Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › After Hours Lounge › That's it, I'm walking. gas up 33 cents since Monday,
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

That's it, I'm walking. gas up 33 cents since Monday, - Page 19

post #541 of 2222
9/8/05 at 11:25am
Quote:
I may only have needed 4WD for 5%-10% of driving time in the past year, but I will tell you that for as long as I live in New England I am never ever doing without that feature again, be it on a sedan or SUV.


Really? I know that winters in Toronto aren't quite what they used to be, but we still get a hell of a lot of snow/ice/freezing rain to deal with. Now I can't say that there haven't been any points where having 4WD wouldn't have been easier, but would the increased cost (both in buying the feature and the fuel efficiency) have been worth it? Not that I can see. As long as you're reasonable with your speed and stopping distances, you should be fine.

It'd definitely be nice to live closer to work though, but both the wife and I have 50+ km commutes in opposite directions with no available transit. I figured out that a 0.25 per litre increase in the price of gas works out to about $1400 extra for the year-not exactly pocket change. Thankfully, the price seems to be creeping down-apparently in some areas it's down to 1.08. The scary thing is that the average last year was 77.2, and 92.4 only a month ago...
Reply
post #542 of 2222
9/8/05 at 11:32am
Quote:
Now I can't say that there haven't been any points where having 4WD wouldn't have been easier, but would the increased cost (both in buying the feature and the fuel efficiency) have been worth it?


There's a difference between driving in snow in Buffalo or Toronto and driving in snow in NE, especially southern NE. It's call a "snow budget". Cities that experience huge snowfalls on a regular basis have the budget and machinery to get it up and out of the way quickly. We do not, so we are stuck with truck plows instead of huge street size blowers and bobcats instead of front end loaders. A 4 ft snow in Buffalo, NY is laughed off, in Mass. it is paralyzing.
Reply
post #543 of 2222
9/8/05 at 12:54pm
I own a turbo diesel VW, gets good mileage so I am not quite as effected as other people, I also own a Hond Helix scooter that gets like 60 MPG but it isn't so much fun to use when the weather is bad
Reply
post #544 of 2222
9/8/05 at 1:52pm
Though I do have a strong dislike for SUVs and many of their owners who have and continue to (in my experience only, of course) display an increased disregard for others on the shared roads, my personal views of SUV owners are irrelevant to my view of how the vehicles themselves should be treated as a property that can be used in the public infrastructure. I don't think it's right to argue in terms of what somebody else "needs" - it may suit one's own definition of what constitutes selfishness, but it's an incomplete picture because it's full of biases and assumptions. I *do* think it's perfectly legitimate to argue in terms of what vehicle's capabilities are on the road, and how they differ from the "standard" automobile and how they impact the "average" driver (I put those in quotes, but I do believe they can be statistically quantifiable).

We already make a class distinction between motorcycles, 4-wheeled automobiles, and large rigs (e.g., 18-wheelers). Most states have differing license requirements for the different types of vehicles, and even have differing types of violations and differing levels between the types (e.g., in many states you can get a ticket for not wearing a helmet on a motorcycle, but not in a car; in many states you can get a ticket for not wearing a seatbelt in a car but that's inapplicable to a motorcycle).

I do believe certain vehicles (most of which fall into the SUV or pickup truck category) do have enough different attributes to need a new class, that states - if they haven't already done so - need to create a new classification of license for these vehicles. Vehicles that have a different center of gravity from a "standard" automobile (a CoG that affects the average driver's ability to respond to the vehicle's own motions), a significantly different height zones with respect to a "standard" automobile that can change the average driver's "safe zone" sense, and any additional damaging results from a difference in the vehicle's impact with an "average" automobile, should require different license requirements.

'Course, all of this is my own personal view - I am neither a politician nor a lawyer.
Reply
post #545 of 2222
9/8/05 at 1:59pm
Quote:
do believe certain vehicles (most of which fall into the SUV or pickup truck category) do have enough different attributes to need a new class, that states - if they haven't already done so - need to create a new classification of license for these vehicles.


Do that for high powered sports cars also and I've got no problem with it.
Reply
post #546 of 2222
9/8/05 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Vehicles that have a different center of gravity from a "standard" automobile (a CoG that affects the average driver's ability to respond to the vehicle's own motions), a significantly different height zones with respect to a "standard" automobile that can change the average driver's "safe zone" sense, and any additional damaging results from a difference in the vehicle's impact with an "average" automobile, should require different license requirements.

The problem is that there is no "standard" car to base your model around. You have to remember that once a car is legal, its grandfathered in and will always be streetlegal no matter how it ages.

Should a 7500Lb Studebaker GoldenHawk be considered the car around which all others are judged? How about a 1000Lb Corbin Sparrow that seats one. Don't forget the vintage Model T's, and who couldn't fall in love a VW Thing, completely free of crash-absorbing bodywork. And don't forget the new "King of the class D" The International CXT pick-up!
Reply
post #547 of 2222
9/8/05 at 2:29pm
Quote:
Do that for high powered sports cars also and I've got no problem with it.
But the problems that arise with Sports cars is when the driver goes really fast (which is usually the case, but that has nothing to do with the class of the car). Does a 30mph crash make a difference if you are in a Vette or a Corolla?

The main difference between an SUV and a car is, an SUV is more likely to flip over while performing the same "cornering at high speed" actions a car would.

Again, the high powered sports car is only dangerous when it's doing 120mph, but ANY vehicle (at that speed) is dangerous, it has nothing to do with 'classification'.
Reply
post #548 of 2222
9/8/05 at 2:29pm
Quote:
The problem is that there is no "standard" car to base your model around. You have to remember that once a car is legal, its grandfathered in and will always be streetlegal no matter how it ages.

True, but I think nothing we would call a "car" is going to have a center of gravity above a certain height (If just because your CoG has to be below your roof height. Set a maximum center of gravity and all vehicles above that would be classed as High Center of Gravity vehicles.

I think we would also have to factor in wheelbase length and width. A vehicle with a long wide stance would be less likely to tip than one with a short, narrow wheelbase, center of gravity being equal between the two.
Reply
post #549 of 2222
9/8/05 at 3:03pm
Quote:
A vehicle with a long wide stance would be less likely to tip than one with a short, narrow wheelbase, center of gravity being equal between the two.

I drive a Jeep Wrangler. Short wheelbase, "high" center of gravity (so says Consumer Reports). Before they had a chance to test it, CR gave the 98 Wrangler failing marks for rollover (even though it is equipped with a full rollcage). Problem was, when they finally tested one, they could not induce rollover in any way. They tried well beyond the limits they were testing for and the thing just would not roll. A retraction was forthcoming. This just shows that the statement above is too general for classifying vehicles. The current (98-present) Wrangler was designed from the ground up to not roll, high CG or not. I've driven this type of Jeep for 8 years and never rolled it once. I know a guy who rolled 3 brand new Camaros in the late 80's, all on city streets at reasonable (for him) speeds. I'll stick to my "rollover prone" vehicle, thank you.
Reply
post #550 of 2222
9/9/05 at 7:21am
How do you roll over a Camaro at 'reasonable speeds' - I highly doubt he was doing 35mph (or even driving 'safely')...


Back on topic, They announced that the Governor has written letter to several gas stations (that haven't lowered their prices to the 'norm') and asked (I beleive) for paperwork proving their reasons for not doing so.

I also heard that NY has fined several stations for "gouging".
Reply
post #551 of 2222
9/9/05 at 8:44am
Quote:
How do you roll over a Camaro at 'reasonable speeds' - I highly doubt he was doing 35mph (or even driving 'safely')...


Exactly the same way you roll an SUV, by driving it beyond its limits. I said the speeds were "reasonable" for him. But I do know that the second time he rolled he tried to do a sharp turn at about 40 mph, used the emergency brake to induce a slide and flipped it like a tin can.
Reply
post #552 of 2222
9/9/05 at 8:57am
Quote:
I drive a Jeep Wrangler. Short wheelbase, "high" center of gravity (so says Consumer Reports). Before they had a chance to test it, CR gave the 98 Wrangler failing marks for rollover (even though it is equipped with a full rollcage). Problem was, when they finally tested one, they could not induce rollover in any way. They tried well beyond the limits they were testing for and the thing just would not roll. A retraction was forthcoming. This just shows that the statement above is too general for classifying vehicles. The current (98-present) Wrangler was designed from the ground up to not roll, high CG or not. I've driven this type of Jeep for 8 years and never rolled it once. I know a guy who rolled 3 brand new Camaros in the late 80's, all on city streets at reasonable (for him) speeds. I'll stick to my "rollover prone" vehicle, thank you.

That's been my experience as well, it takes a LOT of effort to roll most SUV's, especially these days when automakers have been making changes to the design to make them more "paint side up" friendly. Have you ever seen consumer reports testing methods to get an SUV to tip over? It's a remarkably violent set of steering inputs, and in all of my time driving I have never had to make a move like that.
Reply
post #553 of 2222
9/9/05 at 8:58am
My G/F made a comment to me yesterday about expecting our heating bills to go way up this winter.

She is part of a procurement group for IBM and they deal with natural gas products. She saw a report stating prices for some of these prducts were going up as much as 70% in some cases.
Reply
post #554 of 2222
9/9/05 at 9:13am
Yeah, I heard the 70% number for natural gas a few days ago on the news.
Reply
post #555 of 2222
9/9/05 at 10:24am
To some extent, there is a different class for the largest SUV's and pickups. Anything over 6000 lbs GVW is restricted in many states. They can't cross many small bridges, or go on many residential streets. These laws are almost completely unenforced.
Reply
post #556 of 2222
9/9/05 at 1:44pm
Just an aside, the Shell station where I usually fill up had no gasoline today. And they didn't know when they would get any.

No biggie today, as the 76 & Phillips 66 stations all had gasoline for sale, but who knows what tomorrow will bring?
Reply
post #557 of 2222
9/10/05 at 2:30am
To the discussions about 4WD in snow:

I have traction control on my GTP. Excellent feature IMO that does a lot of what 4WD does for a vehicle in the snow.

It's fun to spin the wheel and drive too fast, and see the car still go in a straight line. Of course I only did this in controlled conditions!
Reply
post #558 of 2222
9/10/05 at 6:49am
Quote:
Yeah, I heard the 70% number for natural gas a few days ago on the news.

So why haven't you filled your tanks early?
Reply
post #559 of 2222
9/10/05 at 10:58am
My roommate went to get gas yesterday, & the station was out of all grades. First time I've heard of that in our areas, although other stations nearby had gas.
Reply
post #560 of 2222
9/10/05 at 1:55pm
Quote:
I heard the 70% number for natural gas a few days ago on the news.
Any particular reason for this? Fallout from Katrina? OPEC? Or did people in India and China all suddenly decide to buy gas burning furnaces?
Reply
post #561 of 2222
9/10/05 at 2:41pm
Were the stations that ran out selling their gas for less? We have one station around here that sold out, but they are selling at 2.98 vs 3.09 - 3.15 at other stations.
Reply
post #562 of 2222
9/10/05 at 5:18pm
Safe and successful driving in snow does not require 4WD. I successfully negotiated every Vermont winter for the past 15 years driving small sedans with front-wheel drive only and never had an accident or got stuck.

It's been my experience when driving during inclement weather that it's the 4WD's that are always the first off the road, on their roofs. In fact, I think 4WD gives a false sense of security.

While making the 25-mile commute to the office one January morning after a batch of freezing rain, I was having no difficulty while I counted at least 6 SUV's/Jeeps/Trucks off the road in the median of the interstate...a couple had rolled over...but no small cars like mine.
Reply
post #563 of 2222
9/16/05 at 6:33am
Changing the topic a bit. But, a few weeks ago when prices shot up. I asked whether the prices would drop down(to the lower $2, pre-Katria prices) once the refineries started to reopen. Have we heard anything about the status of the refineries? I also wonder if the oil companies will drop prices that much.
Reply
post #564 of 2222
9/16/05 at 7:05am
Don't know refinery status but one station here (now out of gas) was selling at $2.71/gal. The station with gas I just filled up at today was $2.89. All prices for reg grade gas.
Reply
post #565 of 2222
9/16/05 at 8:39am
$2.42 here now. It was $3.19 at it's peak.
Reply
post #566 of 2222
9/16/05 at 9:14am
Where abouts are you Shane, in the metro? I think i saw it for 2.45 at a 7-11 on 39th. This thread has died off a little now that prices are going down virtually every day.
Reply
post #567 of 2222
9/16/05 at 9:23am
I saw that Richard Branson was wanting to build some refineries in the U.K.?
Reply
post #568 of 2222
9/16/05 at 9:31am
Quote:
$2.42 here now. It was $3.19 at it's peak.


You're lucky. Around where I live, it is taking forever to come down. It's decreased a bit, but still most stations are still comfortably above $3 for regualar.
Reply
post #569 of 2222
9/16/05 at 9:40am
Prices here are either $2.66 or $2.67. Highest it ever got was right after Katrina, when it jumped from $2.59 to $3.09.
Reply
post #570 of 2222
9/16/05 at 9:47am
Still over $3 in CT (although only a few pennies over). It's amazing that the Mobile stations are the only ones under $3 (at $2.99) and the lines are insane!
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: After Hours Lounge
Home Theater Forum › Home Theater Forum › Other Diversions › After Hours Lounge › That's it, I'm walking. gas up 33 cents since Monday,