A new study entitled "Sipping Fuel and Saving Lives: Increasing Fuel Economy without Sacrificing Safety" notes:
The public, automakers, and policymakers have long worried about trade-offs between increased fuel economy in motor vehicles and reduced safety. The conclusion of a broad group of experts on safety and fuel economy in the auto sector is that no trade-off is required. There are a wide variety of technologies and approaches available to advance vehicle fuel economy that have no effect on vehicle safety [and vice versa].
The study by the International Council on Clean Transportation concludes that "Technologies exist today that can improve light-duty vehicle fuel economy by up to 50 percent ... with no impact on safety."
The study has two noteworthy figures. The first shows that higher-fuel-economy vehicles [green] are some of the safest while low-fuel-economy vehicles [red] are some of the least safe vehicles driven today -- large, heavy trucks and SUVs. Click to enlarge.
The second figure lists technologies available today that can improve fuel economy with no impact on safety and lists technologies that can improve vehicle safety with little or no effect on fuel economy. Click to enlarge.
The study is conservative in the sense that it doesn't even consider plug-in hybrids, which can significantly increase fuel economy with no impact on safety at all. It is well worth a read.
This post was created for ClimateProgress.org, a project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund.
Making buildings more efficient: rationalizing retrofit markets
Capturing the massive social benefits of fuel efficiency requires regulation
Making buildings more efficient: looking beyond price
Comments
View as Flat
Charles Barton Posted 4:38 am
23 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
Sean Casten Posted 5:41 am
23 Jun 2007
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:48 am
23 Jun 2007
Horsepower and Fuel Effeciency are usually a tradeoff to each other.
http://greyfalcon.net/horsepower.png
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 7:24 am
23 Jun 2007
That car-based SUV weighs 3,839 pounds.
It is not 1985 anymore. 227 hp is not impressive except in the case of an extremely light and/or inexpensive car.
google.com/search?q=ford+escape+hybrid+underpowered
12,900 hits.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 7:28 am
23 Jun 2007
http://greyfalcon.net/horsepower.png
Permalink
Charles Barton Posted 7:36 am
23 Jun 2007
Charles Barton
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:19 am
23 Jun 2007
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
The argument from personal incredulity, also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction, refers to an assertion that because one personally finds a premise unlikely or unbelievable, the premise can be assumed not to be true, or alternately that another preferred but unproved premise is true instead.
Cognitive Therapy of Personality Disorders - Google Books Result
individuals with OCPD are stingy with themselves as well as others.
Charles Barton wrote: i think we need to tax fossil fuel power motors on the basis of horse power and displacement.
There is no such thing as a fossil-fuel powered motor. There are motors that are powered by gasoline and diesel. Gasoline and diesel are not exclusively fossil fuels.
Taxing of specific technologies is typical of planned economies.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_economy
Charles Barton wrote: It is interesting that a supposedly CO2 concerned Gristmill reader would turn up his nose at a 227 HP hybrid.
Please explain that comment, including all of its implied assumptions. Please include quotes in your explanation, where appropriate.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 11:30 am
23 Jun 2007
Most external combustion devices such as boilers are more aptly known as power plants, and electric motors are true motors. The only gray area are turbines, which may be known as "jet engines" or "turbine power plants."
All that stuff about MOBIL meaning "mobile" and "Happy Motoring" meaning driving your car engine are quite incorrect. Note that "motoring" may may also be used rhetorically to mean when one is over-speeding the engine such as by using it as a dynamic brake, as on a locomotive or semi-truck.
Several decades ago SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers" and EPA changed they way gasoline and diesel engine horsepower was estimated, such as by using engine dynamometers to measure maximum horsepower by maximum speed (RPM) and torque (foot-pounds).
Any motor, turbine, power plant, or engine that has rotating energy forces can be computed as (RPM * Torque) / 5250.
But these facts and clarifications don't explain why certain engines go fast and other can pull 100,000 pounds with the same engine HP size - it is all in the transmission gearing and what is called "duty cycle" and shaft horsepower ... a topic for a different day.
Irrelevant? Maybe but I can assured you if you have a 227 HP engine as rated by the manufacturer, you will never get to use more than 90 percent of that and most likely your most aggressive driving is about 80 percent of horsepower. Why? Because at 100% power the engine is nearly put into a stall so as to measure its maximum torque. In other words, it could fly apart or explode. Engineers always govern their engines, motors, and turbines less than 90% horsepower as a safety margin.
So, now you know those HP numbers really don't mean very much, and fuel economy is what you really need to be focussed on!
/sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 7:22 pm
23 Jun 2007
When will the rest of us, who don't care if our vehicle goes from 0-60 in 8 seconds instead of 4, but care about fuel economy, stand up and laugh the circle-jerkers out of the debate?
Whiskerfish
Permalink
Jawfish Posted 3:01 am
24 Jun 2007
I have been researching building myself a very green car, looking at solutions ranging from something a little better than a Prius to fully EV. One side issue I have discovered is the technology is not ready for ultralightweight cars that meet the current DOT standards. Well it's theoretically available, but not for low-cost manufacture. See RMI's hypercar for an example.
However we already have a class of vehicles on the road that has no onerous safety standard - motorcycles. Since most people will burn more gas, and spend a lot more money to get comfort, capacity, and safety, few people ride bikes. Yet, there are a number of microcars available in Europe, the Far East, and Brazil which are true cars, but get better mileage than current hybrids. They can't be imported because of the DOT standard. Some of them are available as EVs.
So here's my pitch- given that I think global warming is a bigger safety and security issue than mandated individual safety, and given that there is a direct trade-off between vehicle mass and efficiency, let's establish a class of vehicles between the 500 lb two-wheelers and the 3000 lb hybrids. Say for instance, anything under 2000 lbs that meets smog standards and 50+ mpg would be federally classified as a motorcycle even though it has four wheels. ( 3-wheelers are motorcycles). That way those of us willing to accept a safety reduction could drive more efficiently, without having to build it at home.
NEVs are a precedent to this idea, they just haven't sold well because they are too restricted in speed and range.
http://www.jawfish.net
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 3:58 am
24 Jun 2007
So if you want to save on fuel economy, you'd put a 250 HP engine in the same chassis and spend less money on fuel, mainly since the engine will weigh less and work more efficiently. The logic is pretty clear to me.
The American market is dominated by over-powered vehicles. Take a look at the foreign markets and their cars seem under-powered. For example, Chevy makes only two compact models in the US but sell five in Mexico. They are cheap, more fuel efficient, and easier to navigate in narrower roads and parking spaces.
As to the assertion about a trade-off between power and safety, that is a complete BS argument. Cars don't have accidents - people driving them incorrectly do!
And no, I won't resort to using nasty words like "wanker" to describe my frustration with people who don't seem to comprehend this brutal fact.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
birdboy Posted 5:49 am
24 Jun 2007
Could it be, the guy who wants to impress you with his ability to dart out and around traffic, like a racecar driver that's just had a fight with his wife? The guy that thinks his vehicle can, and should be, able to do anything (see commercial)? Ironic, ain't it, that <bold>he</bold> will most likely cause the accident, and when he hits my high efficiency, light-weight French balloon car, who's most likely to go 'pop'?
If these metal fortresses were not speeding all over the roadways, perhaps we could have more efficient vehicle choices, without the high cost of those ancient DOT standards. Excellent idea- to reclassify these vehicles and let us take our chances- government has no business telling us that we might 'put your eye out with that thing". And maybe, when people get used to seeing them around, and hear how cheap and efficient they are, the dinosours will give up the asphalt.
My vision is a bunch of (compressed-air?) cars turned loose on the cities and 'burbs'. They are publicly owned, and come when you call them- take you where you need to be, and then are released to find another passenger (robo-cabs). No one need buy a car, we pay for their use when we need them, even earn miles through public service, or when we work out at the gym (machines use human energy to feed the grid).
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
birdboy Posted 5:54 am
24 Jun 2007
a liberal in redsville
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 6:27 am
24 Jun 2007
It hits right at the heart of their insecurity, and exposes the charade for what it is.
Rather than being nasty, I see it as correct and effective framing.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
spaceshaper Posted 6:47 am
24 Jun 2007
The true meaning of life is to plant trees, under whose shade you do not expect to sit.
Permalink
Sam Wells Posted 7:59 am
24 Jun 2007
Just be careful, while many people may not need a SUV or large big-ass truck, some construction, farm, and ranch people really do need a pickup truck. There will always be some kind of market for those. It's just that pickups became popular for commuting to the office.
-sammie
Onward through the fog
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:35 am
24 Jun 2007
In Japan, this class of vehicle is called the Kei car.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keicar
Kei car (K-car) (keijid¨sha), is a Japanese category of small automobiles, including passenger cars, vans and pickup trucks. They are designed to exploit local tax and insurance relaxations, and are exempted from the requirement to certify that adequate parking is available for the vehicle. These standards originated in the times following the end of the Second World War, when most Japanese could not afford a full-sized car yet had enough to buy a motorcycle. To promote the growth of the car industry, as well as to offer an alternative delivery method to small business and shop owners, Kei car standards were created.
The cars feature yellow licence plates, earning them the name "yellow-plate cars" (black numbers on yellow background for private use and yellow numbers on black background for commercial use) in English and Spanish-speaking circles.
Because the regulations only restrict physical size and engine power, manufacturers have introduced many advanced technologies to the class. As a result, kei cars are often available with forced induction engines, automatic and CVT transmissions, front-, rear- and four-wheel drive, hybrid drivetrains, air conditioning, GPS and many other features.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 5:27 pm
24 Jun 2007
The site points to an article that documents the declining prices for used SUVs and pick-up trucks. The low prices does not mean that the large stock of operable heavy vehicles is going to disappear from the road, only that the original owners are going to take a hit. So, for awhile, the country looks like it will head into Keith Bradsher's worst nightmare, as described in his classic book, High and Mighty: SUVs: The World's Most Dangerous Vehicles and How They Got That Way (see this excellent review by Greg Easterbrook). As prices for used big SUVs and pick-up trucks drop, they will be snatched up by 25-year-old young men, who as the accident statistics show are much more likely to cause an accident than the previous owners of these vehicles, who have been mainly older men and women with more driving experience and who are more risk-adverse.
The transition to smaller vehicles needs to take place. But it may not be pretty, as long as large, aging high-and-mighty vehicles are still on the road and have a statistically significant chance of broadsiding some of those newer, more nimble and fuel-efficient vehicles.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:14 pm
24 Jun 2007
The most-scalable resolution to that might be to simply require that all drivers be continuous-real-time insured, reduce all non-insurance-checking police-traffic-enforcement to zero, and deregulate/demonopolize the insurance industry. A low-risk driver might pay a total of $5 or $10 per year in insurance. A high-risk driver might pay $100,000 per year in insurance -- if he does not change his behavior. In reality, since drivers would receive real-time feedcack on their driving, virtually all drivers would reduce their risk, insurance costs to drivers in general would fall, and profits to insurance companies (since there would be less accidents to pay for) would go up.
The few drivers who failed to respond to this real-time risk-feedback would (unless wealthy) simply not be able to afford to drive.
Permalink
GreyFlcn Posted 6:29 pm
24 Jun 2007
Charge for car insurance using it's gCO2/km rating as a factor.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 6:32 pm
24 Jun 2007
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 6:47 pm
24 Jun 2007
Why would a state, as opposed to an entrepreneur, get involved in insurance?
Permalink
JMG Posted 6:55 pm
24 Jun 2007
Basically the proposal was to eliminate the sales and marketing expense of insurance but leave claims settling to insurance companies, where they are efficient. It would also have had the really nice side effect of eliminating the uninsured driver totally, and creating a variable rate insurance system that rewarded high efficiency cars and less driving (pay by the gallon used rather than by calendar).
In Michigan, e.g., cities are filled with scam insurance companies who will give you an insurance binder for $79, which you can then use to get your car licensed; then you stop making payments. Works great for all concerned: people get to flout the insurance law while still driving; the insurance company makes a huge profit on selling a binder that almost never actually has a claim against it, and the insurance companies get to sell huge amounts of uninsured and underinsured motorists' coverage because there are a lot of UIM drivers out there (as the insurance companies well know, since they are the ones who don't alert the police when someone's insurance lapses).
Nationally something like 12% of drivers are thought to be uninsured, last I looked.
Michigan makes a great place to start because it already has the no-fault part that the plaintiffs' lawyers hated---thus, the only people gored are insurance companies.
And they aren't really hurt by this either, because Tobias didn't propose getting rid of them; his proposal was that the state would auction off statistically risk-identical blocks of drivers for servicing; the companies would buy blocks for a set fee, and handle all the claims, and keep any extra. That is, you would divide the state's drivers into blocks of 5000 (or 10000, or whatever) and then companies would submit bids to handle all claims for those drivers, using the same actuarial stats the companies have now. The most efficient companies would have the lowest costs and would make the most profit.
Each year, drivers would rate their satisfaction with the company handling their "policy" and the scores would be factored into the bid amounts; companies with low satisfaction scores would have to charge less when "buying" blocks of drivers to service at the auctions, meaning less room for profit.
You would handle penalties for traffic infractions, DUIs etc. through add-ons for the licensing fees. With the advent of all-electric vehicles, you could either figure out a flat fee insurance rate or require that they pay on a per-mile-driven basis.
His book "Auto Insurance Alert" is out of print but makes a good read if you can find it.
The key environmental advantage is that it makes driving insurance a variable cost that rewards people for taking mass transit/biking/walking rather than, in essence, punishing them for those same choices (the less you drive, the more you pay per mile for your insurance, even though you are doing less of the risky activity ...).
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Ron Steenblik Posted 7:10 pm
24 Jun 2007
Why would a state, as opposed to an entrepreneur, get involved in insurance?
Insurance is one of the most highly regulated sectors of the economy. Each state has an insurance commission. Its them (with the insurance industries themselves) what sets the rules. In the interest of protecting customers, of course.
According to the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC), their mission is to:Protect the public interest;Promote competitive markets;Facilitate the fair and equitable treatment of insurance consumers;Promote the reliability, solvency and financial solidity of insurance institutions; and Support and improve state regulation of insurance.
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 8:40 pm
24 Jun 2007
How did you determine that that is an "environmental advantage"? If society benefits from that, why would it not use a more-direct lever? If the "environmental advantage" is reduced carbon emissions, why not tax carbon?
When an incorrect lever -- such as pay-at-the-pump insurance for reducing driving -- is used, conflicts of interest arise. In the case of your proposed incorrect-lever, there is no incentive for drivers to drive more-carefully, and there is no incentive for insurance companies to vet their drivers more competitively. You pointed it out yourself: "companies would submit bids to handle all claims for those drivers, using the same actuarial stats the companies have now." That is exactly the problem.
Baby steps are being taken to resolve that problem. For example, Progressive Insurance is testing an on-board telemetry system that records brake and steering input and rewards drivers for patterns associated with safer driving. Safer speeds could also be recorded. There are systems being developed to detect impaired sriving by using powerful statistical algorithms to analyze steering-wheel input (more sophisticated than the system Progressive is testing). This way impairment of all types (sleepy, kids in back seat, pets, conversation, all types of over-the-counter and prescription pharmaceuticals, alcohol, drugs no-one has ever heard of) would be charged-for (and up-front), instead of merely alcohol.
No-one would ever get pulled over for DUI. In fact no-one would ever get pulled-over, because there would be no need for enforcement of any kind, other than insurance enforcement -- and that could be handled via radio-tag. If you drive without a valid radio-tag, you don't get more than a mile (inexpensive tag-checkers can be placed everywhere; valid-codes are sent to legitimate insurance entrepreneurs; code-scam rings are hunted and busted nationwide by the FBI -- just as all other scam-rings are hunted and busted nationwide by the FBI) before the justice system steps in to apply leverage.
Progressive Insurance's system now also records how many miles are driven:
portlandtribune.com/news/story.php?story_id=117641490783192300
The program, offered by Progressive Insurance Co., allows drivers discounts of up to 25 percent off regular rates based on when and how much they drive.
But it requires more than the honor system. It requires people to plug a small device into the steering column of their car, which then uses the car's computerized systems to monitor how, when and how much the car is being driven.
"On average, people who drive more have more accidents than people who drive less," said Michele Strub-Heer, product manager for Progressive Direct, which is offering the insurance.
Progressive's program, called TripSense, is "for people who drive fewer miles than the average or drive at less-risky times of the day," Strub-Heer said. "For us, we're always looking for more accurate ways to price insurance. And we can reward people who take control of their driving habits, drive less and drive less risky."
$10-per-year car-insurance is coming -- and it will not be because of conflicted-interest pay-at-the-pump arbitrary-social-control schemes.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 3:18 am
25 Jun 2007
think of this adapted to SUVs...
And I don't like the car tagging idea - there are horrible Big Brother implications.
Whiskerfish
Permalink
JMG Posted 3:32 am
25 Jun 2007
Save the world: Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 5% annually.
Permalink
Whiskerfish Posted 3:42 am
25 Jun 2007
WF
Permalink
Nucbuddy Posted 4:18 am
25 Jun 2007
Cars in the right gear and close to stall do not lift weight up hills near the rate of 33,000 foot-pounds-force per SAE-certified horsepower unit per minute? How did you glean that?
Sam Wells wrote: Engineers always govern their engines, motors, and turbines less than 90% horsepower as a safety margin.
caranddriver.com/columns/10822/larry-webster-horsepower-confusion-and-resolution.html
the rules have changed a bit. For example, the power-robbing power-steering pump must now be installed on the engine when measuring engine horsepower if it is part of the vehicle's normal equipment.
[...]
Dodge rates its Viper V-10 at 510 horsepower, even though a randomly selected V-10 that was plucked from the assembly line and broken in according to DC's usual cycle developed 512 horsepower on the dyno run for the designated witness.
Sam Wells wrote: So, now you know those HP numbers really don't mean very much
A car SAE-certified-rated at twice the horsepower of another will not lift weight up a hill at twice the rate?
Permalink
greenvoice Posted 9:03 pm
25 Jun 2007
Join our campaign at http://www.greenvoice.com :"make your next car a little greener"!
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 2:16 am
26 Jun 2007
You know the ones in the commercials where they are always like dropping bags of cement and pianos and boulders into the bed of some triple size truck and then they get in the cab and drive off with a steam locomotive in tow.
How will THEY survive?!?!
We must insure their eco-sustainability now!
John Bailo
You Read It Here First
Permalink