Do other drivers ever get pissed off at you?

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by Bunger

Seems to me that I remember being reminded ever time I've been to court for my numerous speeding violations (I got my 7th speeding ticket about a year ago), that driving is a privilege not a right.

Yes, I'd hope so too. Unfortunately, we live in a democracy.

I personally think there should be different levels of licenses, maybe like 1 through 5. If you're Michael Schumaker you get a 1, if you're like my younger sister (I don't let her drive when I'm in the car) you get a 5. Then insurance rates and traffic violations are based on this level. I think I would rather play russian roulette then let my sister drive me down the interstate at 95mph.

I'd love to live in that sort of country.

As an aside, here is a large part of the reason why we are seeing a very slow adoption of optimal drag design:

Average New-Vehicle MSRP Tops $28,000 for First Time

And this:


And this:


And lastly, this:

Gas: US Average:

Combine all these, and you have (16,000miles / 21 mpg) * 2.83 = $2156, or 7.7% of the price of a new vehicle.

Or you could buy a new aveo, which is still $9k.

At that price, with that fuel economy... 34 mpg, calculation works out to be $1331, which is a relatively small portion of total ownership cost. Or is it? I suppose now it's edging up there. A loan to buy such a car at 10% interest is $900 per year, if the loan is over 10 years you also have to pay back the principal at another $900 per year (roughly speaking), so total $1800 per year compared to $1331 for fuel.

Hmmm. I think that if it were done properly, it could sell, you'd just have to hype the aspect of saving money.

[The Toecutter]

Aren't most car loans around 5-6 years, and not 10 years?

Most cars are generally owned for about 8 years.

We'll also assume $.05/mile maintenance cost, gas at $2.80/gallon with $2.50 going to oil industry and $.30 going to government, 10% interest rate, insurance of $100/month, and associated government fees of $200/year(smog checks, registration, ect.).

Say someone wants to purchase a new car at $28,000 at no money down that gets 24 mpg and pay for it over a 5 year period. That car in question sees 12,000 miles of use per per year.

Over those 8 years the car is owned, that's going to be a total of $35,695 spent for the car alone which is paid for after 5 years from purchase(http://www.dod.mil/mapsite/carpay.html), $4,800 on aftermarket parts and services, $9,600 on insurance, $1,600 in government fees, and $11,200 in fuel.

Fuel is still quite significant in cost, nearly 20%.

Over the time the car is owned, $62,895 is spent.

Lets say that exact same car had subsequent aerodynamic modifications to achieve a combined fuel economy of 40 mpg, and lowering the maintenance to $.03/mile.

That would save $4,480 on fuel and $1,920 on maintenance. A total of $6,400 saved over the time the vehicle is used by the new car buyer! This is significant as far as freed up disposable income is concerned.

Many savings would be present for those that buy the car used as well, which most of their owership cost will be fuel and maintenance. This is also where the auto industry gets much of their revenue over the 150,000 mile vehicle life: maintenance.

So the used car buyer picks it up for $4,000, has it for 54,000 miles after the new car buyer has it(4.5 years), pays $60/month in insurance, $200/year in government fees. The used car buyer saves $1,080 in maintenance costs, $2,520 in fuel with the aerodynamic car. A total of $3,600 saved on part of the used car buyer.

To recap:

-new car buyer with unaerodynamic car puts $62,895 into the economy, used car buyer with unaerodynamic car puts $17,140 into the economy, for a total of $80,035

-new car buyer with aerodynamic car puts $56,495 into the economy, used car buyer with aerodynamic car puts $13,540 into the economy, for a total of $70,095

So from the used car buyer and the new car buyer, that is $10,000 less money given to the auto and oil industry and the government with the fuel-efficient aerodynamic car over the unaerodynamic car. Over that 150,000 miles, the auto industry loses out of $3,000 in maintenance, oil industry loses out of $6,250 on fuel, federal government $750 on gas taxes.

THAT is why cars aren't made efficient. It cuts too much into the revenue flowing to the auto and oil industries, and especially cuts consumer spending to the economy.

Demand for efficiency is there. That is why hybrids have a 6-month waiting period and such. It's just a matter of getting the auto companies to make efficient vehicles.



A few flaws with my numbers:

-Did not include discount rate. But it isn't needed anyway since the amount saved is in 2006 dollars, not total dollars continually adjusted over the car ownership period.
-Aerodynamic/efficient car would last longer(More like around 250,000 miles), allowing the used car buyer to keep it longer, putting even less money into the economy and into the hands of the auto industry, providing further incentive against making aerodynamic cars

If I would repeat this with an all electric vehicle, the savings would be very profound, so as to almost cut the total spending over the life of the car by a third, including insurance and stuff! That money is completely cut from the auto industry, oil industry, and federal government. Which is also robably why we don't have EVs either.

[Mighty Mira]

Originally Posted by The Toecutter

Demand for efficiency is there. That is why hybrids have a 6-month waiting period and such. It's just a matter of getting the auto companies to make efficient vehicles.

Hmmm. I think that you may be partially on to something there. But the numbers don't really come out to be that much different with your example. It's only something like 14% difference. It's quite possible that the 14% difference is made up by consumers wanting various other things, such as airconditioning, familiarity, status, safety wrt existing car fleet, etc. etc.

And the difference is a little less with a new car. Remember that the new car buyer is already spending a load of money on buying a new car when really, an old car will do exactly the same thing for much less cost. If he were really that concerned about saving money, he wouldn't be buying new.

OTOH, 14% saving on a major expense that everyone has... hmmm. Possibly more.

The fact is, the moment the average US consumer stops borrowing and stops living his extravagant lifestyle, we will go into recession and most probably, depression. Less money spent means less jobs, smaller taxes, and especially less liquidity as less dollars are produced out of thin air in the act of creating a new loan.

The US economy is massively insolvent, but it IS liquid provided as business as usual keeps going along. But so long as very few people realize it, then it can continue to tick along, for a while. How long, no one knows. The US has a tremendous reputation. I suspect that producing a lot of propaganda is partly the reason, despite things like Nixon closing the gold window, the debt figures plain to anyone who looks, and declining natural resources, particularly energy.

The US has an impressive carrier fleet, lots of nukes, Hollywood, and has been a superpower for longer than most people have been alive. In an era where we are encouraged to look after ourselves rather than our families, where we shunt our elderly off to old-age homes and our children off to daycare centers, public schools and sat in front of the television, it is no surprise that the average person has no real idea of anything that happened prior to his birth. Which means that in the history of empires waxing and waning, depressions and booms coming and going, he thinks that the US will continue forever the way it has because that is all he knows.

If you look at movie history, I think the last time a movie was made about a realistic depression type scenario in the future was around the 1980s, and it wasn't particularly good. (Rollover). The only other depression type scenario we see come out of Hollywood is a nuclear war, plague or asteroid type scenario, which is a bit less prosaic and probable to most people's minds - they enjoy it as fiction.

So, what percentage of total average expenses does the car take up? 30%? Is 5% or so of total consumer spending even worth worrying about? It might be, especially as the entire automotive industry is such a large employer. Or it might not.

I'd love to totally redesign the automobile from the ground up, as an attempt to get fuel usage down to the bone while keeping everything else pretty much constant. I think that there will be a tipping point, and soon, wtih which it will really be a money maker for whoever does it first. I think I'll start a thread for it.

[The Toecutter]

The fact is, the moment the average US consumer stops borrowing and stops living his extravagant lifestyle, we will go into recession and most probably, depression. Less money spent means less jobs, smaller taxes, and especially less liquidity as less dollars are produced out of thin air in the act of creating a new loan.

Instead of less jobs and such, we could take it out of profit margins to keep those people employed. But industry just wouldn't do that on their own...

Smaller taxes is a good thing. Get rid of the illegal oil wars, the military-industrial complex, the prison-industrial complex, the drug war, and end all corporate welfare. Could cut the federal discretionary budget by more than a third without even touching any social programs yet(although some of those could/should be cut, IMO), while still having the cash to put into paying down the debt.

A shame our dollar is so fluid. If it were backed by something substantial like our founding fathers intended(and coined by congress like the constitution specified, and not a private entity), we may not have been put in this mess.

Whatever the case may be today, it is certainly unsustainable. It will crash, whether 1 year from now or 15 years from now, it is going to happen unless some meaningful action is taken to change course.


As far as consumers are concerned, getting a few thousand dollars saved is very substantial when you might normally only have $3,000 a year of disposable income after the necessities are paid for.

When people buy new cars, the body style change over older models is usually a big consideration. It's essentially trying to meet a sort of fad. However, money is a big consideration, just not the only consideration.

[GasSavers_brick]

The way I drive doesn't cause too much trouble with other drivers. Around town I tend to drive at the speed limit, whatever it is, and achieve the high FE numbers with whatever hypermiling tool makes sense at the time. If there's traffic behind me I don't DWL over the hills, but instead maintain a steady speed on the ascent and then key off on the way back down. On the flats I'll just put it in 5th and pay close attention to the iFCD, maintaining the highest FE possible at steady-state. With no traffic I will take some liberties, applying DWL to squeeze out a little extra efficiency. On a route I really know, it's possible to blend in with the crowd and still hit mid-40s MPG segments.
The highway is a little different, but is also dependant on traffic. My cruise speed stays at 60mph in a 65 zone, and I keep all the way to the right. The folks behind me aren't necessarily thrilled but they always get around if that's what they want. In fact, keeping the cruise control engaged at 60 is good enough to just break 40mpg all by itself. With no traffic I am happy to DWL between 55 and 65mph, but traffic is rarely light enough for me to be comfortable with that. Instead, I maintain cruise at 60mph on the flats and ascents, then throw it in neutral and kill the engine on any hill that's steep enough to maintain my speed. It may confuse the folks behind me, but it certainly doesn't do them any harm since I generally don't drop below that 60mph threshold. Highway numbers using that method are generally in the 41-44mpg range on a car that's EPA rated at 32mpg, which I find to be quite acceptable.
Things I won't do in traffic: Wide-range DWL (could be viewed as erratic by others, even though it would be predictable if they knew what I am doing), cruising below 55mph in a 65 zone (too much speed differential = added danger), drafting except once in a great while (I like my windshield the way it is, thanks), and driving under the prevailing speed in the left-most lanes. The fact of the matter is that speed differentials are dangerous and should be avoided. It may be legal to do 10 under in the middle lane, but that doesn't change anything. The danger may be due to their excessive speed, but it is much simpler to accomodate their stupidity and keep safely to the right. I still get the occasional tailgater or psycho fly-by, but I'm used to it at this point. Personally, it seems less stressful than constantly watching for speed traps like I used to.

[Bunger]

Originally Posted by Bunger

I hold the camera up, and sure enough, she flips me the bird! The darn camera was too slow and I missed the shot... oh well.

Or so I thought!!!

[white90crxhf]

in virginia there are signs on the highway that state: slower traffic stay to the right! When i was younger i thought it was fun to drive the speed limit in the left lane, i am lucky i wasnt shot if people drove like they do in england(on the highways anyways) i think we would have less accidents.

about profit margins and prison jobs, the margins are ****ing huge! we're talking 25-30% margin, and prisons are not cheap! it's almost sickening how bad i'm getting indirectly screwed(tax payer) by my own company.

[SVOboy]

Oooh, that's a very marxist comment sir! You best stop self-alientating, you homo faber.

[white90crxhf]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Oooh, that's a very marxist comment sir! You best stop self-alientating, you homo faber.

i said almost, i do like eating.

[SVOboy]

It's just funny cuz it reminded me of all the levels of alienation and how that's one of the bases of marxism that most people would agree with (I think).