[Adrien]

Are you talking about rolling resistence?

Sounds like "resistance au roulement" eh so I suppose it's the case. But although it is definitely linked to stiffness (see Formula One), can't it also be due to more differences in the way the tire is made? It's true that here they ask people to be very careful about the pressure of their tires. It's quite an abyssal loss of energy right there.

[QatzelOk]

But you forget to take into account that single-passenger trips are sometimes necessary.

History forgot to take this into account as well, Adrien. People lived for millenia without cars to make "single-passenger trips." That they are "necessary" (in a car) was your own invention. Maybe you'll get a Nobel Prize for spin.

And neither of you have really argued against any of my points I made about the built-in lack of efficiency of single-passenger, rubber tired vehicles that weigh a ton. It's such a stupid concept that it's impossible to defend unless you resort to empty rhetoric and speculation-as-fact.

No wonder nature is ready to kill us. We've become stupider than plankton because of our texts.

[Thunderhawk]

And neither of you have really argued against any of my points I made about the built-in lack of efficiency of single-passenger, rubber tired vehicles that weigh a ton.

No one is disagreeing with it.
Cars are inefficient.
They are also convenient, which apparantly millions (a billion?) of people consider more important then efficiency.

[QatzelOk]

No one is disagreeing with it.

No one is disagreeing about the OP, which is about "the myth of the efficient car."

Therefore, since no one is disagreeing, I think it's safe to assume that the entire thread was just an articulation of the mythology of the efficient car, with Adrien playing a crucial role in telling the tall tales that lead to our current mythology-caused state of morbid ignorance.

Thanks everyone!

[Thunderhawk]

There are degrees of effiency, and to what they apply.
A car is not efficient in terms of energy usage nor emissions compared to alternatives.
In terms of time and other practical matters, it is better then most of the alternatives.

[Adrien]

No one is disagreeing with it.

Well I do disagree with his peremptory initial statement that "cars are inefficient" period, things being actually, factually more complex, as you later pointed out Thunderhawk.

Of course if Qatz, in his flawed method of discussion and I mean that on an academic level even, only considers one factor to a means of transportation, ie emissions of greenhouse effects, then he can only point out that his bike fits the criteria of 'efficiency' for it brings one person around with zero emissions. While the car as it emits emissions, apparently he doesn't care to know how much or in what conditions, gets a red light.

But this is a flawed reasonning. If you only allow black or white judgements then nothing, nothing gets the green light of this dreamed total and absolute efficiency. This is only a stretch, but if you go this way even living beings are unefficient since they consume a lot and produce waste. I'm really disagreeing with his method here, even before disagreeing with his data or stance.

A means of transportation has to have lots of other factors, from cost, to availability, to the flexibility of the places it allows you to reach, the range, the number of passengers and/or freight, to security, etc. and of course emissions of greenhouse gases as well as fuel efficiency. Once you throw all these factors in to find an answer to the need I've been trying to outline in my posts, and indeed look at every *available* means of transportation, you realise that the car does reach what would be "efficiency", ie the best possible mix of all these factors.

Now, one can defend that the car isn't efficient enough. To which I answered that things are changing, at last some might say, but still, here in Europe and yes there in America too, fuel efficiency, smaller cars, etc. are on the menu.

Again, the personnal vehicle answers a need that is today unanswered by other means of transportation (except for freight but we didn't really discuss that), and won't be tomorrow, not because we don't want to change things because of some conspiracy led by car lovers, but because the situation as it is today is a systemic consequence of the very nature of the way our economies work and the lack of public and community spending inherent to capitalism. My point there being, blame the way things work, not what people have to do to get through.

So if we had to go back to the very first question "is there an efficient car" I would say yes, and it's either the small European city-car, or the midsize hybrid, and generally in every class of cars (since people may need a specific class to do their job, or get their families around) it is either the hybrid or the particule filter-equiped diesel engines.

I think only Chrysler has made a commitment to that but there will be a hybrid version of the Ram pickup in 2010/11 I believe, then a better one in 2013. Then the Ram will probably qualify for the most efficient of the pickup trucks, given that in that class answering some specific needs, it'll be the one to do so with an advantage in fuel economy.

[Thunderhawk]

I would say yes, and it's either the small European city-car, or the midsize hybrid, and generally in every class of cars (since people may need a specific class to do their job, or get their families around) it is either the hybrid or the particule filter-equiped diesel engines.

What efficiency are you measuring?

Emissions while driving, per km traveled?
Total life cycle emissions (including emissions for construction) compared to the amount of people-km transported over that life?


If we measure convenience, or time spent, then cars are often (but not necessarily) more "efficient" then foot, bike or mass transit. But we arent talking about that kind of effiency, or atleast thats not what I infered from the OP.

[QatzelOk]

This is only a stretch, but if you go this way even living beings are unefficient since they consume a lot and produce waste. I'm really disagreeing with his method here, even before disagreeing with his data or stance.

I love your "method" here, Adrien. "Cars are people too." It's just so convincing and fact-based.

And likewise, you accuse me of evaluating cars as "bad" based on only one criteria: greenhouse gases. And yet I have declared cars "bad" for dozens of reasons including destroying childhood, making enough noise to create mass insanity, leading to a grotesque human environment, and isolating people from important spontaneous social situations.

But if you're right, Adrien, and it turns out that cars are feelings just like me and Jane Fonda, then I take back every lie I wrote, and apologize for my sloppy methodology.