Quote
Honda Insight 1.3 IMA SE Hybrid
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.timesonline.co.uk%2Fmultimedia%2Farchive%2F00556%2FIn_Gear_556559a.jpg&hash=39729b6d0be7c03ea0129731b246d9afc8b72adb)
Much has been written about the Insight, Honda's new low-priced hybrid. We've been told how much carbon dioxide it produces, how its dashboard encourages frugal driving by glowing green when you're easy on the throttle and how it is the dawn of all things. The beginning of days.
So far, though, you have not been told what it's like as a car; as a tool for moving you, your friends and your things from place to place.
So here goes. It's terrible. Biblically terrible. Possibly the worst new car money can buy. It's the first car I've ever considered crashing into a tree, on purpose, so I didn't have to drive it any more.
The biggest problem, and it's taken me a while to work this out, because all the other problems are so vast and so cancerous, is the gearbox. For reasons known only to itself, Honda has fitted the Insight with something called constantly variable transmission (CVT).
It doesn't work. Put your foot down in a normal car and the revs climb in tandem with the speed. In a CVT car, the revs spool up quickly and then the speed rises to match them. It feels like the clutch is slipping. It feels horrid.
And the sound is worse. The Honda's petrol engine is a much-shaved, built-for-economy, low-friction 1.3 that, at full chat, makes a noise worse than someone else's crying baby on an airliner. It's worse than the sound of your parachute failing to open. Really, to get an idea of how awful it is, you'd have to sit a dog on a ham slicer.
So you're sitting there with the engine screaming its head off, and your ears bleeding, and you're doing only 23mph because that's about the top speed, and you're thinking things can't get any worse, and then they do because you run over a small piece of grit.
Because the Honda has two motors, one that runs on petrol and one that runs on batteries, it is more expensive to make than a car that has one. But since the whole point of this car is that it could be sold for less than Toyota's Smugmobile, the engineers have plainly peeled the suspension components to the bone. The result is a ride that beggars belief.
There's more. Normally, Hondas feel as though they have been screwed together by eye surgeons. This one, however, feels as if it's been made from steel so thin, you could read through it. And the seats, finished in pleblon, are designed specifically, it seems, to ruin your skeleton. This is hairy-shirted eco-ism at its very worst.
However, as a result of all this, prices start at £15,490 — that's £3,000 or so less than the cost of the Prius. But at least with the Toyota there is no indication that you're driving a car with two motors. In the Insight you are constantly reminded, not only by the idiotic dashboard, which shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle (pass the sick bucket), but by the noise and the ride and the seats. And also by the hybrid system Honda has fitted.
In a Prius the electric motor can, though almost never does, power the car on its own. In the Honda the electric motor is designed to "assist" the petrol engine, providing more get-up-and-go when the need arises. The net result is this: in a Prius the transformation from electricity to petrol is subtle. In the Honda there are all sorts of jerks and clunks.
And for what? For sure, you could get 60 or more mpg if you were careful. And that's not bad for a spacious five-door hatchback. But for the same money
you could have a Golf diesel, which will be even more economical. And hasn't been built out of rice paper to keep costs down.
Of course, I am well aware that there are a great many people in the world who believe that the burning of fossil fuels will one day kill all the Dutch and that something must be done.
They will see the poor ride, the woeful performance, the awful noise and the spine-bending seats as a price worth paying. But what about the eco-cost of building the car in the first place?
Honda has produced a graph that seems to suggest that making the Insight is only marginally more energy-hungry than making a normal car. And that the slight difference is more than negated by the resultant fuel savings.
Hmmm. I would not accuse Honda of telling porkies. That would be foolish. But I cannot see how making a car with two motors costs the same in terms of resources as making a car with one.
The nickel for the battery has to come from somewhere. Canada, usually. It has to be shipped to Japan, not on a sailing boat, I presume. And then it must be converted, not in a tree house, into a battery, and then that battery must be transported, not on an ox cart, to the Insight production plant in Suzuka. And then the finished car has to be shipped, not by Thor Heyerdahl, to Britain, where it can be transported, not by wind, to the home of a man with a beard who thinks he's doing the world a favour.
Why doesn't he just buy a Range Rover, which is made from local components, just down the road? No, really — weird-beards buy locally produced meat and vegetables for eco-reasons. So why not apply the same logic to cars?
At this point you will probably dismiss what I'm saying as the rantings of a petrolhead, and think that I have my head in the sand.
That's not true. While I have yet to be convinced that man's 3% contribution to the planet's greenhouse gases affects the climate, I do recognise that oil is a finite resource and that as it becomes more scarce, the political ramifications could well be dire. I therefore absolutely accept the urgent need for alternative fuels.
But let me be clear that hybrid cars are designed solely to milk the guilt genes of the smug and the foolish. And that pure electric cars, such as the G-Wiz and the Tesla, don't work at all because they are just too inconvenient.
Since about 1917 the car industry has not had a technological revolution — unlike, say, the world of communications or film. There has never been a 3G moment at Peugeot nor a need to embrace DVD at Nissan. There has been no VHS/Betamax battle between Fiat and Renault.
Car makers, then, have had nearly a century to develop and hone the principles of suck, squeeze, bang, blow. And they have become very good at it.
But now comes the need to throw away the heart of the beast, the internal combustion engine, and start again. And, critically, the first of the new cars with their new power systems must be better than the last of the old ones. Or no one will buy them. That's a tall order. That's like dragging Didier Drogba onto a cricket pitch and expecting him to be better than Ian Botham.
And here's the kicker. That's exactly what Honda has done with its other eco-car, the Clarity. Instead of using a petrol engine to charge up the electric motor's batteries, as happens on the Insight, the Clarity uses hydrogen: the most abundant gas in the universe.
The only waste product is water. The car feels like a car. And, best of all, the power it produces is so enormous, it can be used by day to get you to 120mph and by night to run all the electrical appliances in your house. This is not science fiction. There is a fleet of Claritys running around California right now.
There are problems to be overcome. Making hydrogen is a fuel-hungry process, and there is no infrastructure. But Alexander Fleming didn't look at his mould and think, "Oh dear, no one will put that in their mouth", and give up.
I would have hoped, therefore, that Honda had diverted every penny it had into making hydrogen work rather than stopping off on the way to make a half-arsed halfway house for fools and madmen.
The only hope I have is that there are enough fools and madmen out there who will buy an Insight to look sanctimonious outside the school gates. And that the cash this generates can be used to develop something a bit more constructive.
The Clarksometer
Honda Insight 1.3 IMA SE Hybrid
Engine 1399cc, four cylinders
Power 87bhp@5800rpm
Torque 89 lb ft @ 4500rpm
Transmission CVT
Fuel 64.2mpg (combined)
CO2 101g/km
Acceleration 0-62mph: 12.5sec
Top speed 113mph
Price £15,490
Road tax band B (£15 a year)
Clarkson's verdict:
Good only for parting the smug from their money
Ouch, that review hurts.... :huh:
I'd like to here more about the Clarity, it sounds awesome.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2009, 02:43:59 PM
I'd like to here more about the Clarity, it sounds awesome.
The fruitcake host from Top Gear(May or whatever his name is) loved it.
Quote from: KRonn on May 18, 2009, 02:42:12 PM
Ouch, that review hurts.... :huh:
He gives it 4.5/10.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2009, 02:43:59 PM
I'd like to here more about the Clarity, it sounds awesome.
Same here.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on May 18, 2009, 02:43:59 PM
I'd like to here more about the Clarity, it sounds awesome.
They'll only make a 200 in the next three years. Using a fuel cell in cars is actually not a new idea, it's been tried for at least 20 years. The problem is that there is no infrastructure for these cars and that producing hydrogen is extremely inefficient.
Makes you wonder if they're still making green cars crap on purpose so they can continue with regular ones.
Quote from: Tyr on May 18, 2009, 04:18:24 PM
Makes you wonder if they're still making green cars crap on purpose so they can continue with regular ones.
Over here the government requires them to make a certain # of these cars that no one wants.
I couldn't read past the third paragraph. His review was already biblically terrible.
I'd consider it more damning if he provided specs for the Prius showing a lack of substantial lead in either power or emissions. His contention about "green building" is based on a series of guesses about carbon footprints at each stage of the construction process. Considering the variance in mass and displacements of engines, I think his argument about resources is more apple-to-orange than anything else. Would the combined mass of those engines equal that of the Aston Martin V12 Vanquish, for example?
Quotewhich shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle (pass the sick bucket)
:lmfao:
Quote from: FunkMonk on May 18, 2009, 09:20:41 PM
Quotewhich shows leaves growing on a tree when you ease off the throttle (pass the sick bucket)
:lmfao:
This whole "green" fad can't end soon enough for me. :bleeding:
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 18, 2009, 10:12:52 PM
This whole "green" fad can't end soon enough for me. :bleeding:
Me too. Let's make the planet uninhabitable as quickly as possible.
The author of the review sounds like someone who spent much more energy coming up with unique insults than he did objectively evaluating the car.
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 18, 2009, 10:17:36 PM
Me too. Let's make the planet uninhabitable as quickly as possible.
:thumbsup:
...
oh wait. :(
Quote from: DisturbedPervert on May 18, 2009, 10:17:36 PM
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 18, 2009, 10:12:52 PM
This whole "green" fad can't end soon enough for me. :bleeding:
Me too. Let's make the planet uninhabitable as quickly as possible.
That wasn't what I meant.
The actual advantages or disadvantages of this car notwithstanding, I just want to say that the only thing Jeremy Clarkson is fit to do, is to get torn to pieces by a pack of rabid dogs. :)
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
The actual advantages or disadvantages of this car notwithstanding, I just want to say that the only thing Jeremy Clarkson is fit to do, is to get torn to pieces by a pack of rabid dogs. :)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have some sort of evidence to indicate he is against faggotry in some fashion?
Perhaps he didn't like that homo cowboy movie? bareback mountain?
Quote from: DGuller on May 18, 2009, 10:38:16 PM
The author of the review sounds like someone who spent much more energy coming up with unique insults than he did objectively evaluating the car.
That's pretty much his schtick. He is an entertainer (and very entertaining he is, too). Rather like Ben Croshaw.
Actually the first Clarkson piece I've read through to the end without wanting to punch anyone.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 18, 2009, 02:47:05 PM
The fruitcake host from Top Gear(May or whatever his name is) loved it.
James May. Started his career working at the same magazine as me.*
*Brought to you by the Brazen name-drop-o-matic
The Corolla was, is, and will always be the best car.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fcache.gawker.com%2Fassets%2Fimages%2Fjalopnik%2F2008%2F11%2F2010-Honda-Insight-Dashboard.jpg&hash=dd060db5c332028084ad1688cd90576f35bf821e)
If those little things are the leaves growing on trees, I have to admit I'm a bit disappointed.
He writes like I froth.
QuoteOkay, you've got me bang to rights – I'm a secret green
Jeremy Clarkson
Last week, in this newspaper, I was outed as a recycler, a man who composts his tea bags, eats wasps and spends most of his days tutting in supermarkets at the Day-Glo orangeness of the carrots. Or, to put it another way, a damned hypocrite.
Well, I'm sorry, but if the newspaper is going to publish these accusations, then I am surely allowed to reply. Yes, I do recycle. Yes, I do eat wasps, if they've burrowed into my apples. And yes, I do get so angry in supermarkets that often I leave my half-filled trolley in the spices aisle and come home empty-handed.
There's more. On Wednesday I spent most of the morning demanding to see the manager of a restaurant in which each individual sugar lump was wrapped in its own plastic sleeping bag. "Why," I wailed, "do you buy sugar this way?" Using plastic to wrap sugar just means more litter and ultimately less diesel for my Range Rover.
And there's the problem. Because these days the rules state that you are either completely green or you are not green at all. The whole movement has been hijacked by lunatics who want everyone to live in crofts and Facebook trees.
Excuse me, but I have yet to be convinced that man's paltry 3% contribution to the planet's bank of carbon dioxide affects the climate. And furthermore, I do not share the view that a rise in global temperatures is necessarily a bad thing. For instance, I believe a parrot would be a more interesting Cotswold garden bird than a sparrow.
As a result, I'm still the same man who dreams of running amok on the set of Mamma Mia! with a large-calibre machinegun. I'm still the man who wondered what my dead tortoise would taste like. And I'm still the man who lights his patio heater in April and leaves it burning non-stop till Bonfire Night.
However, I am also the man who likes to poke restaurant managers in the forehead when they bring me individually wrapped sugar lumps. And I will continue to fill supermarket trolleys and then leave them for some halfwit to unload again after I've stormed out in disgust at the sheer quantity of entirely unnecessary packaging.
Wal-Mart reckons that a third of all consumer waste in America comes from packaging and says it is committed to reducing its use by 5%. That sounds noble, but why only 5%? Why not completely? Why do we have to buy apples in a polythene bag? Why do all toys have to come in their own moulded plastic display box? And why, if they do, does the plastic have to be of such thickness that many car firms would not even use it to make a bumper?
I recently bought something called a Black Widow slingshot. It's a catapult that fires ball bearings with devastating force. I was very much looking forward to blatting a few pigeons with it. But I cannot get through the plastic case in which it was sold. Scissors just break. My Strimmer became jammed. And dynamite is ineffective. I would very much like to meet the man who chose to seal his product this way, and kill him.
The list of my issues is endless. Why is milk served in a plastic thimble and not a jug? What's the matter with greaseproof paper for sandwiches? Why do hotels serve jam in one-cubic-inch jars? And why do DVDs come in an impregnable Cellophane wrapper? It's not like they're going to rot.
It's not just packaging either. I am particularly partial to a radish, and as a result I grow my own, in my own vegetable garden. Well, obviously, I don't grow them. A man does. But it's my bit of land and I'm the one who nourishes it by composting coffee grounds and old copies of The Guardian.
Anyway, the radishes I grow may be full of worm holes and covered in mud but pop one into your mouth and it feels like your tongue is stuck in a gin trap. Peppery is too sprightly a word to describe the savagery of their kick. This is how a radish should be. And watercress.
And now we get to the miserable offerings sold by supermarkets, in plastic bags. They taste of absolutely nothing. You would be better off eating the plate on which they are served. They are nothing more than cross-trainers for your mouth, something to do when you're not smoking.
I would like to meet the people responsible for this. I would like them to try one of my radishes and one of my chicken's eggs, and I would like them to eat watercress straight from the beck in Appletreewick. And then I would like to stand, with my hands on my hips, and demand an explanation.
Make no mistake. I hate anything labelled organic. I deliberately won't buy Fairtrade crisps. Or anything with a pithy nuclear-free, multicultural slogan. I loathe the movement, but I love, with all my heart, the destination. And this from a man who blasted his taste buds to kingdom come with nicotine by the time he was 26. This from a man who cannot tell the difference between chicken and fish.
So yes, I recycle and I grow my own eggs, and I harvest my barley field from the inside out, so that any of the birds in there have a chance to flee. But all of these things are my choice. I would not dream of banning supermarket radishes or the bags in which they come. I would not set up a website for like-minded individuals. I would not go on a march.
I get on with these little things quietly, because if I made a noise and a fuss I would be labelled an environmentalist. Which is a terrible, hideous, beardy label for unwashed communists.
Nobody wants that, and this highlights something rather interesting. If the eco-ists would only shut up, I wonder if the sound of their droning would be replaced by the sound of normal people fitting solar panels and making soup from nettles and twigs.
Good article Ed. :cool:
Highlights some of the frustrations.Such as about packaging, which absolutely drives me nuts. Some of it is supposed to be "child proof" I guess, but kids would likely figure out how to get through it because I know I can't! Or the plastic cocoon surrounding it is just obscene, requiring so much hacking and cutting to get through to the product which probably cost less than the package did. :huh:
Then the environ movement, which seems so annoying. Everything is a "green" product, regardless if it really is better at all. Green sells, even if you pay more for it and it isn't greener to make, or use. Perhaps such as US ethyl gas, made from corn, and costs about as much energy to make as to use. And the inefficient industry is subsidized by tax money, further compounding the expense of it. But hey, it's "green"!! And we put tariffs on imports of sugar ethanol from other countries, to protect our home grown business?
Now, who knows anything about those CFL(sp?) lightbulbs that Congress is mandating we use by 2012 or so? The cork screw shaped ones, made with mercury, and if you break one the damn thing is dangerous to handle and clean up, dispose of? Is this in the name of "green"?
Quote from: Ancient Demon on May 18, 2009, 10:12:52 PM
This whole "green" fad can't end soon enough for me. :bleeding:
I agree. Most green products are scams. I want to see real substantial changes to make our lifestyle more sustainable and less reliant on politically and economically destructive oil. The whole green marketing and feel good bullshit though just pisses me off. It is like drinking a diet soft drink while eating piles of fried chicken claiming you are eating healthy.
QuoteI get on with these little things quietly, because if I made a noise and a fuss I would be labelled an environmentalist. Which is a terrible, hideous, beardy label for unwashed communists.
Nobody wants that, and this highlights something rather interesting. If the eco-ists would only shut up, I wonder if the sound of their droning would be replaced by the sound of normal people fitting solar panels and making soup from nettles and twigs.
Amen brother.
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
The actual advantages or disadvantages of this car notwithstanding, I just want to say that the only thing Jeremy Clarkson is fit to do, is to get torn to pieces by a pack of rabid dogs. :)
Why?
Let me guess he once said something that got your panties in a wad about gays amiright?
Quote from: KRonn on May 19, 2009, 09:25:14 AM
Now, who knows anything about those CFL(sp?) lightbulbs that Congress is mandating we use by 2012 or so? The cork screw shaped ones, made with mercury, and if you break one the damn thing is dangerous to handle and clean up, dispose of? Is this in the name of "green"?
You may be barking up the wrong tree here. Incadescent light bulbs are the pinnacle of inefficiency. They are only 2% efficient compared to 10% efficiency of the CFL lamps. Considering the amount of energy used just for lighting, those are enormous energy savings. The mercury threat is overblown, and burning coal to power the vastly inefficient incadescent bulbs releases mercury as well.
The pinnacle if inefficiency?
I thought that was Tim?
QuoteNow, who knows anything about those CFL(sp?) lightbulbs that Congress is mandating we use by 2012 or so? The cork screw shaped ones, made with mercury, and if you break one the damn thing is dangerous to handle and clean up, dispose of? Is this in the name of "green"?
The hysteria over the trace amounts of mercury in CFL bulbs is hilarious and sad. This is a real change that will have profound effects on our energy use not some "green" fad thing.
What is even more hilarious and sad is that all efforts to get us off of economically and politically dangerous oil and natural gas and increase efficiency and other common sense energy ideas get written off as "green" as if there is no better reason to do these things besides environmentalism. Idiocy annoys me.
Quote from: DGuller on May 19, 2009, 09:53:09 AM
You may be barking up the wrong tree here. Incadescent light bulbs are the pinnacle of inefficiency. They are only 2% efficient compared to 10% efficiency of the CFL lamps. Considering the amount of energy used just for lighting, those are enormous energy savings. The mercury threat is overblown, and burning coal to power the vastly inefficient incadescent bulbs releases mercury as well.
The fact remains that due to the mercury (which is a big issue with disposal-- not everybody's gonna do it properly), the CFL lamps are an imperfect solution. Espec. given the annoyance of having to wait for them to "warm up", lack of durability (don't bother installing them with a ceiling fan).
Don't get me wrong-- I was an early adopter of CFL bulbs, and use them instead of incandescent in most cases. I just think they're a stop-gap measure at best. Hopefully, LED light bulbs will be a better solution when they get cheaper.
Quote from: DGuller on May 19, 2009, 09:53:09 AM
You may be barking up the wrong tree here. Incadescent light bulbs are the pinnacle of inefficiency. They are only 2% efficient compared to 10% efficiency of the CFL lamps. Considering the amount of energy used just for lighting, those are enormous energy savings. The mercury threat is overblown, and burning coal to power the vastly inefficient incadescent bulbs releases mercury as well.
Truth!
I hate CFL bulbs sickly, yellow light. Which is why I want to shove one up every environmentalist's ass.
And I miss the old toilets. Low flow toilets suck.
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2009, 10:09:18 AM
The fact remains that due to the mercury (which is a big issue with disposal-- not everybody's gonna do it properly), the CFL lamps are an imperfect solution. Espec. given the annoyance of having to wait for them to "warm up", lack of durability (don't bother installing them with a ceiling fan).
Don't get me wrong-- I was an early adopter of CFL bulbs, and use them instead of incandescent in most cases. I just think they're a stop-gap measure at best. Hopefully, LED light bulbs will be a better solution when they get cheaper.
They are a good interim solution I agree. I use them everywhere I have not had a big problem with using them in ceiling fans. I certainly do not think we should just shut down all R&D on lighting
The mercury issue will only be a big deal in mass dumps of them, which will happen in a junk yard and is a concern for that reason only. It is not, as some are hysterically pointing out, as if you can poison yourself if you do not handle a broken bulb without a Hazmat suit.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 10:12:13 AM
Which is why I want to shove one up every evironmentalist's ass.
:bleeding: Die in a fire.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 10:13:32 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 10:12:13 AM
Which is why I want to shove one up every evironmentalist's ass.
:bleeding: Die in a fire.
Bend over first. I have a case of bulbs to shove in.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 10:15:31 AM
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 10:14:49 AM
Bend over first. I have a case of bulbs to shove in.
At least slur me as an energy independence dude. You are the dude who sucks foreigner cock.
I will bend over so long as you find a Saudi to blow.
King Faud is unavailable.
What is also amazing is that by hating sickly CFL bulbs, I am somehow a Saudi apologist. Typical. :P
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 10:14:49 AM
Bend over first. I have a case of bulbs to shove in.
I do not get the hysterical moronic bashing of having sane energy goals. You brainless idiots are so fucking tiresome. Yes I know you hate environmentalists, I am proud of you but the only thing this has in common with environmentalism is that supposedly they like it (but they actually don't, envornmentalists have been known to protest everything from wind turbines to nuclear plants).
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 10:17:05 AM
King Faud is unavailable.
What is also amazing is that by hating sickly CFL bulbs, I am somehow a Saudi apologist. Typical. :P
Yes yes you are -_-
I TOUCHED A NERVE! :w00t:
First one this month and it was Valmy.
Slow hand-clap for senor Monkeybutt :P
One downside of the CFL is that they don't produce much heat. Around here, we use that excess heat to not die!
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 10:12:40 AM
They are a good interim solution I agree. I use them everywhere I have not had a big problem with using them in ceiling fans. I certainly do not think we should just shut down all R&D on lighting
In my experience, anything that jostles them around tends to severely shorten their lifespan. May vary from brand to brand, however.
The "warm up" thing still annoys the crap out of me, which is why I still have an incandescent bulb in my walk-in closet. I don't want to have to wait around for 8-10 minutes to be able to see, when I only want to be in there for a few seconds.
Quote
The mercury issue will only be a big deal in mass dumps of them, which will happen in a junk yard and is a concern for that reason only. It is not, as some are hysterically pointing out, as if you can poison yourself if you do not handle a broken bulb without a Hazmat suit.
That's my objection. I hadn't heard any of the hysteria over broken bulbs.
Quote from: Grey Fox on May 19, 2009, 10:37:49 AM
One downside of the CFL is that they don't produce much heat. Around here, we use that excess heat to not die!
Yes, even in England the excess heat is not wholly wasted as it is quite useful (if an inefficient way of generating heat) for 8 months of the year.
The same goes for the waste heat generated by computers. If the external temperature is 12 C or so, I find that I don't need to heat the house but that the heat given off by my PC is quite useful in taking the edge off.
Anyway, as much as I am for a clean environment & whatnot, "environmentalism" went too far when it turned into a religion.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html)
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2009, 10:43:13 AM
Anyway, as much as I am for a clean environment & whatnot, "environmentalism" went too far when it turned into a religion.
http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html (http://www.crichton-official.com/speech-environmentalismaseligion.html)
A speech about how some people go too far...shock!
Quote from: garbon on May 19, 2009, 10:45:45 AM
A speech about how some people go too far...shock!
It's an excellent speech.
Now go & fix your state budget :contract:
Quote from: derspiess on May 19, 2009, 11:01:33 AM
Now go & fix your state budget :contract:
I'm supposed to vote today...but I don't think I have time. :weep:
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 10:12:40 AM
They are a good interim solution I agree. I use them everywhere I have not had a big problem with using them in ceiling fans. I certainly do not think we should just shut down all R&D on lighting
The mercury issue will only be a big deal in mass dumps of them, which will happen in a junk yard and is a concern for that reason only. It is not, as some are hysterically pointing out, as if you can poison yourself if you do not handle a broken bulb without a Hazmat suit.
Well, won't this be a problem, as millions of these get into landfills over the decades they're used? As households dispose of them. Not trying to bash anyone; this just seems a logical concern. We aren't supposed to dispose of batteries in landfills due to the materials in them, for instance.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 10:20:23 AM
I do not get the hysterical moronic bashing of having sane energy goals. You brainless idiots are so fucking tiresome. Yes I know you hate environmentalists, I am proud of you but the only thing this has in common with environmentalism is that supposedly they like it (but they actually don't, envornmentalists have been known to protest everything from wind turbines to nuclear plants).
You answered some of it right there, "envornmentalists have been known to protest everything from wind turbines to nuclear plants". Enviro groups can be quite fanatic about their demands and views, becoming like PETA about meat eating. They do damage to the cause by their over blowing things. That's what I get annoyed about, not about you, me or most of us who do want sane energy goals and workable ideas.
And in that I applaud Pres Obama who is moving the energy debate forward, pushing for action, something sadly lacking for far too long. As we saw during last summer's energy (oil/natural gas) price hikes as we have had no strong energy policy or direction prior to that, despite decades of time to do so. And even after last summer's crunch we barely had movement in energy policy, though it did seem that things were finally changing some.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 10:12:13 AM
And I miss the old toilets. Low flow toilets suck.
Nobody actually has low-flow toilets.
Quote from: Slargos on May 19, 2009, 02:28:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
The actual advantages or disadvantages of this car notwithstanding, I just want to say that the only thing Jeremy Clarkson is fit to do, is to get torn to pieces by a pack of rabid dogs. :)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have some sort of evidence to indicate he is against faggotry in some fashion?
Perhaps he didn't like that homo cowboy movie? bareback mountain?
Not that I know of. He is just an obscurantist ass, when it comes to clean energy.
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 19, 2009, 02:28:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
The actual advantages or disadvantages of this car notwithstanding, I just want to say that the only thing Jeremy Clarkson is fit to do, is to get torn to pieces by a pack of rabid dogs. :)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have some sort of evidence to indicate he is against faggotry in some fashion?
Perhaps he didn't like that homo cowboy movie? bareback mountain?
Not that I know of. He is just an obscurantist ass, when it comes to clean energy.
Yeah, but you don't care about that. So what's going on?
Quote from: Neil on May 19, 2009, 02:09:02 PM
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 02:01:25 PM
Quote from: Slargos on May 19, 2009, 02:28:50 AM
Quote from: Martinus on May 19, 2009, 01:19:15 AM
The actual advantages or disadvantages of this car notwithstanding, I just want to say that the only thing Jeremy Clarkson is fit to do, is to get torn to pieces by a pack of rabid dogs. :)
I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you have some sort of evidence to indicate he is against faggotry in some fashion?
Perhaps he didn't like that homo cowboy movie? bareback mountain?
Not that I know of. He is just an obscurantist ass, when it comes to clean energy.
Yeah, but you don't care about that. So what's going on?
:lol:
I tried to test drive the Insight but it was too small for me. My wife test drove it and gave it a thumbs down.
The best Hybrid in terms of responsiveness is surprisingly the Ford product. But it is really, also surprisingly, expensive compared to its competition. We are now looking at non hybrid products that have close to hybrid fuel efficiency.
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 19, 2009, 02:53:02 PM
But it is really, also surprisingly, expensive compared to its competition. We are now looking at non hybrid products that have close to hybrid fuel efficiency.
That is probably a good stopgap until we can come up with better energy storage technology to make electric cars actually practical. Right now the weight of the batteries cancels out the fuel efficiency advantages you get from a hybrid engine it seems.
I thought the Ford Escape SUV hybrid was fairly comfortable. I wasn't going to pay a 9,000 dollar premium for it though.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 02:56:41 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on May 19, 2009, 02:53:02 PM
But it is really, also surprisingly, expensive compared to its competition. We are now looking at non hybrid products that have close to hybrid fuel efficiency.
That is probably a good stopgap until we can come up with better energy storage technology to make electric cars actually practical. Right now the weight of the batteries cancels out the fuel efficiency advantages you get from a hybrid engine it seems.
Where did you get that idea? :huh: Even mild hybrids, which really are hybrids in name only, get a somewhat better fuel efficiency.
Quote from: DGuller on May 19, 2009, 03:07:17 PM
Where did you get that idea? :huh: Even mild hybrids, which really are hybrids in name only, get a somewhat better fuel efficiency.
It doesn't totally cancel it out but it is not really that significant in the end. There are comparable fuel efficiencies from conventional engines.
Quote from: Valmy on May 19, 2009, 03:12:16 PM
Quote from: DGuller on May 19, 2009, 03:07:17 PM
Where did you get that idea? :huh: Even mild hybrids, which really are hybrids in name only, get a somewhat better fuel efficiency.
It doesn't totally cancel it out but it is not really that significant in the end. There are comparable fuel efficiencies from conventional engines.
I don't think it even remotely cancels it out. First of all, weight is much more of a factor in a city than on a highway when it comes to fuel economy. However, it is in cities where true hybrids completely trounce non-hybrid cars in economy.
Quote from: Ed Anger on May 19, 2009, 08:18:16 AM
He writes like I froth.
Quote
As a result, I'm still the same man who dreams of running amok on the set of Mamma Mia! with a large-calibre machinegun.
I have that same exact dream.