear end of semi-trailers? You know what those are? They're the equivalent of car bumpers. They're intended to stop cars from underriding the trailer in an accident, and, not to put too fine a point on it, decapitating the car's occupants. (The next time you're driving behind a semi-trailer, look straight ahead parallel to the ground. You should notice that the bottom of the box is right at neck level. It's disconcerting. You'll never intentionally drive behind one again, and you'll keep your distance when forced.)

Considering that, how many of them have you seen that say something along the lines of ``do not use as a step''? How comfortable does it make you that the thing that's supposed to stop your car hurtling down the road at 55 mph isn't rated strongly enough to support the average (okay -- we're talking truckers here -- heavy) man?

Also, how about the fact that it's more-or-less at hood level and not bumper level? I know that my car's hood deflects when I sit on it. So it's probably about the same strength as the bumper itself.

Doesn't sound like too much protection to me.

---

Yeah, but there are plenty of dangerous things. Personally, I don't want the government to try to protect me from every little hazard in everyday life. It's a waste of money and time, and more restrictions equals less freedom. If someone in a little (lightweight) car can't mange to stop faster than a big heavy tractor-trailer, then maybe they shouldn't be driving at all. People need to use their own common sense instead of expecting the government to do it for them. I will not be surprised if in 20 years there will be a government agency dedicated to wiping citizen's asses for them.

Sidenote:

Here's Dodge's first attempt at a hybrid-SUV:

http://www.theautochannel.com/content/news/press/date/20001024/press029051.html

Haven't heard anything about it lately.

Here's another by Toyota:

http://www.motortrend.com/features/news/112_news39/

Interesting, all of the advantages, with almost none of the disadvantages (except tow capacity). I wonder how much these things cost?

The second article mentions that Ford predicts and extra $3000 for a hybrid Escape.

Do you USians know those metal bars that stick down from the rear end of semi-trailers?

As a good model railroader I know they're ICC bars. The ICC doesn't even exist anymore.

Yeah. Slender, young, freckled redheads should stick to giving hummers, not driving them.

/Jim, taking ten-foot insulated pole and rubber boots out of closet....

/Jim, putting pole and boots back in closet

Every fuel-consuming engine is a problematic powerplant from lawn mowers to Boeing Airliners the focus seems to single out SUVs as the first "layer" to correct. This simply doesn't make sense to me.

It's not being looked at first. I remember when two stroke engines were targeted, and now most motorcycles come with quite a bit of enviormental equipment.

Similarly, boats and jetskis are switching to exclusively 4-stroke models by 2006.

None of these things you mention are mutually exclusive with better MPG and lower emissions per mile from any vehicle

Bigger = heavier.

Taller = more wind drag (and on the highway that's where at least 80% of your fuel goes!)

4WD = more mechanical drive. That's why a 4WD truck will get about 25% less fuel mileage than the identical 2Wd model.

Power = tanstaafl. There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch.

Doesn't matter if you're getting the acceleration from the batteries. That energy had to get into those batteries in the first place, and the only place it's coming from is from the engine. Regenerative braking is a nice idea in theory, but it's not ready for prime time yet. Or maybe it is? Doesn't the Honda Insight use it? Don't recall now... But regenerative braking is only advantageous in a stop and go situation. Get that hybrid SUV out on the interestate pushing that "sleek" .65 cd body through the air at 75 MPH and spinning all those axles, constant velocity joints, drive shafts, differentials and transfer cases merrily along -- I don't care if it's a diesel, a hybrid, a gasoline-only, or any combination thereof -- it is going to burn a lot more fuel than an "automobile" (mini-van or station wagon) of comparable capacity.

tanstaafl.