Go Back   EcoModder Forum > Off-Topic > The Lounge
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-25-2012, 04:43 PM   #61 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
Charlie - I know, but the people per km / mile is misleading - see my post on the distribution in Scotland. Northern Scotland is a place you can wander in for a full day and not see anyone - that is rare in the UK. Its nice too, but not so much for the people who live there due to higher fuel costs (~10-15p a litre or about an extra $1.50 a gallon), little or no public transport and very few jobs.

__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 10-25-2012, 08:12 PM   #62 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 40 Times in 26 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by HydroJim View Post
Call me twisted...but I'm pretty happy that gas prices have skyrocketed in California. Even if it's only temporary, maybe it will help open people's eyes
Really? 'Big oil' wishes more people had your attitude. It's nothing short of Big Oil price gouging out here. You should be outraged. Big oil won't re-invest one single penny of those record profits into renewable energy or anything you care about. Other than make a couple 'feel good' TV commercials and token wetlands restorations, that is.

I agree as a nation we must slow down, conserve resources, look for alternatives to foreign oil (and all the Geo-political drama that comes with foreign oil). I can afford fuel for my commute, but what about my unemployed neighbor? Trying to feed his family while looking for work, driving longer distances for temporary work?

Here's what's wrong with your line of thinking: As fuel prices rise, so goes the cost of just about everything. Like most of this country, we don't have a very good public transportation system infrastructural. Liberal California seems to be the corporate proving ground for things like price gouging, our citizens are almost sheep-like in accepting those type of practices, and just pay the price.

Celebrating increased fuel prices 'because I'm in school to help solve the problem' is not only self serving, but just plain wrong. That's like a med student hoping we never find a cure for cancer, or a police officer in training hoping for a rampant crime wave, so officers will be in more demand.

I wouldn't believe anyone would want to cut off their nose, to spike their face, yet here it is, in black and white

I'm not trying to be argumentative, I'd just like you (first 2 posters) to reconsider your positions.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 08:21 PM   #63 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
People in general are not proactive in the least. They need "hints".
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 09:59 PM   #64 (permalink)
.
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Salt Lake valley Utah
Posts: 923
Thanks: 114
Thanked 397 Times in 224 Posts
The way i see it, in a Zombie apocalypse do i wan't a high mpg car that takes little scavenged gas to travel cross country in search of food and shelter, or do i want a large truck to off road away from the zombie infested highways and also has the capability to run over a horde head on? Well a gun rack in my Insights hatch can handle most situations where i might not have the ground clearance to run over a horde. For food it IS possible to fit a deer in the back though it wouldn't be pretty, have to chop off it's hooves and stuff.
__________________
I try to be helpful. I'm not an expert.
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2012, 10:35 PM   #65 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
You won't be eating those parts anyway, but you might want them handy to throw at the zombies.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 12:55 AM   #66 (permalink)
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 2,442

2004 CTD - '04 DODGE RAM 2500 SLT
Team Cummins
90 day: 19.36 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,422
Thanked 737 Times in 557 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arragonis View Post
As an outsider to the US - yeah there is a great big world out there - could I ask a question ?

I've asked this before in (probably) a sarcastic way and this time I mean it seriously.

I've seen a lot of threads where people who have a lot of kudos here post about "having a truck" which they use only "for hauling stuff".


I've been on the planet for something over 40 years, been driving for over 20 of those, owned 4 houses, refurbished a couple, done DIY, reshelled an MG Midget, started restoring my MGB GT with new panels and welding, and just recently refitted a kitchen sawed down trees, fitted a new fence and laid a new lawn.

Not once did I feel the need to "own a truck" just to "haul stuff", including that full MG Midget bodyshell.

So where does this "entitlement" (my name for it) come from ?

Just why do you need one ?

And do you really really need one ?

Seriously ?
I'll give it a shot. Think of it as tied to homeownership, but not all are homeowners. Some are those who specialize in building/maintenance/repairs.

The US economy started exporting jobs in the early 1960's. The closest we ever came to full employment (the real thing, not US Gov apparitional numbers) was the period 1940-1960. The least among us lost their jobs first.

A pickup is a moneymaker for a poor man. Look to Jacob Aziza's thread. Ragpicker, bone picker, construction scavenger, curb hunter. Nothing touches a pickup for this kind of work. A straight-six motor and bolt-action tranny, no power whatsoever . . it'll run about forever. On peanuts. It pays for itself daily. After "work". On weekends. This cannot be said for a car or a van.

To that point in time, pickups were rare. I don't just mean in cities. The early 1960's saw real growth in pickups, vans, station wagons, etc. This point in time was also where public transportation had been destroyed by conspiracy (in some prominent cities) and was allowed to collapse elsewhere. Passenger rail -- intercity -- pretty much disappeared in the 1960's.

So, also, to this point it wasn't much of a handicap to have been a tradesman driving a used car. The cities had not exploded in growth and the wholesalers with whom one dealt on the one hand, and the distance to the customer, on the other, was short. Easy to have same day or same week delivery. Stuff came by rail directly to city center, and went out by wholesaler truck. Worked well for everyone. The US population was around 180-million. The move to the South (due to central air conditioning) was just getting started.

And if one lived in an adjoining town, ones goods could be loaded on any of a number of local trains back to where one lived/worked. Same for the ladies who rolled into the city for shopping. And returned to that outlying town and then rolled the miles to their farm, ranch, smaller town.

As the cities spread out (unbelievably so, IMO), the need for a tradesman to be able to haul all his tools, supplies and equipment far distances became paramount. The wholesaler could in no way keep up with delivery destinations tens of miles out, and tens of miles apart. Rail was never an option as the suburbs exploded. Through the 1970's fewer men had decent blue collar factory jobs. Many eked out a living using a pickup contracting themselves out in repair or construction . . good while it lasted.

The 1960's also saw the last of upward mobility in this country. The Great Depression drove many into the cities via foreclosure (WALMART founder Sam Walton got his start helping Daddy drive people off their land: his customers of today -- no mistake, that), and the drought of the 1950's here in Texas finished Americans being driven off the land. Our Enclosure Laws, as it were. In this state in particular the desire to be a property owner (rancher) is strong. Farming/ranching was long ago captured by the banks, but the preference to be identified as one is greater than for those who would be seen as office drones. Cowboy advertising is not just for cigarets. Westerns on TV. Etc. (Read up on "cowboy church").

Quite a few men would rather work with their hands (at least up through their 40's). Even those who would hardly know one tool from another. So in this state -- where hunting leases are coveted -- a truck is a signifier. Remember, too, that few families live in close proximity to one another where the use of a truck can be shared. And what stopped in this country in 2008 was moving for opportunity. Folks are stuck, hoping their house price will rise again (it won't, it'll stay stuck at an adjusted 1992 for another 20-years). So a focus on the here & now.

Population is now over 300-million. Many new immigrants thrown off their land by NAFTA in Mexico. 35-million of them here when including their children since 1982. Many with rural longings also. Laborers, but quick to drive to make deals on most anything (same as in Mexico; and trips back & forth from there). Strains on services, the schools, the hospitals.

Cars got smaller after 1980. Trucks weren't so underpowered anymore and equivalent cars really didn't offer much anymore (trucks were not the literal deathtraps on the highway they had been). 55-mph national speed limit masked some of the penalty of trucks just as EFI & OD did later. Cheaper airfares made distance traveling in that manner easier. The Interstate highway system saw trucks of all sizes take over what trains had once done. But, though easier portion-by-portion, the distances for all were greater.

Today, few can afford to hire out all the work on their homes. Both parents work, and both have high overhead. Incomes haven't risen in 45-years. The national chains have driven the small suppliers out of business. Everywhere. All the tradesman who remain buy from the chains. So do the rest of us. A truck is practical for any of a variety of reasons. Even if most of the time it may be empty, it is seen as practical. Americans may be house-poor, but for the majority it's all they have.

A BMW costs too much. Can't do anything else. A pickup costs nowhere near as much and has what is necessary (air conditioning and decent sound insulation are the commuting requirements). Anyone can fix it (is the mantra), and one doesn't stick out. It is seen as anti-pretentious. I'll bet you own blue jeans, do you not? Blue collar chic.

We may go about how impractical Americans are, rendered deaf & dumb by TV, perpetual 6th graders politically . . . but when push comes to shove you can bet the ones with pickups are glad of that. Hurricane evacuation or foreclosure. Better the fate of the Clampetts rather than the Joads, but both understood the fate of those less well-prepared.

A pickup in New England may not mean much. But once west of line drawn from Washington, D.C. to Cleveland, OH (a small area if you'll consult a map, but over 150-million Americans live east of it) the distances start to add up. Hospitals, supply centers, groceries . . all can be considerable distances. No telling what you might need -- and when -- out here in flyover country.

One can be sarcastic about it, I know I can, and I know it far better. But I also know the limits around which it is workable. In that vein one starts to delve into the falsity of "lifestyle". Etc.

Okay, I've made the point elsewhere about small car + trailer, too. You'll see in my current sig pic my truck & trailer. Both were chosen for: longevity, reliability & low energy input given my budget. I no longer own a house and expect to move around quite a bit in the forthcoming years. No other method -- in a car dependency -- affords such low overhead. The truck is transportation, but it is also "the garage" from whence maintenance/repairs/upgrades happen for both vehicles.

The goal with the trailer is to be able, at notice, to go up to two weeks without other inputs, be they food, water or energy. And cover considerable distance all the while. In this I'm part of a growing segment: concerned about transitions. Not quite transitory, mind you, but being able to move at a moments notice. Cheaply. The right pickup truck is part of the equation. They have their place.

.
  Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to slowmover For This Useful Post:
Arragonis (10-26-2012), Fat Charlie (10-26-2012), larrybuck (10-26-2012), ron (10-26-2012)
Old 10-26-2012, 11:44 AM   #67 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: NorCal
Posts: 451
Thanks: 1
Thanked 40 Times in 26 Posts
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good post!
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 01:15 PM   #68 (permalink)
The PRC.
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by metromizer View Post
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Good post!
+1.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 01:53 PM   #69 (permalink)
The road not so traveled
 
TheEnemy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: New Mexico
Posts: 680

The Truck - '99 Nissan Frontier xe
90 day: 25.74 mpg (US)

The Ugly Duck - '84 Jeep CJ7 Rock crawler
Thanks: 18
Thanked 66 Times in 57 Posts
My current daily driver truck averages 20-22 arround town, and 24-26 on the highway, and that is in stock form. I use it as a truck about 2 times a month. To tow a trailer that has the same cargo rating of my truck a car capable of doing so would not do much better in the FE department, nor do they tend to handle it as well. I am upgrading my class II hitch bumper to a class III reciever because it isn't handling what I use it for so well. The bed has been used as an example of what a truck bed should look like. (scraped, scratched, dented)

Edit: added from here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socorro_County,_New_Mexico

Area 6,649mi^2
Population almost 18,000
Population density 3/mi^2

The population of my town just over 9000 with a density of 630/mi^2

So public transit - None
The local lumber company has 1 delivery truck, which also doubles as their supply truck so you might have to wait a day to get your stuff. If they don't have what you need the next closest is 50 miles away and they charge $150 to deliver with up to a 5 day wait that you have to take off of work to recieve.

When you guys were talking about rural I was snickering. I know of places that are worse, like areas of Nevada.

Last edited by TheEnemy; 10-26-2012 at 02:07 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 10-26-2012, 02:51 PM   #70 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,150

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,784
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,246 Posts
I swear I posted this this morning, but somehow it didn't stick. I'll summarize.

Arragonis- I know places where you can wander all day without seeing anyone. We call that normal here. Over your way, the land was developed before transportation existed, and the land is quite finite. The US grew with the idea that land was cheap, and everything since the 1940s was with the idea that not only was land cheap, but gas was cheaper- so the scattered towns became scattered themselves. Every small town doesn't have everything you need anymore, and delivery doesn't exist.

metromizer- Yes, the cost of everything goes up when gas goes up, but that's because our whole economy is based on the idea that gas is basically free. It's not the oil companies' job to research AE. They are there to make a profit from the production, distribution and sale of oil. The only way any of our gas money is going to get reinvested in RE or efficiency is if the gas gets taxed more. We never wanted gas to cost anything because we loved burning all of it that we could find. If we had made it cost more (taxed it more) then we'd already be more efficient and we'd have had more funding for research and mass transit.

slowmover- Thank you for being so thorough.

__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread






Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com