• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

CAFE standards for big rigs.

Henrin said:
You are confused or ignorant of what you speak of .You can't be free enterprise and at the same wish to control it when the results aren't what you want. That isn't support of free enterprise. You are either a supporter of free enterprise or you are not.
Click to expand...

If that is how you wish to define it, than I am merely a supporter of capitalism.

Henrin said:
megaprogman, I think its obvious that LesGovt was talking about an authoritarian act, not a authoritarian government. Regulations like this are authoritarian by very definition as they dictate action that will happen or face criminal charges.
Click to expand...

Ahh, I wasn't catching that. Ultimately though, any legality is authoritarian in that case.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
If that is how you wish to define it, than I am merely a supporter of capitalism.
Click to expand...

By definition all you have to do is be a believer in private means of production but what people fail to realize is to really believe in its power you have to be against regulatory measures or you really aren't following the creed at all. In that instance all you believe in is private ownership which is powerless without the drive of such an idea. Think of it, you can actually be a believer in private ownership and believe that every outlet of it has to be controlled so that its fits your desire, but that isn't taking advantage of it, just allowing it. That is hardly the purpose of why anyone would actually value it. All it is doing is playing into the framework of the allowances of the loose definition. Much like how you can follow the letter of the law but the sprite of it. Its meaningless gibberish in the end if you are going to be so loose with it. In reality the definitions you find need to explained and expanded to really explore why you can't actually be a supporter of regulation and a capitalist.

As a capitalist, I have to tell you are not one.

Ahh, I wasn't catching that. Ultimately though, any legality is authoritarian in that case.
Click to expand...

Not really. This is telling them what to do and how to do it. Government actions don't necessary have to do this.
 
Last edited:
Henrin said:
By definition all you have to do is be a believer in private means of production but what people fail to realize is to really believe in its power you have to be against regulatory measures or you really aren't following the creed at all. In that instance all you believe in is private ownership which is powerless without the drive of such an idea. Think of it, you can actually be a believer in private ownership and believe that every outlet of it has to be controlled so that its fits your desire, but that isn't taking advantage of it, just allowing it. That is hardly the purpose of why anyone would actually value it. All it is doing is playing into the framework of the allowances of definition. Much like how you can follow the letter of the law but the sprite of it. Its meaningless gibberish in the end if you are going to be so loose with it.

As a capitalist, I have to tell you are not one.
Click to expand...

For me, its not a matter of blind faith, but of observation. We have seen from history that capitalism does increase wealth for people. moreso than other systems I am aware of, however, this does not mean it is a perfect system, but it does help to serve the purpose of the progression of humanity in certain ways. Also, it is not entirely a black and white issue as people can approach this issue from any angle.

Henrin said:
Not really. This is telling them what to do and how to do it. Government actions don't necessary have to do this.
Click to expand...

And laws against murder are telling people what to do.
 
Last edited:
1Perry said:
I do not believe we have done our best here. I believe we have dropped the ball. I don't know what the actual solution is but results that are in line with 1950's standards should not be accepted.

I noted above that I would have liked to have bought a new truck. Not going to happen with fuel ratings of 12-15 mpg. A Corvette back in the day would get maybe in the mid low teens on a good day on the road. Today they will get in the upper 20's and outperform the old car.

There is no reason we shouldn't have seen similiar gains in other vehicles by now. I can be done. It just hasn't been. It's not acceptable.
Click to expand...

Big trucks drag 40 thousand+ pounds down the roads, climbing hills, starting from a dead stop, etc. MPG gains on the levels of cars are unrealistic, IMO. I haul loads that are 90-100 thousand pounds and 4 mpg is the best I can hope for.
 
Catawba said:
Great news! Its about time we had leadership in this country to increase the CAFE standards for the big trucks. CAFE standards for cars have had the same effect on supply and demand as huge oil discoveries have in the past because they so dramatically reduce demand. Not to mention the reduced pollution!

I was feeling pretty bummed about him ending the wars so slowly, and then he does something great like this. Kudo's on this one Mr. President!

Thanks for brightening my day apdst! :sun
Click to expand...

No matter what the damage is to small businesses, right?
 
apdst said:
Big trucks drag 40 thousand+ pounds down the roads, climbing hills, starting from a dead stop, etc. MPG gains on the levels of cars are unrealistic, IMO. I haul loads that are 90-100 thousand pounds and 4 mpg is the best I can hope for.
Click to expand...

So, you'd be the driver.

Not the engineer.

apdst said:
No matter what the damage is to small businesses, right?
Click to expand...

Still haven't seen those numbers on what the "damage" will be.
 
Deuce said:
So, you'd be the driver.

Not the engineer.
Click to expand...

Right! I'm the guy in the field that sees the actual performance, first hand; not the guy in the office with a slide rule, claiming that his theory will work.



Still haven't seen those numbers on what the "damage" will be.
Click to expand...

If common sense won't allow you to understand that a small business can't afford to spend over 100 grand on equipment replacement, then there's nothing I can do for you.
 
apdst said:
Right! I'm the guy in the field that sees the actual performance, first hand; not the guy in the office with a slide rule, claiming that his theory will work.
Click to expand...

You haven't seen the performance or cost of increased efficiency because it hasn't happened yet. I'm not "claiming" anything. I think it will work. You think it wont. That's why I asked for cost estimates put out by people who actually know something about the design or operational changes that will be needed.

If common sense won't allow you to understand that a small business can't afford to spend over 100 grand on equipment replacement, then there's nothing I can do for you.
Click to expand...

CAFE applies to new vehicle sales, doesn't force replacement, so you're claiming that the vehicles will cost 100 grand more than a new vehicle costs now.
Source please.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
You haven't seen the performance or cost of increased efficiency because it hasn't happened yet. I'm not "claiming" anything. I think it will work. You think it wont. That's why I asked for cost estimates put out by people who actually know something about the design or operational changes that will be needed.
Click to expand...

I've already given you the numbers for existing equipment.



CAFE applies to new vehicle sales, doesn't force replacement, so you're claiming that the vehicles will cost 100 grand more than a new vehicle costs now.
Source please.
Click to expand...

I can't show you a source, since I never said that. Good luck, though!
 
apdst said:
I've already given you the numbers for existing equipment.



I can't show you a source, since I never said that. Good luck, though!
Click to expand...

Ok, well, thanks for admitting you have no idea what the upgrade cost will actually be. I could just as credibly claim the cost will be $5.
 
Deuce said:
Ok, well, thanks for admitting you have no idea what the upgrade cost will actually be. I could just as credibly claim the cost will be $5.
Click to expand...

Obviously, it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to you, since you don't even know what I said. Good luck in the real world...you're going to need it.
 
apdst said:
Obviously, it's a waste of time trying to explain anything to you, since you don't even know what I said. Good luck in the real world...you're going to need it.
Click to expand...

CAFE standards don't apply to vehicles built before they were enacted. Nobody will be forced to replace a vehicle any sooner than they were already going to replace a vehicle.

So the question becomes how much more expensive will that vehicle be due to the higher efficiency standards? Right? You're suggesting that this will be a lot. Right?
Except nobody has posted any credible information on how much that cost will be. You've thrown out $100,000... based on what, exactly?
 
apdst said:
Big trucks drag 40 thousand+ pounds down the roads, climbing hills, starting from a dead stop, etc. MPG gains on the levels of cars are unrealistic, IMO. I haul loads that are 90-100 thousand pounds and 4 mpg is the best I can hope for.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don't believe it. As I said, that's what long haul trucks would get 60 years ago. There is no reason we haven't made gains in those 60 years.
 
apdst said:
Big trucks drag 40 thousand+ pounds down the roads, climbing hills, starting from a dead stop, etc. MPG gains on the levels of cars are unrealistic, IMO. I haul loads that are 90-100 thousand pounds and 4 mpg is the best I can hope for.
Click to expand...

If the tecnnological task of increasing mileage of big trucks is insurmountable, perhaps it is time we started moving more freight by rail which is already more energy efficient.
 
apdst said:
No matter what the damage is to small businesses, right?
Click to expand...

No one has presented any evidence that damage would be worse than the damage caused by continued wasteful use of declining oil supplies and the resulting pollution.
 
I drive a 1994 F-250 4x4 turbo diesel idi that I bought new. It has 350K and barely uses oil. Recently I considered buying a new pickup and did alot of research on new diesels. They are crap! The mandates gov has put on diesel motors have ruined them, they are having all sorts of problems and are extremely expensive to repair. I can just imagine what new big rig mandates will do to make them unreliable and expensive to operate. We will all pay the cost. By the way, I am keeping my old rig, they literally don't make em like that anymore.
 
sawyerloggingon said:
I drive a 1994 F-250 4x4 turbo diesel idi that I bought new. It has 350K and barely uses oil. Recently I considered buying a new pickup and did alot of research on new diesels. They are crap! The mandates gov has put on diesel motors have ruined them, they are having all sorts of problems and are extremely expensive to repair. I can just imagine what new big rig mandates will do to make them unreliable and expensive to operate. We will all pay the cost. By the way, I am keeping my old rig, they literally don't make em like that anymore.
Click to expand...

This is a fair point. New regulations have caused a drop in diesel mileage.
 
megaprogman said:
We have seen from history that capitalism does increase wealth for people. moreso than other systems I am aware of, however, this does not mean it is a perfect system, but it does help to serve the purpose of the progression of humanity in certain ways. Also, it is not entirely a black and white issue as people can approach this issue from any angle.
Click to expand...

That would largely depend on how much. In a real capitalist society wealth doesn't have the same possibilities of growth that you will see in lets say this economy as this economy mixes protections of ideas into the market. In this market we try to maximum protections which actually just messes with the curve of where money is placed. On the other front we try to control the ideas by regulations like this which actually limit the growth of ideas in general. The argument for intellectual property law is that it protects property, in really however it protects ideas, not property. The argument for regulations is that protects the citizens. In reality both do considerable amount of harm for a small amount of return. If you want to fight the results of people dumping things in the ocean you just outlaw the activity. You don't try to tell the businesses how to avoid the problem as now its merely your ideas that are important in the system.

And laws against murder are telling people what to do.
Click to expand...

An authoritarian action is trying to reach the result the government desires. Murder laws do not fit the bill as it actions are merely to punish the people that do the action.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Still haven't seen those numbers on what the "damage" will be.
Click to expand...

You are not likely to either. Science denial does not require numbers. That's one of the great things about it. You just make an assertion based completely on your gut feeling! :sun
 
1Perry said:
Sorry, I don't believe it. As I said, that's what long haul trucks would get 60 years ago. There is no reason we haven't made gains in those 60 years.
Click to expand...

You can have reduced emissions, fuel efficiency, or power. You can't have all three at the same time. I think that's the part that alot of folks are missing.

Engine manufacturers have already engineered engines, in order to reduce emissions, raise fuel mileage. So far, they've gotten about 1.5 mpg in additional mileage, under normal circumstances.
 
Catawba said:
If the tecnnological task of increasing mileage of big trucks is insurmountable, perhaps it is time we started moving more freight by rail which is already more energy efficient.
Click to expand...

Have you checked the fuel mileage on your garden variety freight train, lately?
 
Catawba said:
No one has presented any evidence that damage would be worse than the damage caused by continued wasteful use of declining oil supplies and the resulting pollution.
Click to expand...

God forbid anyone use a little common sense.

Hint: new technology isn't free. Who do you think is going to end up paying for it?
 
apdst said:
You can have reduced emissions, fuel efficiency, or power. You can't have all three at the same time. I think that's the part that alot of folks are missing.
Click to expand...

I still disagree as to my earlier point concerning new Corvette's. They are more efficient, pollute less and create more power than Corvette's of the past.
 
Catawba said:
You are not likely to either. Science denial does not require numbers. That's one of the great things about it. You just make an assertion based completely on your gut feeling! :sun
Click to expand...

Ok. Show us where it's going to be cheaper to operate these new fangled vehicles. Can't wait!
 
1Perry said:
I still disagree as to my earlier point concerning new Corvette's. They are more efficient, pollute less and create more power than Corvette's of the past.
Click to expand...

How often does a Corvette pull 4 times it's own weight? Hook up a trailer that gross's out at 10 thousand pounds and see how much fuel mileage it gets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom