"Consumption is out of the scope of CAFE. It has no mechanism for controlling miles driven, for example"
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. ;-)
That is why the only effective way to accomplish the goal we are supposedly trying to attain here is by increasing gas taxes. CAFE is a worthless set of regs designed to make politicians look like they are doing something, when in fact the last 20 years of backsliding (in fleet average fleet economy AND gasoline consumed) have proven that they aren't.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
So your PhD in chemistry or atmospheric science is from what program? EPA and CARB have done nothing that contradicts accepted emissions control science or the 3000 atmospheric scientists (in the IPCC) who are in complete consensus on climate change. Now of course, you, Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly, the American Petroleum Institute and Senator Inhofe disagree with those 3000 scientists and the EPA/CARB, so you are in pretty er, heady company.
BTW, Lil sailor and Nippon are right. CAFE is not effective for many reasons, such as the ability to game the system with fake SUVs and tiny cars. A gas fee is the only way to spur the market to create alternative energy sources and vehicles and to fund decent mass transit. The reason that it is a "fee" and not a tax is because only the USERS pay it, not the general populace. And the users pay at the rate that they produce impacts. A guy drives an SUV and commutes 2 hours to work? He is going to have to pay more to offset his emissions that lead directly to asthma and lung cancer in children and the elderly.
How many PHDs have you talked to personally that are in agreement with this so called consensus? I have talked to several over the years that were studying ice core samples, atmospheric conditions in the arctic along with every kind of flora and fauna found in the Arctic. They would all come to my office to get their phone service. Being the inquisitive type I asked lots of questions. None said they could give a definitive cause to what is being perceived as global warming. Now I see the number of scientist in this elusive consensus has grown by 1000 in the last few days. Were they hatched in the pea brain attached to the shoulders of one Al Gore?
EPA and CARB do not agree on emissions. In fact the EPA has sued CARB from time to time for overstepping the bounds of their authority. The people at CARB cannot even clean up the massive pollution spewed by the cargo ships in the port at San Pedro. They along with CAFE are long overdue for retirement.
BTW, Lil sailor and Nippon are right. CAFE is not effective for many reasons
Well if we all agree that it is ineffective why is anyone supporting it?
The car we purchase and the number of miles we drive are individual decisions. The consumption of fuel takes place on the individual level. Any effective approach to reducing fuel consumption will have to involve the individual. I don't see that with CAFE. In fact, I see just the opposite, which is consistent with the mentality that this nation has adopted. Avoid accountability at all costs and place the blame/responsibility elsewhere. I believe our politicians are largely responsible for teaching this philosophy because it is a very seductive message for the voters to hear.
Our growing consumption of fuel is comparable to our growing waistlines in this country. Rather than get off our fat asses and exercise a little and maybe eat less we spend 100's of millions on magic diet pills. Some have even sued fast food restaurants for making us fat. It's pathetic and I don't remember it being this way 30 years ago.
Could a politician get elected that preached individual accountability? I doubt it.
BTW, I've always agreed with a gas fee as being the most effective way to actually achieve the objective of reduced consumption. Unfortunately it will never be politically popular. Fortunately it soon won't matter because we will have consumed our way to the same price level that this fee would have established. Unfortunately there will be no funds to expand mass transit or mitigate any other negative economic impacts.
Well, I agree that is is no longer effective in bringing the average lower because it's reached its target.
But that's like complaining that the the A/C in the house is ineffective at reaching 72 degrees when you have it set to 80.
If you set the mpg for CAFE to X (the presumed goal) then you will probably reach it. Just like the current CAFE reached its goals back in the late 70s and early 80s.
Avoid accountability at all costs and place the blame/responsibility elsewhere. I believe our politicians are largely responsible for teaching this philosophy because it is a very seductive message for the voters to hear.
I agree with you there.
There are 3 basic ways that I see to lower gas consumption in the US. Voluntary measures (folks buy higher mpg vehicles and/or drive less), higher gas tax and CAFE.
Volutary measures are unlikely for the reason you just gave....we seem to lack the national will and/or the national understanding of the problem.
Higher gas taxes are probably the best way, even though the burden will largely fall on those least able to afford it. But another part of the American ethos is lowertaxeslowertaxeslowertaxes no matter what, even if idiotically applied. Therefore, this is political suicide for any politician to support. Unless we get one with real guts and incredible leadership skills. Anyone applying?
That leaves CAFE, which has worked before and would likely work again.
One of the reasons why CAFE is more acceptable to the American public is that is forces us to ALL play by the same rules (assuming the LTV 'exemption' is lifted) and this is more palatable than voluntary action....IMO.
But that's like complaining that the the A/C in the house is ineffective at reaching 72 degrees when you have it set to 80.
Well what if your AC was set at 72 and the outside temperature is 69. How could you draw a conclusion as to how effective your AC is?
When CAFE was first implemented in 1975 the automakers not only met the goals but exceeded them by a sizeable amount for the first 7-8 years. Why would you exceed an efficiency mandate if the only reason you were increasing your fleets efficiency was because you were being forced to? Is it possible that market conditions made fuel efficient vehicles very attractive to the buying public during this period? This is also the same time where Toyota, Datsun, and Honda started gaining market share. All they sold were small, efficient vehicles. The domestics needed to come up with something comparable simply to maintain a presence in what was becoming the starter vehicle segment where brand loyalty is established. People that cite CAFE as the reason behind increased fuel efficiency during the 75-83 period are wrong. They are simply pointing out two things that happened at the same time. The AFC dominated the Super Bowl during this same period. Maybe that had something to do with efficiency standards going up.
It is probably true that CAFE provided a floor that manufacturers couldn't drop below during the peak of the SUV/truck craze when gas was $1/gallon. However even this had negative consequences. It resulted in the polarization of the fleet where a manufacturer had to sell a 40 mpg vehicle for every 15 mpg vehicle. While that might produce better CAFE numbers the result is more gas will have been burned than had two 25 mpg vehicles been sold.
The part being left out is the fact that CAFE mileage could have been raised and met during the 1980 & 1990s if the EPA and CARB did not have their heads where the sun does not shine. With an immediate increase of at least 25% by using diesel we would be at that 35 MPG plateau NOW. The EU was able to do just that with a fleet that is approximately 50% diesel. They are using much less fuel per vehicle than we are. The technology has advanced far beyond the GM diesels of the 80s. We just were left behind due to misconceptions and a Congress that was not interested in saving fuel.
Well what if your AC was set at 72 and the outside temperature is 69. How could you draw a conclusion as to how effective your AC is?
You couldn't, but I don't get your point. The presumed analogy would be if the actual fleet was much higher than CAFE now and it certainly isn't.
In any case, my point was simply that if the complaint is that CAFE "no longer is being effective", then we can make it effective in a very obvious way. Raise the numbers.
When CAFE was first implemented in 1975 the automakers not only met the goals but exceeded them by a sizeable amount for the first 7-8 years.
No, not at all. I posted this chart here a while back, but I'll post it again:
Is it possible that market conditions made fuel efficient vehicles very attractive to the buying public during this period?
Well, that certainly was the case, yes...in fact the movement to higher efficiency pre-dated CAFE at that point. But that was because a) the "green" folks led the way and b) the '73 gas crisis was still fresh.
This is also the same time where Toyota, Datsun, and Honda started gaining market share.
True. And in the 90's, US automakers went large, and bet very wrong on future gas prices, increasing that market share.
People that cite CAFE as the reason behind increased fuel efficiency during the 75-83 period are wrong. They are simply pointing out two things that happened at the same time.
No, they are right, while 2 things happened at the same time. Look at the chart. Do you seriously contend that the fact that the CAFE and fleet numbers are so close is mere coincidence?
It is probably true that CAFE provided a floor that manufacturers couldn't drop below during the peak of the SUV/truck craze when gas was $1/gallon.
LOL, like the "craze" was not created by their own marketing. This was my earlier point about marketing.
While that might produce better CAFE numbers the result is more gas will have been burned than had two 25 mpg vehicles been sold.
There's no doubt that 2 tier CAFE was a really bad thing.
True. And in the 90's, US automakers went large, and bet very wrong on future gas prices, increasing that market share.
Actually it was the Japanese carmakers that decided to join the party and first started to produce larger vehicles during this period. The domestics have always offered large vehicles. If it wasn't for the Japanese now offering competing SUVs and trucks the domestic automakers would probably be in decent financial shape. So where they bet wrong was not so much the price of gas but that the Japanese would continue to let them have an almost monopoly on this segment. If gas prices were to plummet I suspect that more large vehicles would be sold but more and more of them would be Japanese.
LOL, like the "craze" was not created by their own marketing. This was my earlier point about marketing.
While I agree that marketing has some affect on the public I don't think it is as significant as you seem to think it is.
Most SUV/truck commercials I see aren't aimed at trying to get you to buy this type of vehicle over another type. They are typically trying to convince a potential buyer to choose one company's SUV over another company's.
If advertising was this powerful why not simply use it to create some huge demand for subcompacts and also convince buyers to pay a lot of money for them?
You seem to view the individual as powerless over the influence of these big, bad, evil corporation's marketing schemes. I tend to believe we are capable of more free will. But then again I frequently give the American public more credit than they deserve.
Actually it was the Japanese carmakers that decided to join the party and first started to produce larger vehicles during this period.
No, I meant moved their marketing to shift their emphasis. After that point, they were almost totally dependant on SUVs and PUs for profits.
So where they bet wrong was not so much the price of gas but that the Japanese would continue to let them have an almost monopoly on this segment.
They bet wrong that they could still sell enough of them to carry them. Japanese makers are not similarly vulnerable.
Most SUV/truck commercials I see aren't aimed at trying to get you to buy this type of vehicle over another type.
We're not at the peak of the SUV craze. Hardly. But they are still hawking them big time, they have to.
If advertising was this powerful why not simply use it to create some huge demand for subcompacts and also convince buyers to pay a lot of money for them?
LOL, marketing is powerful, but can't do the impossible.
You seem to view the individual as powerless over the influence of these big, bad, evil corporation's marketing schemes.
Not at all. It's not as if there were only 2 possibilities: marketing is 100% or marketing is 0% of demand. Marketing is very powerful. And the marketing of SUVs was a major reason for the LTV surge in market share in the US over the last 10 years or so.
And coming back to the point, marketing (including pricing, of course) is how an automaker deals with CAFE constraints. After all, they have to sell a certain mix, so they have to shape demand as best they can to match it. Profitability is another matter.
I used to work in a White House office regarding climate change and have spoken with dozens of climate scientists - who by the way are NOT the same as geologists. But all of those conversations are anecdotal and therefore of little use. What your sworn enemy - Al Gore - pointed out in his film has not been challenged; there are approximately 3000 peer reviewed scientific articles regarding the dynamic that humans are rapidly exacerbating climate change and NONE of those scientific articles disputes the dynamic. NONE.
At the same time, there are thousands of general press articles and non peer reviewed amateur science articles about about climate change and about 50% of them dispute this same dynamic. The experts say no and the mainstream press (bought and paid for by GE, Westinghouse, Disney and Murdoch/Ailes) say yes. Well, you can believe Roger Ailes and GE, but I tend to believe qualified scientists who publish on the issue (and who don't work for the API or Exxon). You can inform yourself about their findings here: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq.htm
Regarding EPA and CARB, I said they agree on the "science" of emissions. Of course they disagree on legal jurisdiction: the state legislature and Arnold have said to regulate and George through his Department of Crony protection, er, Justice, has said no, don't regulate.
As you have pointed out, your qualification to comment on this subject is biased. When surrounded by folks that use fear to persuade, as you were, it is difficult to glean the truth from the fiction. Why would you think that scientists that are clamoring for grants from US (uncle Sam) are any more credible than scientists hired by Exxon? Most of the scientists that I talked to were associated with big Universities. What ever they happened to be studying, ice core samples, atmospheric conditions or Polar bear populations, they were still dedicated scientists. This discounting of any scientist that does not agree with a certain view point I find distasteful. I am interested in scientific data and studies. Not Hollywood spin that is totally biased toward a political agenda.
As for Al Gore being an enemy. I just believe him to be one of the elitist that would take away my freedom to have what he has attained. Why should he live in a mansion and burn $30,000 worth of energy a year, and try to deny me the same? He is out to take personal transportation from the average individual. His book lays out his dislike of the internal combustion engine, that many on this forum are big fans of. He is a typical "Do as I say, Not as I DO" politician.
Because grants and emplyment are different, for one thing.
Ok, so let's not believe any scientists and just believe what we read on Edmunds. Sounds like a plan!
As for Al Gore being an enemy. I just believe him to be one of the elitist...... .....bla, bla, bla.
Shouldn't we focus on the merits of ideas and evidence and not on individuals? After all, it's not like Al is espousing some personal POV that no one else is espousing.
Shouldn't we focus on the merits of ideas and evidence and not on individuals?
I agree. It is just that the likes of RFK jr and AG make statements that have no scientific basis. Such as hurricane Katrina was the result of GWB not signing onto the flawed Kyoto protocol. To me that and their high carbon usage lifestyles shoot the credibility full of holes. You say it is OK for them to use more energy than I do. I say that is an elitist view.
It is just that the likes of RFK jr and AG make statements that have no scientific basis. Such as hurricane Katrina was the result of GWB not signing onto the flawed Kyoto protocol.
Hard to imagine that that is an accurate quote from either. In fact, I can't, try as I might.
Earlier in his piece he blames GWB for not backing CO2 reform.
Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.
You can spin it anyway you like. RFK jr was on the news shortly after Katrina blaming it on GWB. I am sure the transcripts are out there some place. I still do not understand why you would give anyone a bye on carbon usage if you feel so strongly that it is important to do something about.
I look at it like a preacher giving a sermon on adultery, then going out and having an affair. I know some that were booted out of the ministry for doing just that.
I believe in accountability from the top down, not the bottom up.
and try to remember the last time a politician in this country led by example on ANY TOPIC...
I'm waiting.........
:surprise:
Our country is run by rich people, and rich people use their wealth to cushion themselves from reality, and often to lead their lives in irresponsible ways.
Don't judge the message by the messenger, is all I'm saying.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
I am saying the message is meaningless if the messenger has no credibility. You will not get me to defend any politician. They may go into politics with the best of intentions. They are corrupt within one term if they go for re-election. It is the way our system works. I still prefer it to a kingdom. I do not have the serf mentality that I have seen demonstrated here from a few posters. You are not one of them.
I will give him this. He is caught in a hard spot. If he drives a Prius and goes to Detroit he will lose the vote. So owning a piece of Detroit iron is probably the best alternative. There are several other Big 3 full size cars that get better mileage than the 300C. The Impala V8 gets 28 MPG highway. GM still leads the Big 3 on Fleet mileage. I get the impression many people do not care how wasteful their representatives and leaders are.
I am saying the message is meaningless if the messenger has no credibility.
No offense, but that's nonsense, of course. You may choose to ignore the message, but that's no excuse, really. There's a difference between babies and bath water.
You will not get me to defend any politician.
I didn't think anyone was trying
I still prefer it to a kingdom.
What was the topic again?
If he drives a Prius and goes to Detroit he will lose the vote.
Hopefully he won't need the votes of any idiots that would base their vote on that.
I get the impression many people do not care how wasteful their representatives and leaders are.
Impressions can be deceiving. If we only paid attention to leaders that were perfect we'd have a lot of extra time. And "use" and "waste" are not synonymous.
Do you think we should use miles per gallon to determine fleet efficiency or gallons per mile? For instance should we mandate a fleet efficiency of 30 mpg or .033 gallons per mile? The initial reaction by most people would be to say, "what's the difference". There is a very big difference and I guarantee the auto-industry would not allow a gallons per mile system to be adopted.
I don't follow. I think we should use mpg, because that's what most folks understand, but what difference are you referring to? Mathematically there is no difference, of course.
If you do the math you'll see there is an enormous difference. Let's say an automaker sells a 20 mpg vehicle and a 40 mpg vehicle. His fleet average is obviously 30 mpg but it is not .033 gallons per mile. Under gallons per mile his two vehicles are .05 and .025, which results in a fleet average of .0375, 10% more. Why is this a problem? With the current system the automanufacturer gets more CAFE benefit from increasing the efficiency of his most efficient vehicle. Getting his 40 mpg car up to 44 mpg will provide greater CAFE value than getting his 20 mpg car up to 22 mpg. However in terms of total fuel consumption more gas would have been saved by increasing the efficiency of the 20 mpg vehicle. Under the gallons per mile system the automaker will be encouraged to focus his efforts on his least efficient vehicles, which is how it should be.
As I said in a previous post, the current system encourages a polarization of the fleet. That is not only bad from a fuel consumption perspective but from a safety perspective.
BTW, in Europe fuel efficiency is measured in liters per 100 kilometers. This is what I'm advocating. It makes more sense. Not necessarily the metric part but the fuel per distance as opposed to distance per fuel part.
I think CAFE is ineffective. Latest example was giving big MPG credit for flex fuel vehicles. A real joke I would say.
Hopefully he won't need the votes of any idiots that would base their vote on that.
The Blue party would be sunk without those voters. I can still remember elections won over which candidate looked best on camera. The loser had a 5 O'clock shadow. When he did win the presidency 8 years later he put the EPA into place. Yes we have a lot of idiot voters in this nation.
For me I like Suburbans. I did not vote for the candidate that has the most of them :shades:
If we look at what CAFE was designed to do we will see it hasn't improved the Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency in more than 20 years. Could have should have would have simply doesn't matter. Everyone that has been concerned has made the same claim. The Fleet average has not decreased and the miles driven have so the reason CAFE was established hasn't happened. We have not decreased our use of oil and we have not improved the fleet average in more than 20 years. That would indicate that CAFE has long ago lost it's vision.
Latest example was giving big MPG credit for flex fuel vehicles. A real joke I would say.
I agree. I read recently that the feds are considering taking this away in 2009. Ford and GM are lobbying hard against this. I wonder why? Is it because they are passionate about ethanol or are they passionate about a loophole that let's them sell bigger vehicles.
All modern cars can run on E10. That would have been a wiser goal, to produce this mixture, nothing higher. You could have accomplished this without being too disruptive to the market, mileage would only suffer by maybe 2-3% and you now have ethanol as your oxygenation agent.
My qualification is biased because I worked on this issue as a professional (in a Republican administration)? My qualification is biased because I discount anecdotal, non-cited "conversations" with some geologists? My qualification is biased because I actually supply a cite to virtually all - yes - virtually all scientists, who agree on the science?
There are NO respected climate scientists that disagree with 90% of the most important IPCC findings. There are only hack scientists - who DON'T have peer reviewed articles published - that question them. And virtually all of those hacks are employed by the oil industry. Are you actually saying with a straight face that a couple of Exxon paid scientists who have no peer reviewed publications are more trustworthy than 1000s of tenured scientists from 50 countries who have published scientifically vetted articles?
Now, this argument would be rather silly, unless ... one was a plant from the oil industry trying to persuade people that Rush Limbaugh and Exxon PR employees should be believed instead of 1000s of real scientists. Indeed, I have looked back on your posts and there are HUNDREDS here on the subject. Who else but a person employed by the industry would spend so much time and be so focused on defending the American oil and automotive industries?
But to further examine your claim that the oil industry is a source of true, unbiased information about air quality in the public interest, let's recall the record of the oil industry. It started out with massacres in Colorado and has morphed into spending billions on paying off politicians and bribing 3rd world military oligarchs to maintain profit. Let's recall the death squads that Shell and Chevron have paid for in Nigeria to crush protests about the massive pollution in the Niger Delta. And the Standard Oil/CIA overthrow of Mossadeq, which led directly to the extremist islamist takeover of Iran and its funding of terrorists. And the political cover of the Taliban that the oil industry provided so that they could get a pipeline through Afghanistan. And the bribes that Exxon has been giving Generals and Sheiks in Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and the entire middle east and all other oil producing suppliers to crush dissent about their pollution and low pricing. And let's not forget those hard working guys in Detroit at Firestone and GM whose bribes resulted in the secret purchase and warehousing of the L.A. trolley system?
Really, what could a private citizen find so redeeming about the 70 years of lies and violation of civil rights and the massive pollution that he would spend his entire waking life defending them on Carspace?
Ok, I see your point, although I have played with the 2 before, I never thought about how the averages behaved. Fact is, mpg is a measure of efficiency and gpm is an inverse measure of efficiency (whatever that is).
I'm sure Tidester could come in here and give a more coherent explanation (hey Steve, tell Tides we have a math question here!), but you cannot average gpm and expect an average of efficiency. So, the answer to your question is, gpm would never be used.
With the current system the automanufacturer gets more CAFE benefit from increasing the efficiency of his most efficient vehicle.
It depends on where you are on the curve. Gpm is not linear whereas mpg is. Which also means that any analysis yields different results at different points.
As I said in a previous post, the current system encourages a polarization of the fleet.
The 2 tier nature of the current CAFE regs does that. I agree that that should be abolished. Unfortunately, when CAFE was enacted, LTVs were primarily PUs which were work vehicles which were intended to be exempted, which was reasonable. But then US automakers took advantage of it with aggresive SUV marketing and that made a shambles of it.
"Despite a childhood in Southern California, Richard Nixon was so hopelessly disconnected from nature that he wore dress shoes to the beach. Yet, no other chief executive approved as much important environmental legislation." (link)
Tides has been paged - be careful what you wish for, LOL.
Oh, another CAFE quote for y'all - courtesy of the WSJ.
"[CAFE is] like trying to combat obesity by forcing clothing manufacturers to manufacture only small sizes. It's doomed to failure because the market mechanism isn't at work."
-- Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman, Global Product Development, General Motors
What the heck, it's the weekend - here's another quote from that same WSJ article (paid registration req'd).
"Efforts to address global warming and oil addiction should not turn into a bunch of kids pointing at each other saying, 'Not me, he did it.' "
--David Friedman, research director, Union of Concerned Scientists
Sort of sounds like some forum discussions eh? :shades:
"Efforts to address global warming and oil addiction should not turn into a bunch of kids pointing at each other saying, 'Not me, he did it.' "
--David Friedman, research director, Union of Concerned Scientists
I think that Friedman probably shares the view of many others. They do not like to be used as a political sword. Scientists are not like lawyers. We expect a lawyer to stretch the truth and sometimes tell out right lies. That is what they are sworn to do. A scientist is searching for the truth more than just trying to win an argument.
The two methods you and TPE are talking about are, in fact, different though they are both valid. What was missing in the discussion is the condition that the average be weighted according to fleet composition which has practical consequences.
Using miles per gallon averaging generally requires a relatively smaller change in the makeup of the fleet when CAFE requirements are adjusted. The gallons per mile averaging generally requires relatively larger changes in the makeup of the fleet.
In other words, a manufacturer can more easily adapt to increasingly stringent CAFE regulations using the miles per gallon averaging.
... I don't actually think the auto makers are that devious, to be looking at this beyond three decimal places. We all have to breathe the same air; now if it was bottled water I'd be worried.
The two methods you and TPE are talking about are, in fact, different though they are both valid.
Sure, they're 'valid', but surely, they're not the same thing. Efficiency and the inverse of efficiency are very different. Though what they are kinda beats me
What was missing in the discussion is the condition that the average be weighted according to fleet composition which has practical consequences.
Again, sure....how many vehicles sold at each mpg point matter very much. But....the question here is the factor "efficiency" which is part of the product combining number of vehicles and "rate of efficiency" which makes up the CAFE formula.
Here are my real questions:
1) what is the inverse of efficiency? What does that mean, in terms of "rates"
2) The averages of the two are different, sure....after all,
X + Y ______ 2
does not equal
1/X + 1/Y __________ 2
but.....what does that mean??
To take another example, we measure velocity (another 'rate') by distance divided by time. Time divided by distance is something, but it surely ain't velocity. And it behaves the same way as the mpg/gpm example....average of the 2 are not equivalent.
For example, 60 mph is .017 hpm and 120 mph is .008 hpm. Averaging .017 and .008 is .0125 which is equal to 80 mph, but that ain't the average of 60 and 120 (90 is), so what is it?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Hey, what good is coming to TH if I can't weasel a free math lesson?
"I can't help you with the math but it's inquiring."
No. NO. It's from the National Enquirer ads. If you used Inquiring you'd be with the Philadelphia Inquirer, which wouldn't be right because they actually publish facts once in a while...
2015 Mazda 6 Grand Touring, 2014 Mazda 3 Sport Hatchback, 1999 Mazda Miata 2004 Toyota Camry LE, 1999.
The problem with using mpg to determine CAFE is that it really doesn't do a good job of indicating how much gas the fleet is burning. If I sold two cars and told you that they were both driven 1000 miles and their average fuel efficiency was 25 mpg you could not tell me how much total gas these cars burned. Now if I told you that they averaged .04 gallons per mile you could answer that question.
As the host pointed out, using gallons per mile would be far more difficult for the automakers to adhere to. I'll use an extreme example. Let's say CAFE is 25 mpg. An automaker sells a 10 mpg vehicle. He now needs to sell a 40 mpg vehicle to be in compliance. If instead CAFE was .04 gallons per mile then if an auto manufacturer sold a 10 mpg vehicle he would now have to sell 4 40 mpg vehicles to be in compliance. This system would force the auto manufacturers to focus their attention on their least efficient vehicles. Our current system does the opposite.
but you cannot average gpm and expect an average of efficiency
Why not? Your example where you used speed was a good one. If you told me that you had 100 miles to drive and asked how long it would take I could care less about your average miles per hour. I would be interested in your average hours per mile. If you drove the first 50 miles at 90 mph and the next 50 miles at 10 mph then your average speed was 50 mph. But you sure didn't make this 100 mile trip in 2 hours.
That's the whole point that I'm trying to make. For CAFE to be anywhere near accurate it needs to use a weighted average, which is accomplished by the inverse method. The way it stands right now people believe that if you doubled CAFE you would cut your fuel consumption in half. That's just not true. You could theoretically double CAFE and actually increase your fuel consumption if you did this by creating some ultra-high efficiency vehicles, say 70+ mpg. You'd now have a lot of leeway to sell some very inefficient vehicles. This is the polarization of the fleet that I am referring to.
Why not? Your example where you used speed was a good one. If you told me that you had 100 miles to drive and asked how long it would take I could care less about your average miles per hour. I would be interested in your average hours per mile. If you drove the first 50 miles at 90 mph and the next 50 miles at 10 mph then your average speed was 50 mph. But you sure didn't make this 100 mile trip in 2 hours.
I think the facts are this. No matter how CAFE sets their regulations the automakers will build what the people want to buy.
I bought a new Suburban in June of 1998. It had a 1999 VIN. The dealer told me that Chevy had reached their quota on 1998 Suburbans and had to start selling them as 1999 models. This was to avoid paying CAFE fines.
I think the market can best regulate the mileage of vehicles. As the gas prices slowly escalate people will look for higher mileage cars. There is no way I will ever own a 35 MPG gasoline car as my main transportation. None of them are what I want in comfort or safety. The only way to significantly cut our consumption is with diesel engines and to a lesser extent hybrids & EVs. The latter two require new battery advancements to be really practical.
I agree, but that's not the way CAFE works. Just like average velocity is distance/time average mpg should be miles/gallons So if one vehicle burns 10 gallons over 100 miles (10 mpg) and another burns 2 gallons over this same 100 miles (50 mpg) then they have collectively travelled 200 miles on 12 gallons of gas. 200/12 = 16.67 mpg. CAFE would have come up with average mpg using the following method. (50+10)/2 = 30 mpg. That is just as flawed as my method of arriving at average velocity, so I think we are in agreement.
Ah, we agree. So the only other factor is time. Which you have made it clear, that you feel some peoples time is more valuable than others.
For me I would rather have a car that gets 50 MPG at 75 MPH than one that only gets 50 MPG at 55 MPH. Where I live the highway traffic runs 75 MPH + most of the time.
Comments
Exactly. I couldn't have said it better myself. ;-)
That is why the only effective way to accomplish the goal we are supposedly trying to attain here is by increasing gas taxes. CAFE is a worthless set of regs designed to make politicians look like they are doing something, when in fact the last 20 years of backsliding (in fleet average fleet economy AND gasoline consumed) have proven that they aren't.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
EPA and CARB do not agree on emissions. In fact the EPA has sued CARB from time to time for overstepping the bounds of their authority. The people at CARB cannot even clean up the massive pollution spewed by the cargo ships in the port at San Pedro. They along with CAFE are long overdue for retirement.
Well if we all agree that it is ineffective why is anyone supporting it?
The car we purchase and the number of miles we drive are individual decisions. The consumption of fuel takes place on the individual level. Any effective approach to reducing fuel consumption will have to involve the individual. I don't see that with CAFE. In fact, I see just the opposite, which is consistent with the mentality that this nation has adopted. Avoid accountability at all costs and place the blame/responsibility elsewhere. I believe our politicians are largely responsible for teaching this philosophy because it is a very seductive message for the voters to hear.
Our growing consumption of fuel is comparable to our growing waistlines in this country. Rather than get off our fat asses and exercise a little and maybe eat less we spend 100's of millions on magic diet pills. Some have even sued fast food restaurants for making us fat. It's pathetic and I don't remember it being this way 30 years ago.
Could a politician get elected that preached individual accountability? I doubt it.
BTW, I've always agreed with a gas fee as being the most effective way to actually achieve the objective of reduced consumption. Unfortunately it will never be politically popular. Fortunately it soon won't matter because we will have consumed our way to the same price level that this fee would have established. Unfortunately there will be no funds to expand mass transit or mitigate any other negative economic impacts.
But that's like complaining that the the A/C in the house is ineffective at reaching 72 degrees when you have it set to 80.
If you set the mpg for CAFE to X (the presumed goal) then you will probably reach it. Just like the current CAFE reached its goals back in the late 70s and early 80s.
Avoid accountability at all costs and place the blame/responsibility elsewhere. I believe our politicians are largely responsible for teaching this philosophy because it is a very seductive message for the voters to hear.
I agree with you there.
There are 3 basic ways that I see to lower gas consumption in the US. Voluntary measures (folks buy higher mpg vehicles and/or drive less), higher gas tax and CAFE.
Volutary measures are unlikely for the reason you just gave....we seem to lack the national will and/or the national understanding of the problem.
Higher gas taxes are probably the best way, even though the burden will largely fall on those least able to afford it. But another part of the American ethos is lowertaxeslowertaxeslowertaxes no matter what, even if idiotically applied. Therefore, this is political suicide for any politician to support. Unless we get one with real guts and incredible leadership skills. Anyone applying?
That leaves CAFE, which has worked before and would likely work again.
One of the reasons why CAFE is more acceptable to the American public is that is forces us to ALL play by the same rules (assuming the LTV 'exemption' is lifted) and this is more palatable than voluntary action....IMO.
This is why I support CAFE.
Well what if your AC was set at 72 and the outside temperature is 69. How could you draw a conclusion as to how effective your AC is?
When CAFE was first implemented in 1975 the automakers not only met the goals but exceeded them by a sizeable amount for the first 7-8 years. Why would you exceed an efficiency mandate if the only reason you were increasing your fleets efficiency was because you were being forced to? Is it possible that market conditions made fuel efficient vehicles very attractive to the buying public during this period? This is also the same time where Toyota, Datsun, and Honda started gaining market share. All they sold were small, efficient vehicles. The domestics needed to come up with something comparable simply to maintain a presence in what was becoming the starter vehicle segment where brand loyalty is established. People that cite CAFE as the reason behind increased fuel efficiency during the 75-83 period are wrong. They are simply pointing out two things that happened at the same time. The AFC dominated the Super Bowl during this same period. Maybe that had something to do with efficiency standards going up.
It is probably true that CAFE provided a floor that manufacturers couldn't drop below during the peak of the SUV/truck craze when gas was $1/gallon. However even this had negative consequences. It resulted in the polarization of the fleet where a manufacturer had to sell a 40 mpg vehicle for every 15 mpg vehicle. While that might produce better CAFE numbers the result is more gas will have been burned than had two 25 mpg vehicles been sold.
You couldn't, but I don't get your point. The presumed analogy would be if the actual fleet was much higher than CAFE now and it certainly isn't.
In any case, my point was simply that if the complaint is that CAFE "no longer is being effective", then we can make it effective in a very obvious way. Raise the numbers.
When CAFE was first implemented in 1975 the automakers not only met the goals but exceeded them by a sizeable amount for the first 7-8 years.
No, not at all. I posted this chart here a while back, but I'll post it again:
Is it possible that market conditions made fuel efficient vehicles very attractive to the buying public during this period?
Well, that certainly was the case, yes...in fact the movement to higher efficiency pre-dated CAFE at that point. But that was because a) the "green" folks led the way and b) the '73 gas crisis was still fresh.
This is also the same time where Toyota, Datsun, and Honda started gaining market share.
True. And in the 90's, US automakers went large, and bet very wrong on future gas prices, increasing that market share.
People that cite CAFE as the reason behind increased fuel efficiency during the 75-83 period are wrong. They are simply pointing out two things that happened at the same time.
No, they are right, while 2 things happened at the same time. Look at the chart. Do you seriously contend that the fact that the CAFE and fleet numbers are so close is mere coincidence?
It is probably true that CAFE provided a floor that manufacturers couldn't drop below during the peak of the SUV/truck craze when gas was $1/gallon.
LOL, like the "craze" was not created by their own marketing. This was my earlier point about marketing.
While that might produce better CAFE numbers the result is more gas will have been burned than had two 25 mpg vehicles been sold.
There's no doubt that 2 tier CAFE was a really bad thing.
Actually it was the Japanese carmakers that decided to join the party and first started to produce larger vehicles during this period. The domestics have always offered large vehicles. If it wasn't for the Japanese now offering competing SUVs and trucks the domestic automakers would probably be in decent financial shape. So where they bet wrong was not so much the price of gas but that the Japanese would continue to let them have an almost monopoly on this segment. If gas prices were to plummet I suspect that more large vehicles would be sold but more and more of them would be Japanese.
LOL, like the "craze" was not created by their own marketing. This was my earlier point about marketing.
While I agree that marketing has some affect on the public I don't think it is as significant as you seem to think it is.
Most SUV/truck commercials I see aren't aimed at trying to get you to buy this type of vehicle over another type. They are typically trying to convince a potential buyer to choose one company's SUV over another company's.
If advertising was this powerful why not simply use it to create some huge demand for subcompacts and also convince buyers to pay a lot of money for them?
You seem to view the individual as powerless over the influence of these big, bad, evil corporation's marketing schemes. I tend to believe we are capable of more free will. But then again I frequently give the American public more credit than they deserve.
No, I meant moved their marketing to shift their emphasis. After that point, they were almost totally dependant on SUVs and PUs for profits.
So where they bet wrong was not so much the price of gas but that the Japanese would continue to let them have an almost monopoly on this segment.
They bet wrong that they could still sell enough of them to carry them. Japanese makers are not similarly vulnerable.
Most SUV/truck commercials I see aren't aimed at trying to get you to buy this type of vehicle over another type.
We're not at the peak of the SUV craze. Hardly. But they are still hawking them big time, they have to.
If advertising was this powerful why not simply use it to create some huge demand for subcompacts and also convince buyers to pay a lot of money for them?
LOL, marketing is powerful, but can't do the impossible.
You seem to view the individual as powerless over the influence of these big, bad, evil corporation's marketing schemes.
Not at all. It's not as if there were only 2 possibilities: marketing is 100% or marketing is 0% of demand. Marketing is very powerful. And the marketing of SUVs was a major reason for the LTV surge in market share in the US over the last 10 years or so.
And coming back to the point, marketing (including pricing, of course) is how an automaker deals with CAFE constraints. After all, they have to sell a certain mix, so they have to shape demand as best they can to match it. Profitability is another matter.
At the same time, there are thousands of general press articles and non peer reviewed amateur science articles about about climate change and about 50% of them dispute this same dynamic. The experts say no and the mainstream press (bought and paid for by GE, Westinghouse, Disney and Murdoch/Ailes) say yes. Well, you can believe Roger Ailes and GE, but I tend to believe qualified scientists who publish on the issue (and who don't work for the API or Exxon). You can inform yourself about their findings here: http://www.ipcc.ch/about/faq.htm
Regarding EPA and CARB, I said they agree on the "science" of emissions. Of course they disagree on legal jurisdiction: the state legislature and Arnold have said to regulate and George through his Department of Crony protection, er, Justice, has said no, don't regulate.
As for Al Gore being an enemy. I just believe him to be one of the elitist that would take away my freedom to have what he has attained. Why should he live in a mansion and burn $30,000 worth of energy a year, and try to deny me the same? He is out to take personal transportation from the average individual. His book lays out his dislike of the internal combustion engine, that many on this forum are big fans of. He is a typical "Do as I say, Not as I DO" politician.
Ok, so let's not believe any scientists and just believe what we read on Edmunds. Sounds like a plan!
As for Al Gore being an enemy. I just believe him to be one of the elitist...... .....bla, bla, bla.
Shouldn't we focus on the merits of ideas and evidence and not on individuals? After all, it's not like Al is espousing some personal POV that no one else is espousing.
I agree. It is just that the likes of RFK jr and AG make statements that have no scientific basis. Such as hurricane Katrina was the result of GWB not signing onto the flawed Kyoto protocol. To me that and their high carbon usage lifestyles shoot the credibility full of holes. You say it is OK for them to use more energy than I do. I say that is an elitist view.
Hard to imagine that that is an accurate quote from either. In fact, I can't, try as I might.
Now we are all learning what it’s like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and--now--Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children.
RFK jr on Katrina
I wonder if he drives a Prius and lives in a moderate home?
What they say is that GW will result in more hurricanes (true) and that Kyoto would help alleviate GW (true) and that Dubya was against Kytoto (true).
Details, details.
I wonder if he drives a Prius and lives in a moderate home?
Personally, I think anyone that does not drive a Prius and does not live in a moderate home should never be listened to. There go all the politicians.
I look at it like a preacher giving a sermon on adultery, then going out and having an affair. I know some that were booted out of the ministry for doing just that.
I believe in accountability from the top down, not the bottom up.
I'm waiting.........
:surprise:
Our country is run by rich people, and rich people use their wealth to cushion themselves from reality, and often to lead their lives in irresponsible ways.
Don't judge the message by the messenger, is all I'm saying.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
Hmmm, his ride does get 25 mpg, and there's only one car in the family.
I get the impression many people do not care how wasteful their representatives and leaders are.
No offense, but that's nonsense, of course. You may choose to ignore the message, but that's no excuse, really. There's a difference between babies and bath water.
You will not get me to defend any politician.
I didn't think anyone was trying
I still prefer it to a kingdom.
What was the topic again?
If he drives a Prius and goes to Detroit he will lose the vote.
Hopefully he won't need the votes of any idiots that would base their vote on that.
I get the impression many people do not care how wasteful their representatives and leaders are.
Impressions can be deceiving. If we only paid attention to leaders that were perfect we'd have a lot of extra time. And "use" and "waste" are not synonymous.
By the way, what do you think of CAFE?
As I said in a previous post, the current system encourages a polarization of the fleet. That is not only bad from a fuel consumption perspective but from a safety perspective.
I think CAFE is ineffective. Latest example was giving big MPG credit for flex fuel vehicles. A real joke I would say.
Hopefully he won't need the votes of any idiots that would base their vote on that.
The Blue party would be sunk without those voters. I can still remember elections won over which candidate looked best on camera. The loser had a 5 O'clock shadow. When he did win the presidency 8 years later he put the EPA into place. Yes we have a lot of idiot voters in this nation.
For me I like Suburbans. I did not vote for the candidate that has the most of them :shades:
I agree. I read recently that the feds are considering taking this away in 2009. Ford and GM are lobbying hard against this. I wonder why? Is it because they are passionate about ethanol or are they passionate about a loophole that let's them sell bigger vehicles.
All modern cars can run on E10. That would have been a wiser goal, to produce this mixture, nothing higher. You could have accomplished this without being too disruptive to the market, mileage would only suffer by maybe 2-3% and you now have ethanol as your oxygenation agent.
There are NO respected climate scientists that disagree with 90% of the most important IPCC findings. There are only hack scientists - who DON'T have peer reviewed articles published - that question them. And virtually all of those hacks are employed by the oil industry. Are you actually saying with a straight face that a couple of Exxon paid scientists who have no peer reviewed publications are more trustworthy than 1000s of tenured scientists from 50 countries who have published scientifically vetted articles?
Now, this argument would be rather silly, unless ... one was a plant from the oil industry trying to persuade people that Rush Limbaugh and Exxon PR employees should be believed instead of 1000s of real scientists. Indeed, I have looked back on your posts and there are HUNDREDS here on the subject. Who else but a person employed by the industry would spend so much time and be so focused on defending the American oil and automotive industries?
But to further examine your claim that the oil industry is a source of true, unbiased information about air quality in the public interest, let's recall the record of the oil industry. It started out with massacres in Colorado and has morphed into spending billions on paying off politicians and bribing 3rd world military oligarchs to maintain profit. Let's recall the death squads that Shell and Chevron have paid for in Nigeria to crush protests about the massive pollution in the Niger Delta. And the Standard Oil/CIA overthrow of Mossadeq, which led directly to the extremist islamist takeover of Iran and its funding of terrorists. And the political cover of the Taliban that the oil industry provided so that they could get a pipeline through Afghanistan. And the bribes that Exxon has been giving Generals and Sheiks in Indonesia, Nigeria, Venezuela, and the entire middle east and all other oil producing suppliers to crush dissent about their pollution and low pricing. And let's not forget those hard working guys in Detroit at Firestone and GM whose bribes resulted in the secret purchase and warehousing of the L.A. trolley system?
Really, what could a private citizen find so redeeming about the 70 years of lies and violation of civil rights and the massive pollution that he would spend his entire waking life defending them on Carspace?
I'm sure Tidester could come in here and give a more coherent explanation (hey Steve, tell Tides we have a math question here!), but you cannot average gpm and expect an average of efficiency. So, the answer to your question is, gpm would never be used.
With the current system the automanufacturer gets more CAFE benefit from increasing the efficiency of his most efficient vehicle.
It depends on where you are on the curve. Gpm is not linear whereas mpg is. Which also means that any analysis yields different results at different points.
As I said in a previous post, the current system encourages a polarization of the fleet.
The 2 tier nature of the current CAFE regs does that. I agree that that should be abolished. Unfortunately, when CAFE was enacted, LTVs were primarily PUs which were work vehicles which were intended to be exempted, which was reasonable. But then US automakers took advantage of it with aggresive SUV marketing and that made a shambles of it.
I've seen K/L, not the inverse, and given that that is not efficiency, that doesn't make sense. Do you have some refererence for such use?
Not any more, my freind. You can thank Dubya for that.
Yes, Nixon looked bad. But he was not a crook. Yet
Anyway, enough politics already! (I don't mind but our hosts will, er, object).
Tides has been paged - be careful what you wish for, LOL.
Oh, another CAFE quote for y'all - courtesy of the WSJ.
"[CAFE is] like trying to combat obesity by forcing clothing manufacturers to manufacture only small sizes. It's doomed to failure because the market mechanism isn't at work."
-- Bob Lutz, Vice Chairman, Global Product Development, General Motors
What the heck, it's the weekend - here's another quote from that same WSJ article (paid registration req'd).
"Efforts to address global warming and oil addiction should not turn into a bunch of kids pointing at each other saying, 'Not me, he did it.' "
--David Friedman, research director, Union of Concerned Scientists
Sort of sounds like some forum discussions eh? :shades:
--David Friedman, research director, Union of Concerned Scientists
I think that Friedman probably shares the view of many others. They do not like to be used as a political sword. Scientists are not like lawyers. We expect a lawyer to stretch the truth and sometimes tell out right lies. That is what they are sworn to do. A scientist is searching for the truth more than just trying to win an argument.
The two methods you and TPE are talking about are, in fact, different though they are both valid. What was missing in the discussion is the condition that the average be weighted according to fleet composition which has practical consequences.
Using miles per gallon averaging generally requires a relatively smaller change in the makeup of the fleet when CAFE requirements are adjusted. The gallons per mile averaging generally requires relatively larger changes in the makeup of the fleet.
In other words, a manufacturer can more easily adapt to increasingly stringent CAFE regulations using the miles per gallon averaging.
tidester, host
SUVs and Smart Shopper
Sure, they're 'valid', but surely, they're not the same thing. Efficiency and the inverse of efficiency are very different. Though what they are kinda beats me
What was missing in the discussion is the condition that the average be weighted according to fleet composition which has practical consequences.
Again, sure....how many vehicles sold at each mpg point matter very much. But....the question here is the factor "efficiency" which is part of the product combining number of vehicles and "rate of efficiency" which makes up the CAFE formula.
Here are my real questions:
1) what is the inverse of efficiency? What does that mean, in terms of "rates"
2) The averages of the two are different, sure....after all,
X + Y
______
2
does not equal
1/X + 1/Y
__________
2
but.....what does that mean??
To take another example, we measure velocity (another 'rate') by distance divided by time. Time divided by distance is something, but it surely ain't velocity. And it behaves the same way as the mpg/gpm example....average of the 2 are not equivalent.
For example, 60 mph is .017 hpm and 120 mph is .008 hpm. Averaging .017 and .008 is .0125 which is equal to 80 mph, but that ain't the average of 60 and 120 (90 is), so what is it?
Enquiring minds want to know.
Hey, what good is coming to TH if I can't weasel a free math lesson?
(yeah, yeah, answers.com says it an ok alternate spelling, but what do they know?)
"I can't help you with the math but it's inquiring."
No. NO. It's from the National Enquirer ads. If you used Inquiring you'd be with the Philadelphia Inquirer, which wouldn't be right because they actually publish facts once in a while...
http://www.teaching-english-in-japan.net/conversion/mpg
The problem with using mpg to determine CAFE is that it really doesn't do a good job of indicating how much gas the fleet is burning. If I sold two cars and told you that they were both driven 1000 miles and their average fuel efficiency was 25 mpg you could not tell me how much total gas these cars burned. Now if I told you that they averaged .04 gallons per mile you could answer that question.
As the host pointed out, using gallons per mile would be far more difficult for the automakers to adhere to. I'll use an extreme example. Let's say CAFE is 25 mpg. An automaker sells a 10 mpg vehicle. He now needs to sell a 40 mpg vehicle to be in compliance. If instead CAFE was .04 gallons per mile then if an auto manufacturer sold a 10 mpg vehicle he would now have to sell 4 40 mpg vehicles to be in compliance. This system would force the auto manufacturers to focus their attention on their least efficient vehicles. Our current system does the opposite.
Why not? Your example where you used speed was a good one. If you told me that you had 100 miles to drive and asked how long it would take I could care less about your average miles per hour. I would be interested in your average hours per mile. If you drove the first 50 miles at 90 mph and the next 50 miles at 10 mph then your average speed was 50 mph. But you sure didn't make this 100 mile trip in 2 hours.
That's the whole point that I'm trying to make. For CAFE to be anywhere near accurate it needs to use a weighted average, which is accomplished by the inverse method. The way it stands right now people believe that if you doubled CAFE you would cut your fuel consumption in half. That's just not true. You could theoretically double CAFE and actually increase your fuel consumption if you did this by creating some ultra-high efficiency vehicles, say 70+ mpg. You'd now have a lot of leeway to sell some very inefficient vehicles. This is the polarization of the fleet that I am referring to.
??
time=distance/velocity
time=(50 miles)/(90 mph) + (50 miles)/(10 mph)
time=5.556 hours
Average velocity = distance/time
= (100 miles)/(5.556 hours) = 18 mph
I bought a new Suburban in June of 1998. It had a 1999 VIN. The dealer told me that Chevy had reached their quota on 1998 Suburbans and had to start selling them as 1999 models. This was to avoid paying CAFE fines.
I think the market can best regulate the mileage of vehicles. As the gas prices slowly escalate people will look for higher mileage cars. There is no way I will ever own a 35 MPG gasoline car as my main transportation. None of them are what I want in comfort or safety. The only way to significantly cut our consumption is with diesel engines and to a lesser extent hybrids & EVs. The latter two require new battery advancements to be really practical.
No, the efficiency (as measured by the rate of gals used per mile) in your example is the same.
For me I would rather have a car that gets 50 MPG at 75 MPH than one that only gets 50 MPG at 55 MPH. Where I live the highway traffic runs 75 MPH + most of the time.