It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
- Last Active
I hope your visit goes well ! Perhaps you will see some to a lot of the traffic patterns & roads that make this area the WORST to some of the worst in the nation! The rain intervals will probably skew the perspectives in unknown to very predictable ways.
Rain is generally good news for CA these days, so glad to hear it!Not this much. I'm in the Bay Area this week and there is a fair amount of flooding. Rain predicted for the whole week.
More longer term ago (2001), I pulled the trigger on a far shorter time & distance commute. ( from 9 miles/35 min) to 25 ft/15 sec) As a result, I'm more @ liberty to see traffic from @ least one different perspective.
I'm surprised, for as lead dog in most to all things high tech, Silicon Valley has not made greater in-roads slashing traffic congestion. Indeed, it is crystal clear to me that this area has GREATLY benefited from LOWER fuel prices, a very "low-tech" solution "green" .
I think leapfrogging traffic congestion is probably going to be Silicon Valley's greatest "killer app" , should they decide it a priority! My wife for example makes extensive use of "dial in" cell/land line meeting software & iPad/pc internet presentation.
So for example, if a person is required to be at a certain work place 5/6 conventional days a week, telecommuting 1 day slashes real traffic 20% to 12%. So * however many folks can = a lot of traffic! This should have produced clear to/& perceptual to measurable (-/negative) results. Yet fuel use has gone UP, by all government data.
It's funny how Google (located in Mountain View, CA) gets slammed (EXTORTED $$'s mainly) by "friendly fire" (Dems, unions, city, county, regional, state: sorry if I've left anyone out) ), for the so called 45 passenger "Google buses" ( to/fro, SF, CA) . Each 45 passenger bus can potentially take 45 passenger cars off the freeways! It uses less fuel. It is probably potentially safer to operate one vehicle versus 45. They vilify being able to work (potentially 45 man hours per 1 hour of bus travel) in the bus during the ride!
The (very local) area where I live is geting a REAL function test of the 100 year flood plain measures, (taken 65 years to 50 years ago) The (local) flood plain measures have recently been upgraded & enhanced, as a BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) right of way less than 75 yards away is being built. This will take BART into San Jose. It will also "ring" the system around the Bay Area! It also had the effect of lifting the requirement for ($600 to $1000 per year) flood plain insurance for the last 5 to ten years.
The property in SLT, CA has had ZERO issues, even as it is located between two lakes!? The fence neighbor by law is responsible for the fence & maintenance between the properties ! I guess I should be thankful for the massive dump of water for the trees on the "forested" lot ! I'm glad I didn't do a massive pine needles cleaning, as per eco conservative policies! The stuff helps prevent erosion & holds water in place ! H
http://www.autoblog.com/2015/10/15/prices-of-used-vw-diesels-starting-to-drop-in-some-areas/ Another interesting headline. Again, people are not going to be happy when dealers start giving people less money for their trade-in.
Anyone think the VW used prices are down ? Look at this link
This article might say it more directly and give a wider perspective!
..."In September, VW was the market share leader in the auto industry in EU. It posted 23% of the market. As a contrast GM (NYSE: GM), the leading car company in the U.S. has an 18% share in its home market. For the time being, the engine scandal which has gripped VW has not battered sales in its home market."...
GM has also had the advantage of bankruptcy ! This is HUGE, almost beyond measure! This is not even to mention a broad and deep taxpayer BAIL OUT!!! Did I already say: this also HUGE HUGE beyond measure!?
To repeat another thing that has been already noted, VW has approximately 2.5% of US market share. So (huge) IF 2015 sales hit 17.5 M, & IF VW diesels are app 23%, THEN TDI's are projected to be 100,000 US market units.
So if anybody else but me is inclined to pull out their CHEAP crack cue laters, .... 2015 TDI's are app .00575 % !!! In a sound bite ...close to NOT measurable!!! This is a GREAT year! So if you take the 425,000 TDI's affected, in 6 ears since 2009, that is less than 70,834 units per year!
So y'all do chicken little proud and keep clucking!
firstly, cryoforklift, it is wrong to assume that it's only expensive cars which are designed to run optimally on premium fuel, whether recommended or required.
second, 87 octane performs equally well as premium in normally aspirated cars for which premium is recommended, under many conditions, including extended highway cruising, where it returns more mpg than premium.
So far i've driven about 500,000 miles on premium-recommended cars, at least half of it with 87 octane. The math says i saved a couple grand by running the 87 half the time over half a million miles, in ~6 of the >25 vehicles I've owned.
Does $2000 help anyone understand why people use 87 octane even when premium is recommended? Happy/safe/enjoyable motoring to all, regardless of chosen octane or fuel type or vehicle.
question: what would it take me to buy a diesel?
answer: a legal way to remove the DPF/SCR/regen systems that reduce diesel mpg by 25%. Until then, it will be all gassers for me ! :/
While I agree cryofork sets up some false assumptions, really the optimum is to get a vehicle that runs the "correct" recommended octane. Then BOTH sets of the equation, so to speak are optimized. Indeed, one would also save even more monies not getting a premium recommended to required vehicle . Premium is normally used in cars that have the so called "performance" component. So if one practically does not use it to be ok with lesser performance, then savings on the cost of acquisition makes even more sense, be it new or used.
While I am sure a lot of folks have had passing thoughts of removing emissions equipment, the other side of one hand clapping (truth) is emissions equipment on gassers be they RUG/PUG also reduces mpg. Ethanol FURTHER reduces mpg and for a MUCH greater portion, for the overwhelming majority of passenger vehicles (95% +) that do the overwhelming percentage and number of miles. One check the NHTSA site to see the "Carl Sagan like" numbers. Defacto, RUG/PUG fuel consumption/miles are FAR and away WAY WAY WAY larger than passenger car diesel fuel consumption/miles miles.
So for example if you are asking me if I would rather get 25% more mpg over 50/41/31 mpg on TDI's TO 62.5/51.25/38.75 mpg, YES and ABSOLUTELY !!!
You can NOT help but notice the systems and requirements prevent that from happening in ALL fuel choices. This includes the "latest and greatest " plug in electrical.