CAFE standards for big rigs.

[apdst]

More over-regulation. Someone needs to make a video and call it, "Gubmint Gone Wild".

Super. CAFE standards for big rigs. « Hot Air

 

[Tigger]

Nothing new or surprising there. Just another attempt to destroy private industry so that the Government can take it over. Of course the GOVERNMENT vehicles won't be required to meet those same standards once they take it over.

 

[Baralis]

I've worked in the industry more then a decade and I sorta disagree with part of their argument.

Does anyone honestly believe that they aren’t already demanding the most gas efficient trucks the manufacturers can provide at a sustainable cost?

Large fleets do tend to look at fuel consumption in much more of a bottom line perspective however owner operators or small fleets in my experience tend to overlook common sense in this regard.

Many small timers or owner operators will often look at visuals or "popular" models above operating costs and the more efferent rigs. Truck drivers have their own social peer group and will often look down on those without the "upper models" which are heavier and get less fuel mileage. Its like a high school popularity and acceptance club.

For example a Kenworth K-9 model or a Peterbuilt 379 are some of the most popular models on the road and they have poor aerodynamics and are heavy. They look better then the much less popular Kenworth T2000 for example but at a cost of about 2-3MPG which makes a significant difference at 130K+ miles a year.

Your owner operators or small fleets make up of a pretty good chuck of the trucks on the road.

 

[Deuce]

Nothing new or surprising there. Just another attempt to destroy private industry so that the Government can take it over. Of course the GOVERNMENT vehicles won't be required to meet those same standards once they take it over.

I thought you liked big government, mister so-called authoritarian.

Why should a group of vehicles responsible for 20% of fuel consumption be exempt from any efficiency standards? Fuel consumption is a national security concern, is it so outrageous that its use be required to meet reasonable standards?

 

[LesGovt]

I thought you liked big government, mister so-called authoritarian.

Why should a group of vehicles responsible for 20% of fuel consumption be exempt from any efficiency standards? Fuel consumption is a national security concern, is it so outrageous that its use be required to meet reasonable standards?

When did we have "reasonable" sandards? Do you believe that 54 or 55 mpg by 2025 is a "reasonable" standard? I do not. I don't want to drive an itty bitty Smart Car down the freeway and get hit by a semi. My chances of survival are about nil. Secondly, making semis have similar goals will mean that trucks will need to be the size of a former full-sized Lincoln, but it will take 50 semis to carry the load of 1 semi of today. I doubt they can get a Lincoln Town Car to get 200 mpg.

If your concern was national security rather than destroying private enterprise, may I suggest that we allow full development of all types of energy in the U.S. rather than attempting to make the error of picking winners and losers.

 

[Deuce]

When did we have "reasonable" sandards? Do you believe that 54 or 55 mpg by 2025 is a "reasonable" standard? I do not. I don't want to drive an itty bitty Smart Car down the freeway and get hit by a semi. My chances of survival are about nil. Secondly, making semis have similar goals will mean that trucks will need to be the size of a former full-sized Lincoln, but it will take 50 semis to carry the load of 1 semi of today. I doubt they can get a Lincoln Town Car to get 200 mpg.

If your concern was national security rather than destroying private enterprise, may I suggest that we allow full development of all types of energy in the U.S. rather than attempting to make the error of picking winners and losers.

Nobody introduced 200mpg as a target for anything. Why are you making up numbers?

The standards would move the average mileage from 6 to 8. You don't think that's reasonable? Do you think that trucks will have to be the size of a towncar to make that standard?

 

[LesGovt]

Nobody introduced 200mpg as a target for anything. Why are you making up numbers?

The standards would move the average mileage from 6 to 8. You don't think that's reasonable? Do you think that trucks will have to be the size of a towncar to make that standard?

No, with only 8 mpg, they might be able to use deuce-and-a half-ton trucks or maybe, if they are lucky, a 5-ton, rather than the semis.

 

[apdst]

I thought you liked big government, mister so-called authoritarian.

Why should a group of vehicles responsible for 20% of fuel consumption be exempt from any efficiency standards? Fuel consumption is a national security concern, is it so outrageous that its use be required to meet reasonable standards?

Oh, I dunno, because it will make the cost of doing business go through the roof and put small trucking fleets out fo business, perhaps? Just like the diesel exhaust fluid BS that is supposed to reduce emissions.

Everything would be ok, if the government would stop trying to make things better.

 

[apdst]

Nobody introduced 200mpg as a target for anything. Why are you making up numbers?

The standards would move the average mileage from 6 to 8. You don't think that's reasonable? Do you think that trucks will have to be the size of a towncar to make that standard?

How much will it cost a trucking company to purchase a truck that can average 8 mpg? How many things are going to be broken in the process? Have you taken any of that into consideration, or do you think the government has all the answers and it's not coming our of your pocket, so screw it?

 

[Deuce]

No, with only 8 mpg, they might be able to use deuce-and-a half-ton trucks or maybe, if they are lucky, a 5-ton, rather than the semis.

Oh, I dunno, because it will make the cost of doing business go through the roof and put small trucking fleets out fo business, perhaps? Just like the diesel exhaust fluid BS that is supposed to reduce emissions.

Everything would be ok, if the government would stop trying to make things better.

How much will it cost a trucking company to purchase a truck that can average 8 mpg? How many things are going to be broken in the process? Have you taken any of that into consideration, or do you think the government has all the answers and it's not coming our of your pocket, so screw it?

If either of you have any evidence that this will be some unbearable cost, please post it.

By the way, it will be coming out of my pocket when I go to buy bread. I think reducing fuel consumption will be a better long-term investment though, both for me and for the country. Lower demand for fuel creates lower costs for fuel. Less pollution reduces health care costs.

 

[1Perry]

I'm certainly mixed on this. I see these trucks sitting and idling and I know that we could come up with a way for them to still operate without sitting around idling all day. I refuse to believe that we couldn't have created more efficient vehicles over the last 60 years. Semi's in the 50's could get 6 mpg.

 

[LesGovt]

If either of you have any evidence that this will be some unbearable cost, please post it.

By the way, it will be coming out of my pocket when I go to buy bread. I think reducing fuel consumption will be a better long-term investment though, both for me and for the country. Lower demand for fuel creates lower costs for fuel. Less pollution reduces health care costs.

Then go ride a bicycle! Anyone who drives a car, even a Smart Car, and spouts this garbage is a hypocrite.

While you think the increase in fuel mileage is reasonable, I am thinking that you are looking only at the 2 mpg and not the 33 1/3 increase in the mpg. That is a huge leap in percentage. Tyrants want to put everyone into chains while freedom wants to unleash the chains. C.A.F.E standards on autos have virutally ended the era of where a person can purchase a full-size sedan and with the future plans, the mid-size and compact will disappear. Freedom allows people to purchase what they desire. Tyranny must crush those desires by putting chains on the people.

 

[LesGovt]

I'm certainly mixed on this. I see these trucks sitting and idling and I know that we could come up with a way for them to still operate without sitting around idling all day. I refuse to believe that we couldn't have created more efficient vehicles over the last 60 years. Semi's in the 50's could get 6 mpg.

That effort should come from the purchasers of the big rigs. They are the ones who should put pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient rigs.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Then go ride a bicycle! Anyone who drives a car, even a Smart Car, and spouts this garbage is a hypocrite.

While you think the increase in fuel mileage is reasonable, I am thinking that you are looking only at the 2 mpg and not the 33 1/3 increase in the mpg. That is a huge leap in percentage. Tyrants want to put everyone into chains while freedom wants to unleash the chains. C.A.F.E standards on autos have virutally ended the era of where a person can purchase a full-size sedan and with the future plans, the mid-size and compact will disappear. Freedom allows people to purchase what they desire. Tyranny must crush those desires by putting chains on the people.

:clap:

Way to play the victim LesGovt.

 

[LesGovt]

:clap:

Way to play the victim LesGovt.

Well, if you love tyranny, please take it elsewhere.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Well, if you love tyranny, please take it elsewhere.

I am not fan of tyranny, but this doesn't cut the mustard. The simple fact is that industry has failed to advance on its own and needs help.

This is sensible regulation.

 

[LesGovt]

I am not fan of tyranny, but this doesn't cut the mustard. The simple fact is that industry has failed to advance on its own and needs help.

This is sensible regulation.

You are a fan of tyranny. You support it. Go ride your bicycle.

 

[Slartibartfast]

You are a fan of tyranny. You support it. Go ride your bicycle.

Oh noes, LesGovt disagrees with something government did, so therefore it is tyranny.

 

[LesGovt]

Oh noes, LesGovt disagrees with something government did, so therefore it is tyranny.

There is a lot that government does to which I disagree, but do not believe it is tyranny. You are taking a long walk on a short pier. Watch out for the end! The fall is a long one.

 

[Slartibartfast]

There is a lot that government does to which I disagree, but do not believe it is tyranny. You are taking a long walk on a short pier. Watch out for the end! The fall is a long one.

Then what is the difference between this and any other regulation?

 

[1Perry]

That effort should come from the purchasers of the big rigs. They are the ones who should put pressure on manufacturers to produce more fuel-efficient rigs.

They should but since there have been no gains in 60 years is why I have concerns.

 

[LesGovt]

Then what is the difference between this and any other regulation?

This is the government meddling in free enterprise in an area where no government is needed and forces unrealistic demands on manufacturers. Purchasers of the products should be the ones demanding better products so that their bottom lines are improved. That takes mutual agreement between the seller and the purchaser as to what they want and at what price. This tyranny will drive up costs for the manufacturers and the purchasers of the rigs and may not get what the seller or purchaser want.

It is no wonder why manufacturers have left the country. With oppressive measures, they can do better elsewhere. You guys just keep cutting off your noses to spite your faces. More oppressive regulations and taxes equals less manufacturing. Less manufacturing equals less employment. Less employment equals lower wages. Why do you want this? End the tyranny.

 

[LesGovt]

They should but since there have been no gains in 60 years is why I have concerns.

Maybe the purchasers have been satisfied. Should we use coercion to drive up the cost of manufacturing and prices for the purchasers?

 

[Slartibartfast]

This is the government meddling in free enterprise in an area where no government is needed and forces unrealistic demands on manufacturers. Purchasers of the products should be the ones demanding better products so that their bottom lines are improved. That takes mutual agreement between the seller and the purchaser as to what they want and at what price. This tyranny will drive up costs for the manufacturers and the purchasers of the rigs and may not get what the seller or purchaser want.

It is no wonder why manufacturers have left the country. With oppressive measures, they can do better elsewhere. You guys just keep cutting off your noses to spite your faces. More oppressive regulations and taxes equals less manufacturing. Less manufacturing equals less employment. Less employment equals lower wages. Why do you want this? End the tyranny.

1. You have yet to prove that it is unrealistic. Also, unrealistic is not the same is not optimally cost effective.
2. The government has a legitimate interest in reducing dependance on a substance helps to fund elements that destabilize world peace and US interests.
3. You will need to show that no government is needed and why this is so.
4. So trucking manufacturers will leave the country, because they have to build trucks with a higher mpg? Did you think this through? (they still have a market here and will still have to build trucks to us specifications to reach that market)

I want this, because economics is a competing interest among other national interests, such as the environment in which economics relies on to be healthy and security concerns.

 

[1Perry]

Maybe the purchasers have been satisfied. Should we use coercion to drive up the cost of manufacturing and prices for the purchasers?

I believe that over the last 60 years if there had been gains made the costs would be negligable today.

I do not know what the solutions are exactly but I do have a problem with the relatively small gains we've made over the last 60 years. I was looking at new trucks this past week. Most of them are listed at 12-15 mpg in city driving. Again, I could get that out of a 60 year old truck.

I would have liked to have bought a small diesel in a 1500 series Chevy truck. It would get at least in the high 20's. We even have this technology today but one can not buy that truck.