Edmunds Members - Cars and Conversations (Archived)

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

Not too many places you can comfortably go 112 mph---parts of Nevada wouldn't be a problem, or I-15 in Utah-- although it might be good to cruise the road at 55 mph to check for rocks or debris before you make that run!

Maybe Volvo wants to save money on tires? 112 mph does sound suspiciously like a convenient number.

Conspiracy theory?

[Deleted User]

Mr_Shiftright said:

Not too many places you can comfortably go 112 mph---parts of Nevada wouldn't be a problem, or I-15 in Utah-- although it might be good to cruise the road at 55 mph to check for rocks or debris before you make that run!

Maybe Volvo wants to save money on tires? 112 mph does sound suspiciously like a convenient number.

That's a good point. 112 mph is a pretty weird cutoff. I wonder if that also applies to Germany where one can easily exceed that speed, and I wonder how many deaths they've seen in Volvos going 113+ mph? Seems like it would be pretty rare.

[Deleted User]

imidazol97 said:

If there's a problem, the market will find a better way and a solution. More electric vehicles, although they use fossil fuels from the electric platns.

True that some EV owners will charge off fossil-fuel derived power generation plant. What's neat about EV, though, is that it can become more sustainable over it's 15ish-year life as the grid becomes more and more renewable. My local area has committed to 100% renewable in the next 12 years, so EVs purchased and charged off the grid will become more solar/wind/hydro powered in the future.

This weekend I was helping some friends move from one house to another in our town, and 2 of our other friends saw my Tesla there. That's 2 more ready to buy, one of which will install solar to charge the car off the grid. The other has a heavy commute and wants to stop burning gas in his BMW.

Mr_Shiftright

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Not too many places you can comfortably go 112 mph---parts of Nevada wouldn't be a problem, or I-15 in Utah-- although it might be good to cruise the road at 55 mph to check for rocks or debris before you make that run!

Maybe Volvo wants to save money on tires? 112 mph does sound suspiciously like a convenient number.

Conspiracy theory?

If so, very transparent. More like "Bean Counter suspicion".

I offer as evidence Exhibit A. A definition of the "S" speed rating for tires

"S speed rating
An S speed rating indicates the tire has been approved for speeds up to 112 mph (180 km/h) under optimal conditions."

Coincidence? I don't THINK so!

roadburner

stickguy said:

I hate winter.

just had an interesting piece on the local news. Apparently Volvo will be implementing governers on all their cars next year, capping them at 112. Kinda defeats the purpose of the Polestar tune models! Pretty sure that will be plenty for me, though might hurt sales in Germany.

nothing to do with economy. It is for safety. Though if you are already over 110, what the heck, might as well keep going!

I wasn't going to buy a Volvo anyway, so what I think about their appeasement of the Safety [non-permissible content removed] is irrelevant.

tjc78

Guy in another Forum posted this.  He is generally a pretty good poster, but I’m having trouble believing something fishy wasn’t going on here.  The Accord Driver was cited, so there that but it seems to me the other driver was trying not to let them in.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35clisIBRqw

explorerx4

Looks to me like the car with the dashcam had the right of way.

ruking1

0n the face of it, the labor unions were given two board seats representing their direct & pension interests. Who really knows how deep union control goes.

snakeweasel

abacomike said:

snakeweasel said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

The issue I have is that for the last 50 years I have been bombarded with warnings of immediate dire consequences of which 100% failed to happen so I am extremely skeptical of any catastrophic environmental event predictions.

The one consequence I have observed firsthand is the rising sea levels - especially here on the east coast of Florida.  The beach erosion is also serious due to rising sea levels.  The melting icecaps and glaciers are more evidence of the global warming.

I am a skeptic as well, snakeweasel. Changes are gradual but when looked at over the last 100 years, there have been changes suggesting climate change due to increased levels of CO2.  I guess what the environmentalists are telling us is that unless we start attacking the increased levels of pollutants, it will eventually be too late to do anything to change the direction.

I don’t have answers to these questions or solutions to the problem.




I have to ask have you noticed an actual rise in sea level or do you just see the erosion?

Yes the changes are gradual but the thing is the climate has always been in a constant state of change. For most of the world's history the earth has been hotter than it is now. It warms up and cools down and currently we are in an ice age. Eventually we will exit this ice age with permanent ice at the poles gone. It wont be because of us and we cannot prevent it. It is how the environment works.

So my question is how much of this change is natural and should we be taking actions that could seriously hurt us economically trying to stop that which cannot be stopped.

tjc78

That is what I thought too, but his lane was the one that was ending.  I guess he was already merged over when this happened 

oldfarmer50

imidazol97 said:

The person featured as an "expert" on 60 minutes seems to actually be an activist:
"A CBS News report Sunday discussing a climate change lawsuit neglected to disclose important facts about the case, namely the role one of its sources plays in the litigation.
UCLA law professor Ann Carlson appeared in a “60 Minutes” report as an expert observing the validity of a climate lawsuit holding the U.S. government responsible for the oil industry’s alleged contributions to global warming. CBS’ Steve Kroft failed to mention in his report the issue Carlson’s history of working on climate litigation holding oil companies responsible for climate change.

"Kroft instead painted her as a neutral observer with knowledge about the ins and outs related to how such a case might effect the U.S. Constitution."

https://dailycaller.com/2019/03/04/climate-change-lawsuits-oil/

Why let facts spoil a good story?

Mr_Shiftright

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

snakeweasel said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

The issue I have is that for the last 50 years I have been bombarded with warnings of immediate dire consequences of which 100% failed to happen so I am extremely skeptical of any catastrophic environmental event predictions.

The one consequence I have observed firsthand is the rising sea levels - especially here on the east coast of Florida.  The beach erosion is also serious due to rising sea levels.  The melting icecaps and glaciers are more evidence of the global warming.

I am a skeptic as well, snakeweasel. Changes are gradual but when looked at over the last 100 years, there have been changes suggesting climate change due to increased levels of CO2.  I guess what the environmentalists are telling us is that unless we start attacking the increased levels of pollutants, it will eventually be too late to do anything to change the direction.

I don’t have answers to these questions or solutions to the problem.




I have to ask have you noticed an actual rise in sea level or do you just see the erosion?

Yes the changes are gradual but the thing is the climate has always been in a constant state of change. For most of the world's history the earth has been hotter than it is now. It warms up and cools down and currently we are in an ice age. Eventually we will exit this ice age with permanent ice at the poles gone. It wont be because of us and we cannot prevent it. It is how the environment works.

So my question is how much of this change is natural and should we be taking actions that could seriously hurt us economically trying to stop that which cannot be stopped.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the rate of destruction to things like wildlife and coral reefs, I think our actions should be immediate and massive. If you think about it, look at all the economic benefit that came from automobile emissions controls, after all the fierce resistance from American companies and predictions of economic ruin. The Japanese on the other hand, just picked up the ball and ran with it---and now we have lighter cars, fuel injection, computer controls, fantastic fuel efficiency and generally cleaner air in our large cities.

Sure, the earth's climate is always changing--but the rate and violence of the change is unprecedented either in the geological record or the historical record.

The trick is to view trends, not just cherry pick outlier years. When you do that, the picture gets clearer IMO.

This is why younger people show more concern than the current generation in power and control They will bear the brunt of all this.

ruking1

A very close friend of mine lives on the east side of Florida’s Highway A1A. (map facing zero degrees) What this means is that the Atlantic Ocean is literally his backyard, for his parcel of course. The governments tends his back yard parcel, as it is in turtle hatching areas.

The last big hurricane was declared almost 100% certain to wipe his house out & put it under 12 ft or more of water. So the area in which his parcel was, was given a mandatory evacuation order, upon fear of almost certain death. Long story short after our family fearing for his life: the Atlantic Ocean RECEEDED out to sea! The governments were not able to replace the waters he & others lost. Nature did some time later.

stickguy

I too worry more about stuff like wiping out the rain forests, and what that is doing to the earth (and the snowball effect). Certainly there are non-man made factors at work (natural warming and cooling) but the human factor must be causing problems on top of that.

abacomike

One of my friends keeps tabs on automobile recalls and always sends out the info to his friends via email.  Well, it looks like my S450 has 2 recalls, both dealing with the adaptive driving system.

The first one stated that the “hands-off” warning may not detect that there are no hands on the steering wheel.  The second one states that the “active steering system may not disengage.”

These recall notices were released by NHTSA and relates to the 2018-2019 Mercedes S450 and S560.  I probably won’t be notified by MBUSA for awhile but since I don’t use the Distronic System (Adaptive Driving System) very often, I am not overly concerned.  I just will not use it until my car has been inspected by the dealership’s service department.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

My youngest was complaining that her credit score dropped because she paid off her student loan(4 1/2 years) and doesn't have any other debt.

Have her buy a honking big truck.

ruking1

Yup, debt % is a slavery indicator. She’d be in deeper stuff, if she had let student debt go in to arrears. Congratulations to her for managing credit in a responsible way! If she knows how to manage close to zero% car loan debt, it’s hard to beat the % rate!

oldfarmer50

stickguy said:

I hate winter.

just had an interesting piece on the local news. Apparently Volvo will be implementing governers on all their cars next year, capping them at 112. Kinda defeats the purpose of the Polestar tune models! Pretty sure that will be plenty for me, though might hurt sales in Germany.

nothing to do with economy. It is for safety. Though if you are already over 110, what the heck, might as well keep going!

I bet a lot of cars have speed limiters on them but it’s not advertised. I think my Mustang is limited to something like 155 while the old V6 was topped at 105. I suspect that most cars become unstable at speeds over 100 without aero mods.

snakeweasel

driver100 said:

jmonroe1 said:

driver100 said:

Son #1 got there before I did this morning and was wiring up a receptacle because he didn't drop the power wire from the attic to this new receptacle when we finished working on Thursday night like he was supposed to do so he was in the process of cutting off the wire from the roll so he could put the wire into the receptacle box.

Now about the steaks. I said Delmonico's because you said rib eyes and that means without a bone in my hood. So they are actually the same piece of meat but saying Delmonico's just sounds more upscale.
jmonroe

1) Glad your son survived - better review how to remember if breaker is off.
2) Delmonico Steak - Delmonico steak (or steak Delmonico) was one of several cuts of beef (usually the ribeye), with a thick-cut preparation popularized by Delmonico's restaurant in New York City during the mid-19th century.[1] Controversy exists about the specific cut of steak that Delmonico's originally used.

I thought it meant regular cut of steak but with a fancy name and higher price.

Delmonico's steak may now, in the 21st century, refer to various cuts of beef steak, using preparations that vary regionally in the United States. The term "Delmonico steak" might refer to any thick-cut steak

I'm going to stick with what I have always heard concerning a Delmonico steak, which is, a boneless rib steak that is cut thicker than a normal rib steak. No sense in muddying up what it is just because some millennial had to put their two cents worth into something they know nothing about. I doubt that if I asked a butcher to cut me a nice Delmonico steak, he's not going to ask me what cut of steak I want it to come from. You can't change history just because you want to but some will try.

jmonroe

Your reality can be whatever you want it to be.

Great I want reality to be me being a billionaire absolute ruler of the world.

But really half the time I'll take anyone but me.

explorerx4

@oldfarmer50,
She'd rather have your Mustang.

abacomike

ruking1 said:

A very close friend of mine lives on the east side of Florida’s Highway A1A. What this means is that the Atlantic Ocean is literally his backyard, for his parcel of course. The governments tends his back yard parcel, as it is in turtle hatching areas. The last big hurricane was declared almost 100% certain to wipe his house out & put it under 12 ft more of water. So the area in which his parcel was, was given a mandatory evacuation order, upon fear of certain death. Long story short after our family fearing for his life: the Atlantic Ocean RECEEDED out to sea! The governments were notable to replace the waters he & others lost. Nature did some time later.

A1A floods from ocean water several times a year down here in South Florida mainly in the Miami Beach area - so bad that they have to close the road down.  I have not heard flooding reports for Ft. Lauderdale or Palm Beach.

Back in the 1960’s, the beaches along A1A were 40-50 yards wide.  Those same beaches today are less than 20 yards wide in most places.  Sand is always being trucked in to preserve the beaches along the coast.  Beaches are what preserve Florida’s reputation as vacation destination.

ruking1

Indeed! I love it ! I’ve been there more than several times. He’s been there easily 20 years?

Some years ago, I lived in South Miami, FL. I absolutely loved almost everything about it then, sans summers.

snakeweasel

bwia said:

The college debt crisis is even worse than we think.

In 1971, the average price for tuition, fees, and room and board at a private four-year college was just shy of $3,000 per year. If that price tag had increased at the rate of inflation, it would be only around $17,000 today. Instead, it is nearly $44,000.

And here’s a little-appreciated truth about the college debt landscape: It’s more of a regional crisis than a national one. In states where there has long been a history of robust public support for the state education system and where most students attend public colleges, the student debt loads tend to be considerably less than they are in the Northeast. States with deep rosters of private colleges have historically invested far less in their public higher education systems. Read the full but lengthy article at:
https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2016/05/18/hopes-dreams-debt/fR60cKakwUlGok0jTlONTN/story.html

I think in my last two years of college tuition was just north of $1,000 a class in a small church sponsored private liberal arts school. And that was in the late 80's to very early 90's (graduated in 91). I did spend my 1st 2 years in a public junior college which helped keep costs way down. That and applying for every scholarship and grant on the face of the planet helped keep costs down enough to get out with no student loans.

I really do think that they should simplify the courses one has to take to get a degree. I was an accounting major so why was I setting in a theater class? Or women's literature or world history or... I could list several classes that i had to take that didn't to anything to further myself in my chosen field.

Also they should get rid of athletics as most sports programs consume more money than they pull in.

Then dump tenured professors.

Then let prospective students know that that degree in midevil literature is pretty much a one way ticket to wearing a paper hat asking people if they want fries with that.

snakeweasel

berri said:

I wonder if bachelor degrees could be reduced to 3 years by eliminating some (not all) of the gen ed type stuff?

Likely less than that.

ruking1

So relatively, do you want fries with that? 🤑😇

A friend of a close friend owns 5 Jack In the Box’s, he says 1/2 is/are a hard way to make a living.

snakeweasel

ruking1 said:

berri said:

I wonder if bachelor degrees could be reduced to 3 years by eliminating some (not all) of the gen ed type stuff?

The short answers are yes! It should be VERY easy, once the extremely difficult BS is/are washed away. The process should really start @ understanding that colleges and universities were not designed to lead to jobs. In a bygone era, they were designed to park kids of the wealthy & job givers for four years. The educational arm that actually DOES LEAD to jobs have mainly been all shut down.

I personally was on target to get BA/ &/BS in 2.5 years. (47 years ago) my daughters got BA/& BS in 4 years. (11/8 years ago)

The real issue that $1.5 T to $2 T (essentially wasted & deadbeat) student debt exposes are the utter uselessness of the majority of USA College/University/community college, etc. degrees, even as they are STILL & probably remain to be considered some the best in the world.

I would change that as I do think that college are designed to lead to jobs, just not all jobs. Many jobs have trade schools that lead to them and some are just on the job training.

snakeweasel

Mr_Shiftright said:

abacomike said:

snakeweasel said:

I don’t know how many of you were able to watch “60 Minutes” this evening, but the first segment reported on the progress of a 2015 lawsuit on behalf of several dozen youngsters and young adults to force the federal government to institute policies that would safeguard an environment that is healthy and conducive to safeguarding the planet’s atmosphere (climate change) for the future protection of their lives.  It seemed, at first, that the government would easily be able to get the suit dismissed, however federal courts have refused, including the Supreme Court, to dismiss the case.

According to the lawyer spearheading the lawsuit, there is so much supporting evidence in favor of their cause that if the case gets to court and is heard by a jury there is no doubt that the verdict would be in favor of the plaintiffs.  In other words, if the case is finally heard in a court of law, even the federal government has misgivings about their ability to effectively defend their (the government’s) position.

I only bring this up because the plaintiffs accuse the US Government of failing to protect their rights to a healthful environment because of the burning of fossil fuels and the policies that provide federal funds in support of the use of fossil fuels.

My thoughts on this, as the report was being televised, centered on the fact that China, India, and other large polluters account for 75% of the air pollutants causing climate change on our planet.  Thus, even if the US eliminated all use of fossil fuels within its borders, the problem of climate change caused by pollutants would not solve the progression of an unhealthy atomphere.  The  attorney acknowledged that the US is not the major cause of climate change, but is still irresponsible in safeguarding the environment.

This lawsuit, if successful, would force the US Government to implement policies that would eliminate the use of fossil fuels.  But there is still the problem of methane gas being released by the millions of cows (farting) as well as volcanic eruptions around the world.  I am slowly beginning to side with environmentalists who claim the planet’s atmosphere is being polluted with gases that are causing climate changes that can be cataclysmic.  

As as a postscript, I do not want to politicize this!  I brought this up in order to stimulate rational and apolitical thought and discussion about the prospects of a future for our children and grandchildren that could be catastrophic due to an unhealthful atmosphere and climate change.

The issue I have is that for the last 50 years I have been bombarded with warnings of immediate dire consequences of which 100% failed to happen so I am extremely skeptical of any catastrophic environmental event predictions.

The one consequence I have observed firsthand is the rising sea levels - especially here on the east coast of Florida.  The beach erosion is also serious due to rising sea levels.  The melting icecaps and glaciers are more evidence of the global warming.

I am a skeptic as well, snakeweasel. Changes are gradual but when looked at over the last 100 years, there have been changes suggesting climate change due to increased levels of CO2.  I guess what the environmentalists are telling us is that unless we start attacking the increased levels of pollutants, it will eventually be too late to do anything to change the direction.

I don’t have answers to these questions or solutions to the problem.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Point to be Mentioned Here: It is not "environmentalists" telling us. That is IMO a political statement. It is "scientists" telling us, which requires opposing arguments to then offer their scientific rebuttal---if indeed the debate is to remain nonpolitical.

The scientific debate (such as it exists) has enormous consequences for the automobile industry globally, so it is extremely important to operate on the basis of factual data.

The problem is is that scientists who disagree with it or are at least saying "wait a minute it's not what it's made out to be" are ignored. And the scientists who say we have a problem are bought and paid for in the way of grants to find a solution to the problem. Remember you dont make money by saying everything is ok.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

Missing now seems to be any sense of compromise, or meeting in the middle. 2 extremes fighting, nothing gets done. Obviously can’t eliminate fossil fuel entirely any time soon. But, you can discuss and implement plans to scale back, make incremental progress, etc. and if it means some big companies take a hit, well tough noogies. Adapt are die, the capitalist way!

If Exxon is making less on gas, figure out how to cash in on electric or solar. Or go out of business. Either works.

Even if can make a 20% improvement in the next decade, that’s better than nothing, or back sliding. Though might be fun to see the rivers in Chicago on fire again!

I think you mean Cleveland.

ruking1

Hey, you are the CPA. How do you explain the $1.5 T to $ 2 T unpaid deadbeat student loan debt contracts that were entered into FREELY? As you can explain, somebody can declare bankruptcy, but the student loans debt does not go away.

jmonroe1

driver100 said:

jmonroe1 said:

driver100 said:

tjc78 said:

@jmonroe

As for the electrical mishap... Happens to the best of us. Good insulated pliers are a must during a job like that.

Or do as I do............and call the guy.

And what happens when you call "the guy" and he screws up something else in the process of "fixing" what he was called out to fix? .
jmonroe

That may all be true...but, if you had called the guy instead of doing the DIY oil change.....you may still have your Hyundai.

That is such an old story I have almost forgotten about it. After all, that happened in November of 2011 and the car was already 7 years old, so I doubt that even I would still have it. I know you'd never have a car even 7 years old today but why should you if you want to change out every 2 or 3 years. Now that I think about it Mrs. j's 2012 Subie is 7 years old and I'm still trying to convince her it's used up even though it only has about 36K miles on it. In another year or two I'm surely going to convince her to let it go and I'm just as sure @oldfarmer50 will still be interested in it.

Yes I lost money because her 2005 XG350 blew up but in the end I had fun killing sales for the dealer who reneged on fixing it under warranty. I just chalk up the money I lost (about 3 grand) to the cost of doing business through my lifetime of being a DIY person. I'm still waaay ahead by not calling "that guy" every time I have a problem with something on my cars or in my house.

jmonroe

fintail

I think blinker fluid is a Toyota thing

On my car,I think something is wrong with the actuator where the stalk is in the steering column, if I wiggle the stalk, it blinks a couple times, sometimes.

imidazol97 said:

Have you checked the blinker fluid and the pump for it? Those are pretty reliable cars: built like tanks. Shouldn't have turn signal problems.

snakeweasel

ruking1 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

China is currently rolling out the world's largest investment in solar and wind power. It is certainly in China's best interest to grab ahold of the pollulion problem, because it is killing their own population in record numbers. I think air pollution is one of the very few issues in China where there is actual public dialogue.

China state owned cigarette production literally fuels smoking addiction that is probably much more deadly %’s wise. Again the math is 326 M USA pop vs 1.4 B China. The % of smokers in China far out exceeds the % of smokers in the US.

Meanwhile those high speed rail trains ?? High-Speed Rail in the U.S. Remains Elusive: Illinois Shows Why
A $2 billion Chicago-St. Louis project will offer a top speed of just 110 mph and shave an hour off the trip
64 COMMENTS
By Shayndi Raice and Pa

Driving down I55 from Chicago to St. Louis would take about 4 hours if traffic was free flowing (7 by way of Moonshine), along the same route by 110 MPH train would take just under 3 if non stop. For me any time saving by taking the train would be more than eaten up by getting to the train (presuming no moonshine stop). Plus on day while driving down Rt 66 I paced the City of New Orleans and that baby was doing 85 MPH easily. So spending billions on a new train system that will only go at best 25 MPH faster doesn't seem to be worth it.

snakeweasel

oldfarmer50 said:

stickguy said:

Missing now seems to be any sense of compromise, or meeting in the middle. 2 extremes fighting, nothing gets done. Obviously can’t eliminate fossil fuel entirely any time soon. But, you can discuss and implement plans to scale back, make incremental progress, etc. and if it means some big companies take a hit, well tough noogies. Adapt are die, the capitalist way!

If Exxon is making less on gas, figure out how to cash in on electric or solar. Or go out of business. Either works.

Even if can make a 20% improvement in the next decade, that’s better than nothing, or back sliding. Though might be fun to see the rivers in Chicago on fire again!

Interesting factoid, in the early days of oil refining the desired product was kerosene for lamps. Gasoline was considered a worthless byproduct and was dumped in the river.

Actually gasoline was used as a solvent, a fuel and even a cure for lice.

snakeweasel

stickguy said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

You have to admit--whoever is perpetrating the climate change hoax--they have some excellent production values on TV.

Using the guys that did the moon landing I assume.

That would be Stankey Kubrick, but it was extremely expensive to film because Kubrick being the perfectionist that he was insisted that it be filmed on location.

snakeweasel

tyguy said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Not too many places you can comfortably go 112 mph---parts of Nevada wouldn't be a problem, or I-15 in Utah-- although it might be good to cruise the road at 55 mph to check for rocks or debris before you make that run!

Maybe Volvo wants to save money on tires? 112 mph does sound suspiciously like a convenient number.

That's a good point. 112 mph is a pretty weird cutoff. I wonder if that also applies to Germany where one can easily exceed that speed, and I wonder how many deaths they've seen in Volvos going 113+ mph? Seems like it would be pretty rare.

Isn't 112 MPH about the same as 180 KPH which is a nice round number?

stickguy

yeah, I assume they did it in KM. hey won't be putting S rated tires on.

explorerx4

Next time I go to Cleveland, I'll get a 'Burning River Surf Club' tee shirt and post a picture.

snakeweasel

abacomike said:

ruking1 said:

A very close friend of mine lives on the east side of Florida’s Highway A1A. What this means is that the Atlantic Ocean is literally his backyard, for his parcel of course. The governments tends his back yard parcel, as it is in turtle hatching areas.

The last big hurricane was declared almost 100% certain to wipe his house out & put it under 12 ft more of water. So the area in which his parcel was, was given a mandatory evacuation order, upon fear of certain death. Long story short after our family fearing for his life: the Atlantic Ocean RECEEDED out to sea! The governments were notable to replace the waters he & others lost. Nature did some time later.

A1A floods from ocean water several times a year down here in South Florida mainly in the Miami Beach area - so bad that they have to close the road down.  I have not heard flooding reports for Ft. Lauderdale or Palm Beach.

Back in the 1960’s, the beaches along A1A were 40-50 yards wide.  Those same beaches today are less than 20 yards wide in most places.  Sand is always being trucked in to preserve the beaches along the coast.  Beaches are what preserve Florida’s reputation as vacation destination.

Oh I always thought that Floridas vacation destination reputation was based on a big rat mouse.

Mr_Shiftright

Please, NO POLITICS. Posts have been removed. The minute you single out political personalities and get snarky, that's over the line for us. You were all doing so well for a time, there.

Let's move on to something else, shall we?

driver100

Mr_Shiftright said:

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Not too many places you can comfortably go 112 mph---parts of Nevada wouldn't be a problem, or I-15 in Utah-- although it might be good to cruise the road at 55 mph to check for rocks or debris before you make that run!

Maybe Volvo wants to save money on tires? 112 mph does sound suspiciously like a convenient number.

Conspiracy theory?

If so, very transparent. More like "Bean Counter suspicion".

I offer as evidence Exhibit A. A definition of the "S" speed rating for tires

"S speed rating
An S speed rating indicates the tire has been approved for speeds up to 112 mph (180 km/h) under optimal conditions."

Coincidence? I don't THINK so!

Maybe...but, Volvo says, "Volvo is taking the bold step because its researchers have identified speed as a prominent gap it needs to close to reach its safety target.

"We need to talk about this problem," Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson told Automotive News Europe, referring to the areas that remain to be solved to end serious injuries and fatalities in its vehicles. Although speed limits exist in most countries, he said that people are still exceeding those limits by a wide margin. Volvo believes that controlling the speed in its models is worth it even if it can save just one life.

My conspiracy theory is that Volvo wants to regain it's reputation for making the safest cars on the road 112 mph could be chosen because it is convenient to cut off at that mark if that is what the tires are equipped for.

Mr_Shiftright

Doesn't seem like much of a secret plan, does it?

ruking1

snakeweasel said:

abacomike said:

ruking1 said:

A very close friend of mine lives on the east side of Florida’s Highway A1A. What this means is that the Atlantic Ocean is literally his backyard, for his parcel of course. The governments tends his back yard parcel, as it is in turtle hatching areas.

The last big hurricane was declared almost 100% certain to wipe his house out & put it under 12 ft more of water. So the area in which his parcel was, was given a mandatory evacuation order, upon fear of certain death. Long story short after our family fearing for his life: the Atlantic Ocean RECEEDED out to sea! The governments were notable to replace the waters he & others lost. Nature did some time later.

A1A floods from ocean water several times a year down here in South Florida mainly in the Miami Beach area - so bad that they have to close the road down.  I have not heard flooding reports for Ft. Lauderdale or Palm Beach.

Back in the 1960’s, the beaches along A1A were 40-50 yards wide.  Those same beaches today are less than 20 yards wide in most places.  Sand is always being trucked in to preserve the beaches along the coast.  Beaches are what preserve Florida’s reputation as vacation destination.

Oh I always thought that Floridas vacation destination reputation was based on a big rat mouse.

This property is contiguous with Highway A1A.

oldfarmer50

explorerx4 said:

Looks to me like the car with the dashcam had the right of way.

How do you figure? It looked as if his lane ended and he would be required to yield as he merged into the other lane. The guy in the Honda wasn’t a very good driver if he saw the guy making a forced merge and still tried to bull his way past him. Still, I think he had the right of way. Am I missing something?

oldfarmer50

abacomike said:

ruking1 said:

A very close friend of mine lives on the east side of Florida’s Highway A1A. What this means is that the Atlantic Ocean is literally his backyard, for his parcel of course. The governments tends his back yard parcel, as it is in turtle hatching areas.

The last big hurricane was declared almost 100% certain to wipe his house out & put it under 12 ft more of water. So the area in which his parcel was, was given a mandatory evacuation order, upon fear of certain death. Long story short after our family fearing for his life: the Atlantic Ocean RECEEDED out to sea! The governments were notable to replace the waters he & others lost. Nature did some time later.

A1A floods from ocean water several times a year down here in South Florida mainly in the Miami Beach area - so bad that they have to close the road down.  I have not heard flooding reports for Ft. Lauderdale or Palm Beach.

Back in the 1960’s, the beaches along A1A were 40-50 yards wide.  Those same beaches today are less than 20 yards wide in most places.  Sand is always being trucked in to preserve the beaches along the coast.  Beaches are what preserve Florida’s reputation as vacation destination.

Beach’s are always in a state of flux. Hundreds of feet of beach can disappear from a single storm. The lost in one spot can mean a gain up or down the coast. It’s only when we build million dollar condos on them that we notice the natural ebb and flow.

ruking1

Yes, it’s a normal natural ebb & flow. So unless it is true that weather is being weaponized, global whatever is/are theory/s.

ab348

snakeweasel said:

Actually gasoline was used as a solvent, a fuel and even a cure for lice.

I suppose the lice might be discouraged if one set their head on fire. 🔥

ab348

fintail said:

I
On my car,I think something is wrong with the actuator where the stalk is in the steering column, if I wiggle the stalk, it blinks a couple times, sometimes.

That would be called a turn signal switch, Fin.

Mr_Shiftright

ab348 said:

snakeweasel said:

Actually gasoline was used as a solvent, a fuel and even a cure for lice.

I suppose the lice might be discouraged if one set their head on fire. 🔥

They used to clean cars with gasoline, too. They would wipe them down like that, in the 1910s and 20s.

Mr_Shiftright

ab348 said:

fintail said:

I
On my car,I think something is wrong with the actuator where the stalk is in the steering column, if I wiggle the stalk, it blinks a couple times, sometimes.

That would be called a turn signal switch, Fin.

Not in Germany....there it would be a bi-directional navigational actuator (all one word of course)

ruking1

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

driver100 said:

Mr_Shiftright said:

Not too many places you can comfortably go 112 mph---parts of Nevada wouldn't be a problem, or I-15 in Utah-- although it might be good to cruise the road at 55 mph to check for rocks or debris before you make that run!

Maybe Volvo wants to save money on tires? 112 mph does sound suspiciously like a convenient number.

Conspiracy theory?

If so, very transparent. More like "Bean Counter suspicion".

I offer as evidence Exhibit A. A definition of the "S" speed rating for tires

"S speed rating
An S speed rating indicates the tire has been approved for speeds up to 112 mph (180 km/h) under optimal conditions."

Coincidence? I don't THINK so!

Maybe...but, Volvo says, "Volvo is taking the bold step because its researchers have identified speed as a prominent gap it needs to close to reach its safety target.

"We need to talk about this problem," Volvo CEO Hakan Samuelsson told Automotive News Europe, referring to the areas that remain to be solved to end serious injuries and fatalities in its vehicles. Although speed limits exist in most countries, he said that people are still exceeding those limits by a wide margin. Volvo believes that controlling the speed in its models is worth it even if it can save just one life.

My conspiracy theory is that Volvo wants to regain it's reputation for making the safest cars on the road 112 mph could be chosen because it is convenient to cut off at that mark if that is what the tires are equipped for.

One take can be that Volvo car drivers cause a lot more serious (fatalities) accidents. 🤑👎
That might be another good reason not to buy a Volvo.