My Death Trap

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

It is not a valid comparison because the power source is different. Compare models that run exclusively on gasoline to others that also do. Otherwise this discussion is pointless.

You may want to ignore technological advances, but that was the point of the discussion. If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then why are you posting? Your ridiculous limitations are akin to posting in a photography forum, and insisting that everyone ignore digital cameras because film is the only way cameras capture images.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

If you don't acknowledge that weight is a major factor is fuel economy, nothing I say will convince you. I don't need to prove anything. Denial is 'more than a river in Egypt'.

You made a claim that weight was more important than rolling resistance and drag effects. You can't prove your point. You DO need to prove your claim, or you're proving you're the person in denial.

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

It is not a valid comparison because the power source is different. Compare models that run exclusively on gasoline to others that also do. Otherwise this discussion is pointless.

The hybrids I'm referring to run exclusively on gasoline, they aren't plug-ins, so it's still valid.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

If you don't acknowledge that weight is a major factor is fuel economy, nothing I say will convince you. I don't need to prove anything. Denial is 'more than a river in Egypt'.

I never said it wasn't a major factor, I said that you need to prove your claim that...

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

factors like rolling resistance and drag area are nowhere near as influential as gross vehicle weight.

I don't buy it, but I don't see why you would throw a fit if someone asked you to provide some proof.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by SentraSE-R

You may want to ignore technological advances, but that was the point of the discussion.

I am not "ignoring" technological advances, nor is Frank. Nor is it the point of the discussion. What we are saying is that the "advances" are not always as beneficial or desirable as they are purported to be. Also we are saying that we do not have the choice to opt out by buying a vehicle without them.

If you don't want to participate in the discussion, then why are you posting? Your ridiculous limitations are akin to posting in a photography forum, and insisting that everyone ignore digital cameras because film is the only way cameras capture images.

I am posting to show your comparison is invalid and skewed. You are still trying to compare 'apples to oranges'. If all or even most of today's cars were hybrids (as with your defensive but flawed analogy to digital cameras), the comparison might be valid. But you know very well that most of today's cars are NOT hybrids, yet you insist on focusing only on the few that are, and purposefully ignoring the rest.

You made a claim that weight was more important than rolling resistance and drag effects. You can't prove your point. You DO need to prove your claim, or you're proving you're the person in denial.

No, I don't need to prove anything to you nor will I allow you to put me on the defensive. Your can continue your belief that weight has less or no impact on fuel economy, just as you can believe the moon is made of green cheese and demand that someone provide you with proof to the contrary. Refusal to entertain proof does not automatically make you correct or credible, it merely shows you to be argumentative.

[Thymeclock]

Originally Posted by roflwaffle

The hybrids I'm referring to run exclusively on gasoline, they aren't plug-ins, so it's still valid.

Remove the batteries from them and then we might have a valid comparison.

I don't buy it, but I don't see why you would throw a fit if someone asked you to provide some proof.

Where's the fit? No fit. You don't have to "buy it". But I don't have to entertain you with proof either.

[MetroMPG]

Guys, keep the "pointed" language in check please. Resist getting snarky, even as the brilliance of your arguments is ignored, misunderstood, refuted, whatever.

That's where these threads start to go off the rails.

Keep it civil.

[mcrews]

Originally Posted by autoteach

............Just so you
I think you should be asking some different questions if you are worried about vehicle weight. Sound deadening/insulation, electronics, heated seats, etc do weigh down a vehicle, ..........

i WANT TO HEAR MORE ABOUT THE HEATED SEATS fRANK lEE'S GOT IN THEAT tEMPO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

TEE HEE HEE

[roflwaffle]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Remove the batteries from them and then we might have a valid comparison.

Seriously! It's not like all cars have batteries.

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

Where's the fit? No fit. You don't have to "buy it". But I don't have to entertain you with proof either.

You went from saying that GVW is more important than Crr and CdA

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

factors like rolling resistance and drag area are nowhere near as influential as gross vehicle weight.

To saying that I said it wasn't a major factor, something I never did. That's throwing a fit IMO, but if you don't think so that's fine too.

[SentraSE-R]

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

I am not "ignoring" technological advances... If all or even most of today's cars were hybrids..., the comparison might be valid...

You're creating an artificial division that doesn't exist. I can take my money and buy a hybrid or a conventional car, because the technological advances make them available in the real world. Why must we live within your artificial construct where hybrids are not allowed to exist?

Originally Posted by Thymeclock

No, I don't need to prove anything to you nor will I allow you to put me on the defensive.

Failure to provide proof means your claim is worthless. So be it.

[Thymeclock]

I wrote:

I am posting to show your comparison is invalid and skewed. You are still trying to compare 'apples to oranges'. If all or even most of today's cars were hybrids (as with your defensive but flawed analogy to digital cameras), the comparison might be valid. But you know very well that most of today's cars are NOT hybrids, yet you insist on focusing only on the few that are, and purposefully ignoring the rest.

You're creating an artificial division that doesn't exist.

"Artificial division"? You refuse to compare conventional gasoline powered cars of previous years to other conventional cars made today because you might have to face the facts. If that's not an "artificial division" (a contrived argument) I don't know what is! As long as you can insist upon only comparing 'apples to oranges' you think you have a convincing argument. But you don't.

I can take my money and buy a hybrid or a conventional car, because the technological advances make them available in the real world. Why must we live within your artificial construct where hybrids are not allowed to exist?

When did I say we should live in an "artificial construct"? All I did was to insist on a valid comparison. When did I ever say hybrids should not be allowed to exist? You are engaging in the 'straw man' tactic of debate: misrepresent someone's position and then claim they are wrong. It is the equivalent of 'hitting below the belt' as it is disingenuous. If you misrepresent me I will point out your deceit. I also will insist that you not pull my quotes out of context in attempt to put your argument in a more favorable light.

Failure to provide proof means your claim is worthless. So be it.

OK, to you it is "worthless". I'll not waste any time trying to convince you.

[SentraSE-R]

I'm not used to holding discussions about fuel economy with dictators who make arbitrary rules eliminating the most fuel efficient cars available for sale. This discussion was about technology working against us by adding needless weight and nanny features. It's completely disingenuous of you to rale against the nanny society's needless technology out of one side of your mouth, while claiming the discussion isn't valid if technologically advanced hybrids are included, from the other side of your mouth. If they're available for sale, handicapped with the same airbags and excess weight that all modern cars (including my 2200 lb heavyweight xB) are supposedly saddled with, why shouldn't we be talking about them? You're the one who's arbitrarily put this barrier in the discussion, without justification.

Oh, you definitely don't have to worry about convincing me, when you don't have any facts to support your claim. I make my decisions based on facts, not on faith.