• 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.

Agreed, but some people are low slearners.

Conservatives will choose the option that hurts the economy purely out of spite when liberals are supporting the other option.
(see also: light bulb regulations and how they come up with retroactive reasoning in a desperate attempt to support their decision to OPPOSE LIBRULS AT ALL COST)
 
Last edited:
"Raising fuel economy by 10 miles per gallon nationwide will deliver real benefits. The Union of Concerned Scientists, for example, estimates that it will save 1.1 million barrels of oil per day in 2020--about half of what the United States imports from the Persian Gulf."
The New CAFE Standards - Technology Review
Well heck! Lets raise it 20MPG! Imagne how much we'd save then!
 
Well heck! Lets raise it 20MPG! Imagne how much we'd save then!

Well heck! Let's use pedal powered cars! Imagine how much we would save then!

I%2BSOLO_pedal_power_car_3.jpg


And it would help cure the country's obesity problem at the same time!

Peddle-power to the people!!! :sun
 
Well heck! Lets raise it 20MPG! Imagne how much we'd save then!

You support smaller government, does that mean you support anarchy? That's the smallest government you can get!

Try not to extrapolate peoples' views, it's almost always incorrect to do so.
 
You support smaller government, does that mean you support anarchy? That's the smallest government you can get!
Try not to extrapolate peoples' views, it's almost always incorrect to do so.
Quite naturally, you missd the point.
You can pick any number you want -- if the technology isnt there, it's meaningless.
Tripling the average MPG of an 80,000lb truck - 5MPG to 15MPG - isn't possible any time soon -- the demands of service preclude it.
 
Quite naturally, you missd the point.
You can pick any number you want -- if the technology isnt there, it's meaningless.
Tripling the average MPG of an 80,000lb truck - 5MPG to 15MPG - isn't possible any time soon -- the demands of service preclude it.

So you know more than the companies that build the trucks? Because thats not what they said, as a cited earlier.
 
Quite naturally, you missd the point.
You can pick any number you want -- if the technology isnt there, it's meaningless.
Tripling the average MPG of an 80,000lb truck - 5MPG to 15MPG - isn't possible any time soon -- the demands of service preclude it.

The technology wasn't available at the time to meet the first go round of CAFE standards for cars, but we eventually met the standards didn't we? That is why the standards are phased in over many years. You underestimate the ability of technology to improve. We also may decide to transport more long distance freight by rail as it is more energy efficient. As we get closer and closer to peak oil over the next couple of years, increased fuel prices will make long distance freight by rail more cost competitive with trucks.
 
Quite naturally, you missd the point.
You can pick any number you want -- if the technology isnt there, it's meaningless.
Tripling the average MPG of an 80,000lb truck - 5MPG to 15MPG - isn't possible any time soon -- the demands of service preclude it.

How about going from 6 to 8?

Because those are the numbers I saw.
 
Well heck! Let's use pedal powered cars! Imagine how much we would save then!

I%2BSOLO_pedal_power_car_3.jpg


And it would help cure the country's obesity problem at the same time!

Peddle-power to the people!!! :sun

Does that thing actually work? I want one if it does
 
The technology wasn't available at the time to meet the first go round of CAFE standards for cars, but we eventually met the standards didn't we?
Entirely different set of circumstances and tech hurdles. Cars, for instance, were made smaller and lighter - truck weight remains constant.

You underestimate the ability of technology to improve.
You don't understand the situation.

We also may decide to transport more long distance freight by rail as it is more energy efficient.
As has been touched on before -- where it is more efficent/cost effective to transport freight on rail we already do.

As we get closer and closer to peak oil over the next couple of years, increased fuel prices will make long distance freight by rail more cost competitive with trucks.
As has been touched on before - long distance rail freight is already more effeicient and cheaper than trucks - people only move freight OTR on trips of ~1000 miles or more because of time constraints - something rail will never be able to match.
 
How about going from 6 to 8?
Because those are the numbers I saw.
I responded specifically to someone that wants to raise it BY 10MPG -- from 5 to 15.
 
So you know more than the companies that build the trucks? Because thats not what they said, as a cited earlier.
None of the companies that build commercial tractors have in any way supported the possibility of raising the average MPG by 10 to 15.
 
You can’t haul 80,000 lbs. without using lots of energy; you bump up against laws of physics. Right now diesel provides that power and until there’s some new form of power you can tweak mileage up a bit with more efficient engines and aerodynamic truck design but as I said, you can’t defy laws of physics.
 
You can’t haul 80,000 lbs. without using lots of energy; you bump up against laws of physics. Right now diesel provides that power and until there’s some new form of power you can tweak mileage up a bit with more efficient engines and aerodynamic truck design but as I said, you can’t defy laws of physics.
How about we cut the max gross to 40k and then double the milage!
:wink:
 
You can’t haul 80,000 lbs. without using lots of energy; you bump up against laws of physics. Right now diesel provides that power and until there’s some new form of power you can tweak mileage up a bit with more efficient engines and aerodynamic truck design but as I said, you can’t defy laws of physics.

Current internal combustion engines only manage to extract about 20-25% of the thermal energy in gasoline as motive force. There's a fair bit of room for improvement from a physics standpoint.
We're talking about tweaks here. Tweaks we can push.

How about we cut the max gross to 40k and then double the milage!
:wink:

Nanovehicles. 4x10^8 mpg. Each carries a few thousand molecules of cargo!
 
Last edited:
Entirely different set of circumstances and tech hurdles. Cars, for instance, were made smaller and lighter - truck weight remains constant.

Heavier cars today get better mileage than lighter cars used to get, so your logic fails.


As has been touched on before -- where it is more efficent/cost effective to transport freight on rail we already do. As has been touched on before - long distance rail freight is already more effeicient and cheaper than trucks - people only move freight OTR on trips of ~1000 miles or more because of time constraints - something rail will never be able to match.

You ignore how the economics of that choice will change when the price of gas is $10/gal., or, if trucking companies are required to pay the full cost of their infrastructure requirements, just as the railroad has to.
 
Current internal combustion engines only manage to extract about 20-25% of the thermal energy in gasoline as motive force. There's a fair bit of room for improvement from a physics standpoint.
We're talking about tweaks here. Tweaks we can push.
We're discussing diesel, not gas.
+33% improvement in mileage for an 80,000lb vehicle is not a 'tweak'.
 
Heavier cars today get better mileage than lighter cars used to get, so your logic fails.
You fail to understand the point. I laugh at you.

You ignore how the economics of that choice will change when the price of gas is $10/gal., or, if trucking companies are required to pay the full cost of their infrastructure requirements, just as the railroad has to.
None of this changes the absolute truth of what I posted. I laugh at you again.
 
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.
With a position like yours one doesn't even have to consider the facts. Answers already predetermined for any new case. Very efficient.
 
We're discussing diesel, not gas.
+33% improvement in mileage for an 80,000lb vehicle is not a 'tweak'.

Nobody but you is demanding such an increase. Fail again.

"The regulations call for reductions on fuel consumption and greenhouse gas emissions by 2018 of 9 to 23 percent, depending on the type of vehicle."

Use less fuel, and/or emit fewer greenhouse gases.
 
Last edited:
You can’t haul 80,000 lbs. without using lots of energy; you bump up against laws of physics. Right now diesel provides that power and until there’s some new form of power you can tweak mileage up a bit with more efficient engines and aerodynamic truck design but as I said, you can’t defy laws of physics.
First you need to know what the laws of physics are. It takes zero energy to keep 80,000 lbs moving once it is moving. Trucks spent most of the time just working against friction, tires and air. For years there have been new tires that have much lower friction per ton of load. The ‘new’ tires are wider and one replaces two of the old ones. You have probably seen them. The ‘new’ tires have been around for quite some time, but switching over will require I’ll do it if you do it which takes a very long time; or an external force, the Gov. Another thing about the new tires is that their center of load can be set to nearer the side of the vehicle. Axels have to be changed to allow this, but a more stable vehicle will result.
 
First you need to know what the laws of physics are. It takes zero energy to keep 80,000 lbs moving once it is moving. Trucks spent most of the time just working against friction, tires and air.
Going uphill requires energy.
Acceleration requires energy.

For years there have been new tires that have much lower friction per ton of load. The ‘new’ tires are wider and one replaces two of the old ones.
Super Singles are more common these days, but are also more expensive, especially given that you need to replace all of the wheels as well. Only sometimes does their improved economy outweigh this additional cost.
 
Going uphill requires energy.
Acceleration requires energy.
Yes, but, by far, most of the fuel is used overcoming friction.

Super Singles are more common these days, but are also more expensive, especially given that you need to replace all of the wheels as well. Only sometimes does their improved economy outweigh this additional cost.
You don't need to replace the wheels; you manufacture the truck in the first place with those wheels. One new wheel and tire will cost less than two old ones as soon as the volume is pushed up by artificial means. Then always the improved economy will add to the reduced cost.
 
Back
Top Bottom