Guest Post By Willis Eschenbach
Bizarrely, and unlike almost every other industrialized country, the US has fuel efficiency standards for cars. Each corporation (Ford, Chevy, etc.) has to meet certain fuel economy standards called the CAFE standards.
Let me start by saying that I think that this is governmental over-reach. In virtually every other part of life we let the market decide the required efficiency. We don’t have required efficiencies for gas-fired power plants. More efficient plants occur as a result of the market. We also don’t have required efficiencies for cell phones. If they burn through the batteries, they don’t sell. The market has always handled efficiency quite … well … efficiently.
So I object to ANY automotive fuel standards as both totally un-necessary, and worse, market distorting.
Here’s one important way it distorts the market. “Fuel Economy” is measured in a very curious way. Work efficiencies are usually measured per pound or per kilogram moved. Efficiency would relate to how much energy it takes to move say a hundred kilograms a distance of 10 metres horizontally. If you can move the same weight at the same speed using less energy, you have a more efficient setup.
But that’s not how the CAFE standards work. They’re measured in miles per gallon (or kilometres per liter, with 1 mpg ≈ .4 km/l), with no consideration of how much weight is being moved. This means that if you put the same identical engine in both a heavier car and a lighter car that are otherwise identical, they get assigned different “economy” numbers. But in fact, the efficiency of the engine, the drive train, the rolling resistance, and the aerodynamics is the same in both cases.
Now, this may or may not be the right way to measure fuel “economy”, but it has an odd side-effect. Here’s why. There are a variety of ways to increase the true efficiency of a vehicle. You can increase the efficiency of the engine. You can reduce the rolling resistance of the tires. You can improve the aerodynamic qualities of the vehicle. All of these increase the true efficiency, in that it takes less energy to move the same amount of weight the same distance at the same speed.
But under the CAFE rules, if you merely make your car lighter, you can claim it’s more “economical”. They’ve done a clever switch of “economy” for “efficiency” … bad bureaucrats, no cookies.
Now, making car bodies lighter is generally cheaper than making car engines and drive trains more efficient. So as a result, most of the gains in meeting the CAFE standards have come from making vehicles lighter.
Unfortunately, there is an ugly truth about cars. Less car weight in crashes means more injury and more deaths. Here’s the cold equation—the less steel that gets bent in a crash, the more flesh and bone that gets bent in a crash. The National Academy of Sciences wrote about this as far back as 2002. They said the CAFE standards were killing about 2,000 people per year.
So we have totally distorted the auto marketplace into trading human blood and misery for fuel economy … not a good plan on my planet.
I got to thinking about this again because the President is proposing a re-examination of Comrade Obama’s insane attempt to increase fuel efficiency by imperial fiat. Before he left office, then-President Obama put in new CAFE standards mandating a ludicrous corporate average fuel efficiency of 54.5 miles per gallon (23 km/l) !!!. I cracked up laughing when he first made his Royal And Really Important Official Proclamation Regarding Economy. That charming fellow truly thought that he could just pick a number no matter how high, and magically the cars would get that much more efficient.
President Obama obviously didn’t understand that the one reliable rule about increasing efficiency is that every percent gained comes harder and costs more than the previous percent gained. The first ten percent gained is easy, the next ten percent is harder, and after a while it takes piles of money and effort to gain even one more percentage point.
Case in point? The CAFE standards. Care to guess how much the US nationwide light vehicle fuel “economy” has increased over the last quarter century?
An increase of a whopping two miles per gallon. Less than half a kilometer per liter.
Truly. All that grief, all that money wasted, for a sorry two pathetic miles per gallon increase. Here’s the data:
Be still my beating heart, the excitement of the real-world economy increase is getting to me …
You can see how well the CAFE standards actually work. From 1990 to 2014, almost a quarter century, the CAFE standards were well above the actual efficiency. During that time the efficiency should have been rising … but they didn’t budge one bit. Well, that’s not quite true … the MPG inched upwards. But then, given the general increase in all machinery over time, we’d expect that even if CAFE standards did not exist.
Me, I support the Gordian Knot solution to this lunacy—get rid of the fershlugginer CAFE standards completely, root and branch. Those standards are the reason that Volkswagon had to cheat on their pollution controls. Like other manufacturers, they could make a relatively clean-air car, or they could make a high “fuel economy” car … but not both.
And this is the ultimate irony. The CAFE standards were supposed to reduce pollution, but they couldn’t even do that. Instead they drove manufacturers to make the air dirtier just so they could meet the CAFE requirements.
Other countries were smart enough to never create such cockamamie standards in the first place. But having made the foolish mistake, at least we should correct it as soon as possible.
My best to everyone, you’re all invited to come over to my blog and see what the latest madness might be …
w.
PLEASE: When you comment, QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so that we can all understand what you are talking about.
Let’s see the Federal Government nearly killed the US car industry with the 55 mph speed limit (the Germans were building cars to go down the road at 200-250 kph, which were of necessity, better engineered. Detroit 120 kph, so the US car was a pile of junk, but cheap, and we are still trying to recover from that perception). No doubt a stupid president and the 54 mpg mileage standard was designed to kill the American car industry! Never has our country experienced a more stupid president! Wander if he could even add and subtract let alone solve a differential equation or understand efficency?
Don’t forget that they also killed the turbine-engined car, which could run on pretty much anything that burned.
All in all, US automotive regulation has been pretty much a disaster.
MarkG March 19, 2017 at 7:44 pm
Urban legend. Turbine cars died stillborn because their acceleration is horrible, you have to “spool up” the turbine and it takes a while, not what you want when you’re in trouble … and because a transmission to get power out of something turning at say 10,000 rpm is insanely complex and heavy … and because the exhaust is screaming out at something like 600°C. Not good for your kids, not to mention your garage.
w.
Agree with WE in the real world but I still want one of these Jaguars.
http://www.bladonjets.com/applications/automotive/jaguar-c-x75-concept-case-study/
In the real world their bearing free jets power mobile phone masts in remote locations.
“Urban legend. ”
Uh, no.
Not in the slightest.
Chrysler were building turbine cars for a decade, and the test drivers loved them. They died because, every time they met the latest emission standard, the EPA went and introduced a new one.
The only claim you made that’s remotely true is that they weren’t as fast as a V8 when accelerating from a stop. But that was trivially easy to work around by revving the turbine with your foot on the brake pedal before you let it move; they were effectively the first cars with ‘launch control’.
MarkG March 20, 2017 at 7:41 am
Chrysler built turbine cars from 1962-1964, when they stopped production. The EPA started in 1970. Epic fail at trying to blame it on the government.
Rev up the engine with your foot on the brake … what could possibly go wrong?
From reports, there was about a one-and-a-half second lag between stepping on the throttle and getting the power … and when you see someone coming towards you on the highway and you need power to get out of the way, that 1.5 seconds will get you dead.
Finally, your claim that the Government killed the turbine car is NOT borne out by the statement from Chrysler at the time. Chrysler said that they stopped making them for the oldest of reasons—manufacturing costs. According to them, “the technology did not exist to produce turbine engines at a price anywhere near competitive to conventional internal combustion engines”.
This makes perfect sense. A simple internal combustion engine can be built by a guy with a few tools in his home shop. But building a turbine that turns at 40,000 rpm? That’s high dollar stuff.
w.
Willis: Your comments on the turbine engine are correct but incomplete. Turbine engines (Brayton cycle engines more correctly) cost more, far more than Otto or Diesel engines. That is because the hot parts are always hot compared to the Otto intermittently hot. That drives the turbine components to nickel-based alloys. (Stirling engines have the same problem). So higher cost is one factor. Then there’s efficiency: they are only efficient at one operating point, which is why airliners fly at about the same speed and altitude. In order to make the efficiency of automotive turbines comparable to Otto engines, they incorporated heat exchangers to preheat the incoming air and cool the exhaust. That’s more money and complexity. Finally, the net effect of the efficiency being much more dependent on power setting, automotive turbines lost because the power demands were far more extreme than turbines in airplanes.
So the real solution to the turbine engine is a hybrid setup with the electric motors there to give an emergency bump.
Alternatively, I would think that a turbine could be made to run a constant rpm turning a generator that ran an electric motor to drive the wheels, but the conversion losses would make it pretty inefficient, but the performance would definitely be there. The turbine would have a governor to maintain constant RPMs under any load condition on the generator.
Or most efficiently but most foreign to the current paradigm, the turbine could drive a hydraulic pump and maintain constant pressure at the governed RPM and use hydraulic motors at the wheels to drive the vehicle. I bet that configuration would be simpler and provide more performance than a gas engine. Of course there is still the noise and heat problems to overcome – turbines are dangerously loud!
I wonder if there is a way to use the bleed air to power auxiliary equipment such as climate control systems like we did on fighters. We had an onboard gas turbine generator that provided compressed air to start the main engines and could power the climate control, electrical, and hydraulics systems if the main engine systems went offline.
Why would you step on the gas if someone is coming towards you? Maybe from behind?
Well Willis, you have to make a turbine hybrid, so the Turbine is always running a its most efficient speed; no spool up needed after you get out of your drive way.
Well who needs an 800 HP round town car anyway ??
G
Kill fossil fuel vehicles with impossible to meet CAFEs and force people to buy EVs.
EVs are still priced about 50% higher than ICE engine cars. The Chevy Bolt is $35,000. for a car that only saves $700. per year in fuel costs. That assumes an ICE car gets 20 miles/gal on $2.00/gal gas compared to 4 mi/KWH at $.12/KWH electricity. That’s $.10 per mile vs $.03 per mile and 10,000 miles/year. If you don’t like my assumptions, plug in your own.
Outlaw shredded cheese. Make America grate again!
People used to be able to pay for a new car in 2 years using auto loans. Then it went to 3 years and now over 6 years.
Price new fossil fuel vehicles out of the reach of many people. Just make new fossil fuel vehicles to expensive to purchase.
And push public transportation projects.
It is interesting though that car inflation has been pretty close to zero the last 20 years, and when you consider technological improvement, they have actually gone down in price. Case and point, I purchased a ford focus in 2002 for $17500, and I just purchased a similar level Ford focus last year for $18300 – that is 5% inflation over 14 years or 0.3% a year
Nixon’s 55 mph speed limit was disaster which saved nothing and gave a 0 value to people’s time .
I got a Porsche 924 turbo in 1980 which could and in a pinch did seat 4 — and have room for my computer terminal under the hatch-back .
It was a remarkably practical design and it’s turbocharged 4 cylinder 2 liter engine got about 20 mpg at 100 mph — which was a safe and comfortable speed on a thruway . It had the precision of a Porsche and a shorter stopping distance than a Ferrari of the time .
It’s speedometer only went to 85 .
Lest efficient car on the planet “The Beast” Cadillac used by POTUS. Lest efficient plane Air Force One. Its good to be king.
Your assertion that vehicle safety is proportional to mass is out of date. Because of modern safety measures, the safety of vehicles made in the past decade has pretty much been decoupled from their mass. To understand this you should digest the impressive analyses done by Tom Wenzel at Lawrence Berkeley Labs (https://eta.lbl.gov/sites/all/files/publications/lbnl-1005177.pdf). In other words, vehicle mass now has a very minor impact on vehicle safety (statistically insignificant at the 95% confidence level).
Your assertion that VW’s problems are due to them choosing fuel efficiency over meeting emissions standards is also a stretch. While there is certainly a conflict between the goals of fuel efficiency and the super low emissions required to meet the standards, other manufacturers have successfully met those competing requirements. I find it much more likely that VW simply chose a technological path that proved to be beyond their capability (much like Navistar recently did). By the time they figured out their dead-end choice, it was too late to make the required engineering changes and meet their production deadlines. So they chose the expeditious route of faking it instead of loosing market share.
Andrew Burnette March 19, 2017 at 8:00 pm
Nope. You didn’t read carefully enough, viz:
This shows the goofiness of their analysis, since their main analysis shows the weight increasing but the footprint staying the same … which not not generally what happens in the real world.
I also find their claim that making light trucks lighter makes them MORE safe … just how is that supposed to work? Here’s a study by people with money in the game instead of ivory tower academics—the insurance industry. I trust their numbers because they are using them to make big-dollar bets. From USA Today:
Here’s another look at the data from the IIHS, the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Their report says (emphasis mine):
As they said, “That’s not surprising” … well, except to you and some boffins, I guess.
You continue:
You’ve proven my point. They chose a technology to meed the CAFE standards, and when it couldn’t meet the standards, they cheated. This made the air dirtier, which is exactly what I said.
w.
Andrew:
Willis:
VW did not equip their 4 cylinder diesels with Selected Catalytic Reduction (using DEF or addblue), IIRC. SCR does not materially affect mileage. SCR is a mature technology that is not “<beyond VW’s capability.” Supposedly, they chose not to license the technology from Mercedes. In other words, it was a money thing. The six cylinder diesels were equipped with SCR systems, but the tweaking may have been to reduce the size of the DEF tank, not related perhaps to mileage except that diesel gets better mileage. In other words, CAFE standards did not affect the cheating, except to the extent that they were able to sell diesels at less cost. The higher mileage of the diesels helped their CAFE compliance, so indirectly Willis is still correct in that VW chose diesel as the technology to comply with CAFE but it isn’t true that the SCR technology couldn’t meet the standards. It was a money thing mostly, I think.
Phil:
Not according to WIRED magazine. According to them, VW could either meet the EPA pollution regs or the CAFE standards, so they chose to cheat. My emphasis:
w.
Willis, I have 2 SUVs in the family (5 drivers). One, made by Toyota, seats 7 and gets about 16 mpg. The other one is a VW 6 cylinder diesel with SCR, seats 5, and gets about 30 mpg (27 city, 33 hwy roughly). The difference in weight is not much, but the difference in mileage is enormous. I expect to get a software fix. I expect I may lose some mileage, but even if I lose 5 mpg, the difference in mileage would still be enormous. We shall see, but the difference in mileage is so great that I just don’t see CAFE standards as being a big incentive for cheating. By not using SCR on the 4 cylinder diesels, they saved the cost of the SCR system and the licensing fees to Mercedes who apparently developed the technology – big incentive. Why they cheated on the 6 cylinder models may have something to do with the stupid size of the DEF tank is what I surmised, based on my hands on experience. Or maybe they decided to tweak the 6 cylinder diesels because the got away with tweaking the 4 cylinders. It isn’t clear to me. Did VW push diesels because of CAFE standards? Oh, yeah, I think that part is clear. But diesels in bigger, heavier cars have such advantages, they would be more common if the EPA wasn’t waging a war on diesels. IIRC, certifying a new diesel engine is enormously expensive – many millions. That is a huge disincentive.
Just to be factual, I went and checked each car’s digital mileage-o-meter. The SUV made by Toyota showed 14.8mpg since refueling. The tank was at about 1/4, so that would be about 280 miles, since the tank holds 25.4 gal. The VW diesel showed 28.6mpg at about half a tank. The tank size is 26.4gal so that would be about 380 miles. For both vehicles that would be mostly city driving. Like I said, huge difference in mileage and small difference in weight. The VW diesel SUV has a published curb weight of 4,919 lbs and the one made by Toyota: 5,401 lbs. – a difference of only about 10%. The VW diesel consumes a lot less fossil fuel and thus emits a lot less CO2. The technology for clean diesel (SCR or Selective Catalytic Reduction) exists and works. The war on diesel is unjustified. I can’t imagine the mileage being cut in half after the software fix, but we shall see.
At this point I do believe the analyses by Wenzel is more accurate than the others since it takes into account much more than mass. But I’ll go back and study it further. My daughter drives one of those tiny Fiats with lots of bags.
Regarding your assertion that I proved your point, I disagree. Your point seemed to have been that VW could only choose one or the other (meet the fuel mileage standards or meet the emissions standards). Yet other manufacturers managed to meet both standards, disproving your assertion. Perhaps that was not the assertion you intended to make? It sure seemed to be.
Andrew Burnette March 20, 2017 at 2:27 am
Thanks Andrew. The insurance people disagree with Wenzel, and they’re the ones that are making the actual payments for lost lives and damage. As a result, they are far more credible than any academic with no skin in the game. When your man man has big money riding on the accuracy of his results, I’ll start listening to him. Until then I’ll listen to the people who actually are placing big-money bets on which cars are more dangerous …
That was indeed my assertion. So your claim, to the contrary, is that VW could have made that same car so that it passed both the EPA emissions standards AND the CAFE standards, but they chose not to do so????
Why would they do that?
In any case, the fact that other manufacturers could do it doesn’t mean that VW could do it. That makes no sense at all. You have to remember that these are corporate AVERAGE fuel economy numbers. So it depends not just on the car itself, but on the economy of all of the other cars made by that manufacturer … and that varies greatly from corporation to corporation.
As a result, for a certain corporation, a given model may need to be well ABOVE the CAFE standards in order to bring up other low-mileage cars in that particular corporations range of models … my point is that the standards hit cars very unevenly, so what the other manufacturers can do is not relevant.
All the best,
w.
Why doesn’t everyone who believes in CAGW just regulate economy via speed limits? The 55 mph limit worked, didn’t it? If anyone fears the dreaded co2 molecule, they can just slow down.
On a recent long road trip of 3,500 kms, if I had kept to 90 kmh, I’d have used 9 L per 100 kms. I kept mostly at 105 kmh, however, because I value my time much much more than the extra fuel I use at about 10 L per 100 kms.
In Europe where the motorway limits are 130 kmh, and police are pretty laid back (I was passed by police at 10kmh over a few times), I tend to stay at 135 to 140 kmh on similar road trips, for the same reason.
Sorry, if somewhat off topic, but it looks like someone is going give Elon a run for his subsidy. Cool lines, interior ergonomics, 1000 b.h.p., all wheel drive, and a 400 mile battery life, All that and it is reasonably priced.
https://lucidmotors.com/car
A beautiful desert filled with wind turbines is no longer beautiful.
Willis said:
“Unfortunately, there is an ugly truth about cars. Less car weight in crashes means more injury and more deaths. Here’s the cold equation—the less steel that gets bent in a crash, the more flesh and bone that gets bent in a crash. The National Academy of Sciences wrote about this as far back as 2002. They said the CAFE standards were killing about 2,000 people per year.
So we have totally distorted the auto marketplace into trading human blood and misery for fuel economy … not a good plan on my planet.”
Someone forgot to tell Mazda. Their cars have shed weight and maintained safety. Not all steel is created equal, and not all uses of the same weight of steel are equal.
Mazda have proved this.
Less fuel consumption equals less road taxes collected for repairs. Where would the money come from? Higher tag fees, driver license renewals, toll roads?
That’s an unanswered question at present.
w.
My state was the first to pilot test taxing per mile driven and other states have now started their own testing. That’s the direction states want to go.
I read into what Oregon proposed and in truth it only makes sense from a politicians money grubbing view point. When converting the proposed mileage tax rate to what it would be vs. our current per gallon purchased tax, my 17 mpg pickup would end up paying less tax while my 35 mpg would pay more tax then they currently do. They actually used 30mpg as their break point so any vehicle that gets less than 30mpg would pay less in tax then currently paid and those getting more than 30mpg would pay more.
Given that people budget money for this purpose, having a more efficient auto likely won’t cut total fuel purchases much. The owners will find it feasible to drive more miles. That said, summed over the USA, some areas will see lowered tax collections and others higher collections.
I, for one, have yet to limit my driving based on gas prices. They may dictate which of my vehicles I might drive, but not how far or how often.
Jeff, isn’t that the same effect? Not everyone has multiple vehicles they can use like that.
Diesel engines can be 10% or more thermally efficient than gasoline engines. If you want to reduce CO2 emissions, diesel is the technology to beat. Gasoline doesn’t compare. Diesel is subjected to particulate emissions standards which are measured by the PM2.5 test. That is particles which are less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size. Gasoline particulate emissions, which can be more harmful because they are much smaller and go deeper into the lungs (30 to 70 nm in size) or about a thousand times smaller. Gasoline particulate emissions are unregulated. The smaller gasoline particulates, unlike the diesel particulates, are not visible and do not settle out easily on their own once emitted. Given even light winds, the gasoline particulates tend to remain suspended in the air until washed out by precipitation. EPA has a ridiculous regulation, IIRC, that every diesel vehicle with SCR (i.e. AddBlue) has to have a DEF (Diesel Exhaust Fluid or addblue) tank large enough to last until the next scheduled service, which for diesel is usually around 10,000 miles. I wonder if VW didn’t tweak the software to meet the tank standard at the expense of the emissions standard (i.e. cutting down on the amount of DEF used increases NOx emissions but saves DEF so the tank doesn’t have to be as big). It’s a type of totalitarianism where the driver can’t be trusted or is believed to be incapable of filling the DEF tank. The six cylinder diesels have Selected Catalytic Reduction systems. The 4 cylinder diesels did not, IIRC. VW reportedly chose not to equip the 4 cylinder diesels with SCR systems.
PM2.5 are particulate that are less than or equal to 2.5 microns in size. Sorry.
Fixed, Phil.
w.
CAFE is what Tesla is designed to capitalize on. Tesla collects “credits” for each vehicle produced. They, in turn, sell these “credits” to the other manufacturers so they can produce cars that exceed the standard. So it is a roundabout way for the government to shovel money to Tesla.
And sadly, one of many ways that Tesla sucks on the government teat ..
w.
On top of the points Willis makes CAFE rules provide lots of other market distortions to promote idiotic energy policies. Take E-85 vehicles for example. Under the rules such a vehicle is assumed to operate one half time on 85% ethanol, but only the 15% of the fuel that is gasoline counts toward corporate fleet average. It is a completely bogus calculation of mpg, and there is a cap on how much the corporate average could rise over a trick of this sort. It was done to encourage flex fuel vehicle production. It makes a mockery of the entire concept of efficiency or average mileage.
To run the U.S. fleet on E-85 would be environmentally criminal.
I have an E-85 vehicle, and I’m lucky (in uber-green California no less) if I can find E-85 gasoline 5% of the time. When I do, the typical 20 cents per gallon saved seems to be offset by a far lower mileage factor on my vehicle because ethanol has less energy density per kilogram than gasoline.
I didn’t buy the vehicle for E-85 capabilities, I bought it for size and features.
I certainly didn’t mean to tar anyone who has purchased a flex-fuel vehicle, but rather I was trying to make the point that the impact of flex-fueled vehicles on CAFE calculations is bogus, makes no sense, makes a mockery of logic. I figured last night as I was headed off to oblivion that while the E-85 actually reduces mileage, just as you stated, the impact on calculated mileage would be to increase from probably 24 mpg to something above 30. It makes no sense.
Indeed, regulations typically are there to promote the interests of rent-seekers, not to promote anything truly beneficial. I would never pump an ounce of E-85 into any vehicle I own. Mileage is miserable, engine damage potential significant, and the production of “biofuels” environmentally destructive as well as causing increases in food prices. I resent the stupid 10% ethanol mandate and want it (as well as CAFE) to disappear permanent like, so that I can get better gas mileage and performance and reliability from my cars.
About ten years ago I was asked to give a talk about renewables at a community college which offered certificates in renewable energy–mainly wind. I had figured that a mandate to use E-50 in the entire U.S. fleet would require planting the equivalent of Wyoming and Colorado in fermentable grains. We know the trouble this would cause. Among other things the best corn and wheat ground in the U.S. is already in production, and new production could only come from putting a plow to marginal land. I also showed that a mandate to make 50% of electrical power from wind by year 2018 would take all national savings, leaving nothing for any other needs.
People at the talk didn’t argue with any of my claims, but the talk was received rather coolly just the same. They didn’t like the kool-aid without so much sugar.
Willis-
As requested, quoting:
“Me, I support the Gordian Knot solution to this lunacy—get rid of the fershlugginer CAFE standards completely, root and branch. Those standards are the reason that Volkswagon had to cheat on their pollution controls.”
While I agree with you about getting rid of CAFE standards, I believe your are wrong about the reason VW cheated. I believe the actual reason VW cheated was to meet the emission standards. Diesel vehicles have a hard time meeting the NOx standard and still have acceptable (to the customer) acceleration and driveability. Since the EPA test uses a fixed time versus vehicle speed (with mild accelerations) for their certification test, the easiest way to meet the standard is to have the vehicle computer check to see if the vehicle speed versus time is the EPA test. If so, the fuel is adjusted to pass the emissions standards at the expense of customer preferred driveability. If the vehicle is NOT following the EPA test cycle, then the fuel is adjusted to driveability. However, because the EPA test has mild accelerations, the car will also get better fuel economy on the EPA test than on the road.
Thanks, old engineer. Have I mentioned that engineers have it all over climate scientists on my planet? Engineers have to take responsibility for their errors. Climate scientists just “move on”.
Regarding the reason VW cheated, they couldn’t meet the EPA standards and still get the mileage needed for the CAFE standards. So you could say that they cheated to pass the EPA standards, OR you could say that they cheated to pass the CAFE standards, with equal honesty. The problem was, they couldn’t pass BOTH.
w.
Then Subaru has been cheating for years. The default mode on their cars is “economy mode”. If I wish to get enter the freeway via an on-ramp at highway speeds so as to not endanger other drivers, I engage “sport mode”.
Actually, I’m just lazy. I leave it in sport mode all the time. Time is money. I want to get to where I’m going as fast as safely possible.
Peter
Interesting item at our state museum. A nicely constructed wooden box issued ti members of Congress to hold the 18 quart bottles of liquor issued to them each session. This may explain many of the laws and regulations we find so puzzling.
Willis
Good article
“Furshlugginer CAFE”
The first word is from MAD Magazine, circa late1950s.
Second just plain mad in any decade.
It was Jewish/Yiddish before it was MAD.
Seems to be a peculiarly American thing to assume a heavier car is safer. A lighter car need not be more dangerous, it depends on the designers and engineers. Interesting read on how the standards are manipulated.
yarpos March 19, 2017 at 10:50 pm
Nope, it’s not “an American thing.” It is a “reality thing”. I linked above to the actual mortality figures.
They clearly show that with a few exceptions, lighter cars are less safe.
Now, I see you don’t like that. And it’s clear you’re trying unsuccessfully to diss Americans.
However, take heart. Yours is not the first shipload of fantasies to run aground on a reef of hard facts …
Moving on, can you design a lighter car that is safer as you claim? Sure, you’re 100% right about that … within limits. I mean, a two hundred pound car isn’t going to protect much. They call that a “motorcycle”. I’m sure you can see the problem
However, while cars that are both lighter and safer are possible as you say, this discussion is about real world successful family cars that are actually manufactured and sold in quantity. We’re not talking race cars engineered to protect one occupant at 200 mph that hardly weigh anything, nor theoretical cars made of carbon fibre and unobtanium …
Best regards,
w.
There is the example that Formula 1 cars are much lighter than in past times, but substantially more safe. It was said at one time that cars were so well built and robust that the only collapsable feature was the driver. The newer lighters cars tend to have crumple zones to address this. Heavier cars are indeed safer, mainly because their heavier weight will transfer momentum to the lighter car they are hitting.
Willis, you could try turning it on it’s head.
Based on the European NCAP crash tests mass does not impart much more safety during standardised crash tests.
ie Hitting stationary blocks of concrete head or quarter on, having blocks of concrete (representing a vehicle) slammed in to the side of the car.
The latest smaller lighter cars meet those tests with 5 stars,which is the maximum, by careful design of crumple zones, re-inforced passenger cells, pre tension seat belts and multiple air bags.
But some larger, heaver, poorly designed vehicles, especially Chinese, fail the tests with 2 or 3 stars because of “intrusion in to the passenger cell.
In real life it is actually Mass that Kills. If two small light weight cars hit each other the passengers stand a pretty good chance of survival at normal driving speeds.
However if a small car is hit by a much Larger (taller), Heavier vehicle, yes they stand less chance than those passengers in two larger heavier vehicles colliding.
And neither of them stand any chance at all if they are Squished between 2 44 ton trucks.
A C Osborn March 20, 2017 at 4:10 am
Well, there’s yer problem … all we need to do is pass a law mandating that all cars in the US have to be the same size, and Bob’s yer uncle!!
w.
Gareth, studies have shown that heavier is safer, no matter what you hit, even fixed objects.
I think the confusion arises from the fact that people are looking at “safety ratings” and comparing THOSE with respect to vehicles in different size/weight classes, when they CANNOT be compared that way, if you bother to read the fine print in such “ratings.” In the real world, when your “top safety pick” 2800 pound sub-compact collides head-on with a “marginal” 5000 pound suv, your “top safety pick” will get crushed. Physics, as they say, can’t be denied.
@gareth Formula One cars never hit each other head on. They also are surrounded by large numbers of safety barriers, they are very light and their relative weights are almost identical.
Thus F1 is a terrible example.
But even for said example: F1 cars slamming into a tree or bridge at anywhere near full speed still = dead person.
“Heavier cars are indeed safer”
Indeed they are.
Which is why I personally drive a Mercedes Benz.
Simple physics, the conservation of momentum dictates that the lighter vehicle in a two vehicle collision will be subject to greater acceleration forces. Collision testing into fixed barriers obscures the benefits of being in the higher mass vehicle. So your five star econobox does not want to mess with your four star pickup truck.
Heh should have read your post first, could have saved myself some typing…
I’ve seen the results of a Smart car vs. a 1 ton, 4×4, crew cab pickup. The results were not pretty, the pickup had minor damage while the Smart car needed to be shoveled off the road. As I wasn’t actually involved, just stuck in the slow accident traffic I don’t know what happened to those in the vehicles but it didn’t look good for at least the driver of that Smart car.
All other things being equal, a heavier car is a safer car. By applying more technology smaller cars can be made safer.
On the other hand applying the same technology to heavier cars will make them safer as well.
Simple conservation of momentum.
m1v1 = m2v2
However, energy imparted is not linear: 1/2mv(squared).
Which is why any size car hit by a train, the occupants generally die.
In the case of car on car: a 50% greater mass on one side means the other side exits with more than twice the energy.
Willis, there is an extra consideration, the area of the car. The government guidelines have different parameters based on the footprint.
Sorry, MikeN, not clear what your point is there.
w.
Willis,
At a price, Porsche have shown the way to achieve the CAFE figure of 54.5 mpg withe the 918 Spyder. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under its five-cycle tests rated the 2015 model year Porsche 918 Spyder energy consumption in all-electric mode at 50 kWh per 100 miles, which translates into a combined city/highway fuel economy of 67 miles per gallon gasoline equivalent (MPG-e) (3.5 L/100 km; 80 mpg-imp gasoline equivalent).[1] When powered only by the gasoline engine, EPA’s official combined city/highway fuel economy is 22 mpg‑US (11 L/100 km; 26 mpg‑imp).
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Find.do?action=sbs&id=34856
However. only 918 units were built. All were sold for at least $1 million each. Fortunately, the Acura NSX will soon be available for the discerning motorist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honda_NSX_(second_generation)
Perry, I hate to tell you, but that electric MPG-e mileage number is total BS.
You have a choice with fossil fuel. EITHER you can burn fossil fuel in a power plant with attendant losses, transform it to high voltage with attendant losses, transmit it through wires with attendant losses, transform it to low voltage with attendant losses, run it through a battery charger with attendant losses, put it into a car battery with attendant losses, and then take it out of the battery with attendant losses.
The bogus MPG-e figure you quoted does NOT include any of those inefficiencies. It only starts counting kilowatts AFTER all of the losses I listed above.
OR you can burn the fuel in the engine, and avoid all of those inefficiencies.
Note that this is just another way that the combination of the CAFE standards and the EPA distorts the economy of the market.
I also note on your cited link that the car has a 420 mile range … but it can only make it TWELVE MILES on electricity alone.
Like I said, it distorts the market. Batteries with a twelve-mile range on that car are a feel-good add-on to get past the CAFE standards.
w.
There is another option, some of my neighbours charge their cars from their rooftop solar panels. They are not exactly environmentally conscious, but they are financially well informed.
Willis writes
If you include transmission energy cost then you have to do the same from the oil well via refinery, fuel station and to the car (which may involve a “go out and get fuel trip in some cases”). And similarly from the coal mine via power station to the house too. You’re biasing against energy transport by including it for electricity and not fuel, otherwise.
Oh and the internal combustion engine is only maybe 25% efficient too.
…some of my neighbours charge their cars from their rooftop solar panels at night.
Well, yes, They are not exactly environmentally conscious.
Willis writes Let me start by saying that I think that this is governmental over-reach. In virtually every other part of life we let the market decide the required efficiency.
And if the US Government wanted to go down the “market” path then they could quadruple the amount of tax US citizens pay for fuel which would put them in line with the rest of the world and then see the US head towards more efficient cars like the rest of the world has been. Careful what you wish for.
TimTheToolMan March 20, 2017 at 1:18 am
Thanks, Tim, but say what? Why would we want to increase fuel taxes on ourselves? The fact that the Europeans are fuel-tax-happy makes most Americans either laugh or shake our heads. It doesn’t make us want to emulate them and tax the excrement out of ourselves, that’s nuts.
w.
So, the rest of the world is nuts and only the US knows what’s best?
Well you say that lighter more efficient cars are more dangerous.
Not according to the statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_traffic-related_death_rate
Doesn’t look good I’m afraid, many of those highly taxed countries do way better than the US.
And incidentally their high price of petrol hasn’t produced higher poverty either.
TimTheToolMan March 20, 2017 at 1:53 am
Tim, I put the following at the end of every post to try to fend off the myriad of jerkwagons who specialize in raving about things I never said:
But noooo, TimTheTool is far too important to follow a polite request …
I never said rest of the world is nuts, or anything close to that. That’s just the voices in your head kicking in again.
Come back when you are willing to quote whatever has your knickers in a twist and I might discuss it … gotta say, you’re off to a bad start, and I’m not interested in running your maze unless there is cheese at the end.
w.
re:
Oh please
The rest of the world has high tax. You said doing that was nuts. This isn’t rocket science.
TimTheToolMan March 20, 2017 at 2:14 am
Oh, please??? Tim, you desperately need to learn to read and to research. First, your claim that “the rest of the world has high tax” is simply untrue. Fuel taxes around the world are all over the map. And they also differ greatly between oil-producing and non-oil-producing countries, with oil producers such as the US typically having much lower taxes.
Next, and more to the point, I said nothing about the “rest of the world” as you falsely claim. Nada. Zip. Not only did I say nothing about “the rest of the world” I clearly specified that I was talking about Europe. Your reading skills are sorely lacking.
Finally, what I said was that looking at Europe’s high fuel taxes does NOT make us want to emulate them. That’s what I said was nuts—your idea that if we went to a “market” path we’d want to run out and quadruple our own taxes.
Quadruple our taxes? Why would we want to do that to ourselves? As I said, and as you misunderstood:
Thinking that if we go to a “market” path we’d want to quadruple our taxes … that’s definitely nuts.
NOW do you understand why I ask people to quote my words? It’s to prevent you from falsely claiming that I said the rest of the world is nuts, when I never discussed “the rest of the world” in anything I’ve said, nor did I say it was nuts.
If you’d quoted my words to start with AS I’VE REQUESTED OVER AND OVER, a request that you have read many times, I could have pointed out the misunderstanding, apologized for my lack of clarity, re-stated what I actually meant. and we could have moved on in amity.
Instead, you decided to be a jerkwagon and just start running your mouth about your fantasies of what I said … sorry, Tim, but discussing things with you is no fun at all.
You’ll have to excuse me if I might fail to answer any further of your posts. Right now, I’m just not interested.
w.
Willis writes
LOL Willis. You stated that, I simply went with your argument. Since you like quotes, the first reference to “rest of the world” in our conversation came from you here
I took you to mean “rest of the world” as being many other countries including Europe. Now you try to beat me up with it. That’s just rude.
Perhaps in an attempt to move forward…
It wasn’t nuts for many countries. Here’s a selection
http://www.aip.com.au/pricing/facts/Facts_about_Petrol_Prices_and_the_Australian_Fuel_Market.htm
If you cross reference that list with the list of car fatalities you can see your “heavy (inefficient) cars are safer” argument doesn’t hold up to the statistics.
Also look at the countries with high petrol tax and you wont see countries with high poverty either. Now look at the US public debt.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
It seems to me that you could do with some extra tax to try to get that debt down. I wouldn’t recommend changing the tax rate all at once, however. That would cause problems.
Hint: most of the world drives less and drives better than Americans do.
Also, fatality stats are notoriously difficult to compare because some countries only count immediate deaths at the scene, while others count deaths a month or more after the crash.
Tim, if you think high taxes are a good thing, then you are definitely nuts.
MarkG: How roads are built and average weather conditions also make a huge difference in traffic death rates.
TimTheToolMan:
The link you provided indicates you do have a point when you say
And that point is emphasised by the wiki link you originally provided.
Also, I would have been a bit miffed by that exchange with Willis, too.
But I write to say that your point is not as clear-cut as you suggest.
Wiki is not really reliable, and your original link to it admits that its data is not directly comparable between countries when it says
Anybody who has had anything to do with climate data has learned to be very, very skeptical of any “adjusted number”.
Richard
So, the rest of the world is nuts and only the US knows what’s best?
America is a large country. The distance between destinations (actual) is about 2X what you see in Europe.
Also America produces oil.
If the US Government wisely decides to go down the “market” path, further meddling with tax policy would have (by definition) nothing to do with it. They would simply be allowing people to decide for themselves how fuel efficiency factors into their vehicle purchases rather than trying to “force” fuel economy numbers “top down” without any reference to reality.
Sorry. I thought the point was to get the public to buy smaller more efficient (sorry effective for the pedantic) vehicles, rather than gas guzzling monsters.
Why should that be a government concern?
According to the Grauniad, EU States are lobbying for the same thing. I suspect the US will supply lots of information as to whether this is effective or not. It’s always good to have a pilot study.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/07/eu-states-call-tough-car-fuel-efficiency-targets
Thanks, Gareth. And meanwhile, we’re getting rid of fuel economy standards.
I’m glad you pointed out their proposed action, though. The fact that the pluted bloatocrats at EU Brussels are going the opposite way gives me great confidence that we’re headed in the right direction …
w.
“The fact that the pluted bloatocrats at EU Brussels are going the opposite way gives me great confidence that we’re headed in the right direction …”
Couldn’t agree more with that!! LMAO!
An even crazier situation is that in the EU, cars are taxed according to supposed carbon dioxide emissions per mile or km. Yet, if you compare the claimed fuel consumption per mile with the claimed CO2 emissions per mile for the models from any one manufacturer, you see that they don’t vary in proportion.
That would seem to suggest that the vehicle makes some of its carbon dioxide from materials other than the fuel and air it uses. I’d certainly like to know how it pulls that trick off, as it might be the answer to all our energy and materials needs. Imagine, being able to produce substances from nowhere!
More likely of course, it indicates that the ratings are a fraud.
If you want to lessen something, tax it more.
High fuel prices led to an immediate improvement in European fuel economy.
Taxing high consumption cars themselves (Annual car tax) simply means that low mileage users – pensioners and the like – pay a burden on older cars they cannot afford to replace.
Taxing labour, means more unemployment. Yes, it actually does.
Companies have to pay enough wages to cover employees living needs AND the tax needs
Tax spending instead. Scrap income tax, increase purchase tax.
Less consumption and more saving.
Leo, I appreciate the comment, but I don’t follow this line of thought at all. WHY do you want to increase taxes?
And more to the point, if you want to increase taxes, for heavens sake don’t tax energy. That’s madness, it is very destructive to the economy. Not only that, but an energy tax is hugely regressive, hitting the poor the hardest.
I agree when you say “tax spending”, but a fuel tax is the opposite of that. It is a tax on one of the three main inputs to production (energy, materials, and labor), so just like taxing labor, taxing energy means more unemployment. As you say, and I agree, “Yes, it actually does”.
Regards,
w.
Taxing sales reduces velocities of money which hurts the economy. Tax vice, sloth, greed and ignorance. Griff would not return.
Taxing vice is a very old idea.
But what if the nature of “sin” changes?
Case in point – cannabis. Which has a number of medical uses But the Feds keep it illegal for “moral” reasons. Or maybe something else.
https://www.spartareport.com/2016/04/trillion-dollar-drug-war-scam/
“Less car weight in crashes means more injury and more deaths.”
No, it doesn’t.
with airbags, seatbelts (the crazy Us notion they trap people is just nuts) and crumple zones, small light European and Japanese cars are very safe.
I might add that most nations have an equivalent of the UK’MOT’ which prevents ‘junker’ and mechanically unsafe cars driving on the roads. US would benefit in safety terms but it would of course hit your poorest workers hard.
I would also say that fuel efficiency is good for the car buyer and sometimes govts can and should legislate for the consumer, not the manufacturer.
but of course the rest of the (rational) world believes in reducing CO2 and reducing fossil fuel use is a social benefit and a necessary action.
Griff March 20, 2017 at 2:18 am
Yes, it does. READ THE DAMN CITATION!
As to the rest of your claims, sorry, but I don’t have any interest in discussing anything with you. I’ve seen far too many of your endless meaningless puerile strings of useless objections and meaningless meanderings and bogus climate claims that go on and on ad nauseam … sorry, Griff, but you’ll have to talk to the hand, ’cause the head’s not listening …
And for those lucky folks that don’t know you, my advice to them is, whatever you do, don’t touch the tar baby …
w.
Willis writes
But if you look at the actual causes for the accidents…
https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-cause-of-the-most-fatal-car-crashes-2015-5
You can see that most accidents are head ons and failure to give way. That means its car vs car and if there are a lot of large cars around then in a smaller car you’re toast. However comparing to statistics from countries that have smaller more efficient cars, the death rates fall overall.
So if there is no pressure for everyone to reduce car sizes then you’re going to be better off in a bigger car. But pressure to increase car sizes for safety by having low fuel prices and no regulations isn’t necessarily the best policy for the US to have.
Accidents are broken down by category. (same size, different size, fixed object, etc.) And in every category, bigger is safer.
“MarkW March 20, 2017 at 10:02 am”
Bigger is better in *ALL* cases? I don’t think so. If you are in a compact car and hit by a truck, you are likely gone. Other way around, you will likely suffer injuries, but likely walk away. Modern cars are built with crumple zones which absorbs energy in a crash. Anything built on a ladder frame chassis is too rigid and the energy in a crash, any crash, is transferred to the occupants, bit like a can of crushed tomatoes.
Just rational laws of physics I’m afraid Griff. The lighter car and its cocooned occupants must have a greater change of velocity than the heavier car and its cocooned occupants. Crumple zones, air bags etc. mitigate that but they can’t overcome it.
As usual you are wrong Griff. A couple of months ago a brand new Challenger was sent to the scrap heap after a small altercation with my 1992 Ford F150. He changed lanes into my truck and the truck’s 3/8ths inch solid steel bumper completely destroyed the drivers side of the car while the bumper sustained a 4 inch scratch and my passenger fender also had a small dent. I drove my truck home painted the scratch and didn’t worry about the dent. I saw the Challenger in the pick and pull a few weeks later. You can park your small car in front of my truck and let me run into you at 30 mph if you really believe that small little light cars are safe. My truck only cost me $200 so I am willing to sacrifice it for science. 🙂
“Griff March 20, 2017 at 2:18 am
I might add that most nations have an equivalent of the UK ’MOT’ which prevents ‘junker’ and mechanically unsafe cars driving on the roads.”
While Ministry of Transport (MoT) road worthiness test is tough, buy Australian and New Zealand standards, it by no means prevents junkers and unsafe cars on the UK roads as the MOT test is valid only ON THE DAY OF THE TEST. In the UK there are some 3000 laws that can attract a penalty simply by picking up a set of car keys and approaching a vehicle, even if the keys are not for that vehicle, crazy, but true! In the UK, by law, you are required to ensure lights, tyres, body, windscreen wipers etc, are “road worthy”, even before you get in the vehicle. Enforcing those laws is difficult.
They used aluminum in the new Ford F150s. They did a side by side test with a Chevy and the Ford lost big time. I doubt a lighter truck would haul as well either.
A “side by side test” determining what? Please post link.
Bed strength and concrete blocks. Let ‘er rip 🙂 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BTm2F4ysQrE
Willis, you state:
“But under the CAFE rules, if you merely make your car lighter, you can claim it’s more “economical”.”
It is not so easy to make cars lighter. I had a 1970ies Audi 100 GL (the largest Ausdi then), runnig 200 km/hr. It had a weight of 1100 kg. Now a big Audi A8 weighs more than two (metric) tons, despite the fact that they use now aluminum instead of steel to make it lighter. I think the security of the old Audi was not bad. Security is gained in the way how the car body consumes the energy through deformation, so pure weight doesn’t count as an argument, especially as it comes from a bigger engine, tranny, cables, servo motors, unholstery, and noies reduction materials, etc.
Now I have a 4 door VW up! runnig with natural gas, consuming less than 3kg/100km, which equals to 94 mpg. It weighs less than my old Audi and has maximum 5 stars at the Euro NCAP crah test. And it makes quite fun to fill a tank with 12 Euro ready to drive another 400km, plus having 300km reserve on normal gas.
The weight of a car as a security measure is also one-sided. What about pedestrians, cyclists, bikers? And should everone use a light truck, a heavy truck or even a Panzer?
I’m surprised that not many people thought of using methane as fuel.
The conversion from petrol to LNG is relatively cheap. Natural gas is abundant in the US, and so refuelling is cheaper than petrol. The greens would be happy about decreased emissions and air pollution, and the country would be less dependent on oil imports. So everyone wins.
But LNG boils at -162°C or -260°F, which means it must be kept in cryogenic tanks with active refrigeration. There is no way to avoid some boil-off. LNG tankers simply use the boil-off gas to run the engines and re-liquify any excess — not practical for a motor vehicle fuel.
Many US urban buses have been converted to run on CNG (Compressed Natural Gas), but the volumetric energy density is much lower than LNG, so it is limited to large fleet vehicles with predictable routes between refueling stops.
Propane could be used as a motor fuel, because its boiling point is much higher and can be safely stored in low-pressure tanks. But LPG has a significantly lower volumetric energy density than gasoline, reducing the effective range of an LPG-powered vehicle on the same fuel capacity. The LPG conversions I’ve seen are pickup trucks, where the LPG tank occupies the front of the bed and the original gas tank is retained to create a dual-fuel vehicle. Propane burns much cleaner than gasoline (no abrasive ash) which prolongs engine life and it’s easier starting in cold weather.
“I had a 1970ies Audi 100 GL”
Nineteen Seventyies?
I just checked the report on deadly car crashes which Willis mentioed. For a first quick view, it seems to be quite dangerous to drive in a car from an U.S. car maunfacturer…
However, if I coud afford, I would like to drive an oldie U.S. gas guzzler…