Another day, another fascinating article.

[MaltonNecromancer]

I think this article is quite interesting. You may too.

http://theconversation.edu.au/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978

[eldargal]

Rather good, but an opinion is supposed to be something argued for, the problem is people confuse opinions with belief. On a vaguely related note, I'll never forget once being criticised on the BoLS blog for admitting I got something wrong and apologising for it. Apparently you're supposed to stick with your beliefs in the face of evidence to the contrary no matter what, I guess all those debating classes at school didn't prepare me for the rigors of modern intellectual life afterall.:rolleyes:

[ElectricPaladin]

This is an interesting article, and I think it makes some good points. However, I think it phrases it the wrong way. The fact is that I am entitled to my opinion, and I have the right to say whatever I want. That's that. No amount of pointing out my wrongness or my ignorance is going to take that right away from me. What I don't have is a right to assume that my opinion should be accepted as perfectly valid by every audience.

In other words, it's less that I'm not entitled to my opinion, and more that all opinions are not created equal.

For example, take global warming. The facts point overwhelmingly to a change in the climate thanks to human intervention. Of course, it can't be proved, exactly, because proving anything for sure in science is very hard (see above re: evolution), but it's definitely the best idea we've got so far. Practically every accredited and peer-reviewed study supports this theory; practically every study that attempts to undermine it either fails or turns out to be not properly accredited or reviewed. Just because some non-scientist has the opinion that global warming is a conspiracy or a mistake doesn't make it so. That opinion is valid, in that you can believe whatever the heck you want, but it isn't true.

However, because of the rules around politics in the media - and the sense of entitlement that this article is pointing out - you get to trumpet your opinion and insist on its validity, even when the entire world of educated scientific professionals knows that it's bunk. The only "controversy" is manufactured by the over-inflated availability of contrary information, not its reliability.

The same applies to evolution, as I've mentioned, vaccination, and a bunch of other issues.

Nevertheless, attacking people's right to an opinion is the wrong way to go about it. You can't stop people from having thoughts! However, you can propose that people approach new ideas with a humility and open-mindedness, and you can insist that the media stop feeding the availability heuristic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Availability_heuristic) with BS pseudo-controversy reporting.

[eldargal]

What EP said, except:

The climate change example isn't a particularly good one, there are sceptics in the IPCC, for example, and significant other issues with the way the debate is being held or even what 'climate change' means. For example there is a body of evidence that suggests up to half of all climate change in the US alone may be the result of land clearance, not greenhouses gases. Still human induced but counter to the accepted wisdom that carbon dioxide is causing it, so it gets ignored. Then there is the fact that the temperature changes recorded are within the margin of error for the recording instruments themselves and we don't have a long enough satellite record to see how accurately the two mesh. Point being it isn't as simple as one side is right with the science on their side and the others are just opinionated laymen.

I'm not a scientist, but I m an archaeologist and many of the techniques used to gather evidence on ancient climate were pioneere by archaeologists or for archaeology. Frankly it makes me sick how they are being abused, and they are. We know, for example, that even the current high tempature in 1998 was still lower than those in the medieval warm period which in turn was not as warm as the Roman period in Europe. So the response to this inconvenient fact? Release a study done in a few dozen trees in Siberia 'proving' that the MWP didn't happen, in defiance of the vast, vast bulk of evidence accrued by archaeologists over the past century.

[DarkLink]

Yeah, and I've seen a few other sources of things like that that make me question the global warming newslines, like the whole climategate thing, and the news that the one of the groups that initially promoted the idea of global warming admitted that their records showed that temperatures hadn't risen in the last decade. I'm no climatologist, and I don't disagree that there's plenty of polluting going on, but I know half of the stuff on the news is bull. It's just hard to tell which half.


Diet and nutrition is similarly confounded. Do a little research, and you'd be amazed at how much nonsense is floating around. Even governmental guidelines are practically complete bull****. No matter America is so fat, when wheat and bread is supposedly more important to your diet than fruits and veggies, and meat is somehow bad for you.

[ElectricPaladin]

Yeah, and I've seen a few other sources of things like that that make me question the global warming newslines, like the whole climategate thing, and the news that the one of the groups that initially promoted the idea of global warming admitted that their records showed that temperatures hadn't risen in the last decade. I'm no climatologist, and I don't disagree that there's plenty of polluting going on, but I know half of the stuff on the news is bull. It's just hard to tell which half.


Diet and nutrition is similarly confounded. Do a little research, and you'd be amazed at how much nonsense is floating around. Even governmental guidelines are practically complete bull****. No matter America is so fat, when wheat and bread is supposedly more important to your diet than fruits and veggies, and meat is somehow bad for you.

Ok, ok, so I admit that in retrospect, climate change was probably a bad choice. Though, I will point out that right or wrong, the only reason that half of what you hear on the news is counter to climate change is because of "fair and balanced coverage." With all due respect to Eldargal's entirely valid critique, half of all scientists do not question climate change. Most of those who question climate change are a very small, very vocal, and very well-funded-by-dubious-means minority. And among them are a few actual scientists with more valid concerns.

[eldargal]

Exactly, which is why I'm saying it makes a poor example.:) There are plenty of educated scientists who think so to, to cite one example (http://epw.senate.gov/hearing_statements.cfm?id=266543)from a reputable source. My fathers closest friend is a phsyicist and member of one of the worlds oldest science insitutions, and he once sent me this:


The Questions:
Is climate change real?
Is climate change caused by humans?

The Activist:
Yes!
Yes!

The Disbeliever:
No!
No!

The Sceptic
Maybe?
Maybe?

The significance of the MWP isn't that it means climate change isn't occuring, rather that it makes the current increase in temperature less significant. So it had to go to raise the urgency in the public mind. That is not good science, and all it has done is fuel the sceptics/denialists which, if you are a believer, can only be a bad thing.

It's interesting because again archaeology comes into it, during a seminar on the evolution of homo sapiens we were told we evolved on a diet of fruit, nuts and meat and that wheat and bread are relatively recent (c10000 years). Meat is considered the more important of the trio because it gave a great deal of energy and nutrition for little digestic work, unliek vegetables and fruit which struggle to break even. Wheat/bread gives good energy but low nutrition. Or something, I don't specialise in this area.


With all due respect to Eldargal's entirely valid critique, half of all scientists do not question climate change. Most of those who question climate change are a very small, very vocal, and very well-funded-by-dubious-means minority
Edit: I have a headache and I'm not writing what I'm trying to say, one last try:

To paraphrase Albert Einstein, it doesn't require one hundred scientists to overturn a theory, just one fact. It doesn't matter how many scientists are believers/deniers if they are wrong. The problem with the entire debate is that it is being undertaken in an utterly despicable manner by both sides. The crucal thing in the leaked Climategate emails wasn't the 'trick' that the media focused on but two things. One were letters from a computer modeller talking about things like scientists who yelled at him when their computer models produced results they didn't like from their data. Another was concrte proof, in the form of emails, of a concerted attempt by 'alarmist' scentists to prevent the publication and peer review of sceptic articles and to prevent sceptics from being appointed to prestigious positsion or receive research grants.
As to funding from dubious sources, I assume you refer to oft-repeated claims that sceptics are tainted by money from 'Big Oil'. Both Shell and BP fund HADCRU, one of the four institutions providing global climate change models and the source of the Climategate leaks. Why isn't their research considered tainted?

See above re: despicable.

[Wolfshade]

As it has been said:

A belief is not merely an idea the mind possesses; it is an idea that possesses the mind
Also

For a believer no proof is necessary; for a sceptic no proof is possible
Also reminded me of this dilbert:
http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/100000/60000/6000/800/166860/166860.strip.sunday.gif

[Psychosplodge]

Wasn't there a leaked internal memo that was quickly hushed up, that suggested there was no evidence of human effect on climate change, but it was a useful stick to implement "green tax"

[Wolfshade]

In terms of the green debate there is a quite sensible argument made:

If global warming is real:
If we do nothing then it will get worse and lead to flooding drought and all those nasty things
If we reduce emissions then it will not worsen and we avoid those issues

If global warming isn't real:
If we do nothing then nothing happens
If we reduce emissions then nothing happens

Based on the risk the prudent option is to assume that it is real and do soemthing about it. Even if we just get fringe benefits like becoming non-dependant on oil, reduced congestion (through better transit systems), fitter population by walking if only to/from the bus/tram stop or train station.

[Psychosplodge]

I like the if we do nothing and it gets worse I'll probably be dead anyway so it doesn't matter. If they were serious about it they'd be building more failsafe(not the Ukrainian and Japanese design) nuclear power stations, doing away entirely with coal, gas and oil power stations.

[eldargal]

Psychosplodge is right. France generates most of its electricity through nuclear power and produces something like one third of the carbon emissions that Germany doe with similar amounts of power consumed, cars on the road and heavy industry etc. They are emitting roughly what they did in 1970 which is the goal most developed countries are aiming for. Wind power, solar etc. just do not cut it. If you believe that climate change is an existential threat to the world then the benefits of nuclear power VASTLY outweight the risks. Yet we see little action on nuclear power (well a little in Britain...). The great irony is that the same thing used to prophesy the effects of climate change (computer models) were also used to show that nuclear power is really very safe.

There are also other issues, for example if climate change is being caused by land clearance rather than carbon dioxide then we should be putting more money into combatting land clearancein developing nations that curbing emissions in developed nations.

However, things like not burning petroleum we should certainly be doing anyway, and most good sceptics will agree. It is too valuable to burn to power automobiles. Coal, well, maybe, it is quite polluting carbon dioxide aside. Not sure about gas.

[Psychosplodge]

Hydrogen is the way forward for cars, I believe BMW have demonstrated an engine burning hydrogen gas that produces more power than it's conventional equivalent. It's lack of infrastructure that's holding it back now.
Over population is the biggest cause of increased resource use, and while ever life expectancy and death rates in countries with little contraceptive improve it's only going to get worse.

[Denzark]

Some interesting things here. I disagree with the article merging 'entitled to an opinion' and 'freedom to say what one likes'. Freedom of thought is the only true freedom we have. Freedom of speech is more difficult. Your opinion may be that **** (insert ethnicity here) should all be kept in cages to be used as batteries like humans in 'The Matrix'. However you are not necessarily free to express that opinion.

Indeed, one could express an opinion based on fact - ie something like 'I think **** (insert nationality here) are dirty and unhygienic becuase when I visited their country most of the populace wipe their bums with their hands. This may still fall short of what society will let you say publicly.

What level of freedom of speech does Venezuala, or China or North Korea have? Indeed if your opinion was anti-state whether or not you said it out loud you may still be an undesireable.

The other part that amuses me is no mention of how this entitlement - to hold and within societal limits, express an opinion, is arrived at.

The root of this is not some inalienable human right, but merely because 'rough men stand ready in the night to visit violence on those who would do us harm'.

No protection of democracy, no entitlement. Simples.

[Psychosplodge]

deleted

[eldargal]

I think you're missing the point slightly Denzark (or maybe I am?). I don't think the article is saying 'you have no right to express yourself/hold an opinion', I think it is saying 'you have no right to have your opinion treated as equally valid to all others if you can't back it up with evidence'. So when he says his students aren't entitled to an opinion, he means they have to argue in support of that opinion for it to be accepted, it doesn't get an automatic pass just because it is their opinion.

[Wolfshade]

I was surprised in reading various things that in the USA freedom of sppech is that unless you are inciting lawlessness. In the UK you have issues concerning offense and such like.
I think my dilbert comic is quite relevant today.

[Denzark]

@ EG I think you are missing the/my point dear lady but I'm sure its my fault because I didn't express myself very clearly!

I like his premise. I like it as a teaching technique. But it hides to some extent the truth of entitlement to an 'expressed' opinion*. A well argued fact based opinion is not your entitlement to express it. For example I am sure even someone with my limited grasp of macroeconomics could successfully argue that the reason behind hyper inflation in Uganda at the time of Idi Amin, was his Excelleny's barking fiscal policy. However to voice said well reasoned opinion could result in your humble correspondent ending up as the ensuing course to a succulent trout a la creme.

So a valid opinion is in itself not self-empowering - although in the closeted safe world of academia it adds a legitimacy which all academics rightly seek - is there a higher achievment for an academic than to be seen as a repository of justifiied fact?




* I clarify with expressed opinion because an un-expressed opinion is irrelevant in this instnace, and because Thought Police don't exist - the black baggers only come out to play once the transgressing words cross the threshold of one's filthy sewer.

[Sean_OBrien]

I think you're missing the point slightly Denzark (or maybe I am?). I don't think the article is saying 'you have no right to express yourself/hold an opinion', I think it is saying 'you have no right to have your opinion treated as equally valid to all others if you can't back it up with evidence'. So when he says his students aren't entitled to an opinion, he means they have to argue in support of that opinion for it to be accepted, it doesn't get an automatic pass just because it is their opinion.

That is the way which I read it - and than I laughed because someone who I would guess is a philosophy professor stuck in a throw away jab in the form of the global warming comment and then went on to use something which is borderline nut job to attempt to prove his opinion on opinions.

Those who hold the opinion that vaccines are dangerous are generally sad individuals who have had the unfortunate circumstance of having a kid who was born with some level of genetic defect that led to autism. They grasp at any straw to explain away what they have had happen. Then of course you have the tin-foil hat types who are unstable and latch on to any conspiracy which might come along - especially if it is a grand conspiracy which ties big business and government together to control people and do damage.

By comparison, although a plurality of "climate scientists" might agree that global warming is happening, man caused it and we are all going to die as a result - that is not a position which is held by all scientists...not even all environmental scientists. Even one of the biggest talking heads (Monbiot) who routinely cites that 97% of the 1300 some odd climatologists polled agree with the above statements of the IPCC also has a list of 500+ scientists who have published peer reviewed studies which contradict the IPCC in one way or another (either there is no significant warming beyond natural cycles, it is there but not man-made or it is there, it might be man-made but it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things). Might just be me - but 500+ is not an insignificant number. They are often dismissed though because they are not specifically climate researchers (though their findings are significant to the general discussion).

Astrophysicists will explain how the Sun's cycle of activity has been causing warming and cooling trends for hundreds of years based on historical data which we have access to. However the true believers ignore the research, discount the findings and generally attack those who are doing the studies as being unqualified to speak on the subject because they are not "climate scientists".

Meteorologists argue that various models used to prove that we are all going to die as a result of global warming are inaccurate or flawed because they do not appropriately considered significant mechanics of the weather cycle. One of the most striking flaws in the modeling is that dry areas would get dryer and wet areas would get wetter. However, weather doesn't work like that. Moisture from wet ground is taken into the atmosphere and then it moves. It doesn't hang out in one spot. When the wet air gets over dry land, the thermal uplifts of the dry land tend to create thunder heads which of course cause rain...there is a natural balancing process in the weather cycle which will prevent England from becoming a boggy mess and the Midwest of the US from becoming the Sahara 2.0...at least without some significant change to things like prevailing winds.

Hydrologists and meteorologists also say that the modeling doesn't take into account the impact of water vapor in the air. Although they like to point out some form of run away effect that will occur when ice sheets melt exposing dark land and water - when temperatures increase, water vapor and cloud cover increase as well. Both of those actually reflect as much solar energy as the ice sheets do, and they do so at higher altitudes meaning more of it is reflected prior to it entering the lower atmosphere where it would have an impact on surface temperatures.

Botanists (both those who are studying current plant growth and those who study past plant growth) are at odds with climatologists as well. Those who study current growth point to the manner in which carbon dioxide impacts plants and their uptake of carbon dioxide. Studies have shown that an increase in CO2 results in a corresponding increase of growth and CO2 uptake. This has two important factors to the discussion. The first is that the plants will remove more CO2 from the air if there is more CO2 available. The limiting factor in growth is actually the availability of CO2. The second is that there is an increase in "fruit" production as well. This means that the likelihood of food shortages is slim given that as the CO2 levels rise, so will the production of plants.

The second goes to the example which eldargal cited. Historical botany researchers have found various plant seeds and other matter trapped in fluvian plains which indicate that global temperatures were much higher than they are now (not by the 1 or 2 degrees predicted by the IPCC but by upwards of 8 degrees) in the not so distant past and more than once during the Halocene Epoch. These warm periods generally corresponded to increases in civilization as well which would tend to point to an easier life for humans as opposed to a harder one plagued by storms, droughts and other harsh weather.

And of course you have those of us who grew up in the 1970s. During that period - there was a general downward trend in global temperatures that lead to a consensus being formed amongst "climate scientists" that we were entering into a new ice age period. It was taught in public schools and well published and documented. To make matters worse, there would be no more fossil fuel left by the year 2000 and we would all have to revert to harvesting wood for heat.

Those of us who survived then and still recall the soothsayers are exceptionally wary of Peter's cries. Especially when they are accompanied by groups who claim the science is settled without addressing the science itself.

[DarkLink]

Though, I will point out that right or wrong, the only reason that half of what you hear on the news is counter to climate change is because of "fair and balanced coverage."

Kinda. I'm actually thinking of some local news that this summer was the second hottest in the last few decades, obviously due to global warming. Except the hottest summer on record was in the 70's. So I'm like 'I want some real science'.

Frankly, I'd worry more about how to recycle plastics than about co2 emissions. Building a city below sea level is a stupid idea anyways.

[DarkLink]

Hydrogen is the way forward for cars, I believe BMW have demonstrated an engine burning hydrogen gas that produces more power than it's conventional equivalent. It's lack of infrastructure that's holding it back now.

Hopefully something is. Have you heard about Obama's new auto guidelines? They literally pull doubled mpg out of nowhere. You can't take a design that's been constantly refined over the past hundred years and magically make it twice as efficient basically overnight.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Be thankful you're not in the UK when it comes to cars. Petrol here currently sells for around £1.39-ish per litre. That's around $1.80 per litre/$8.10 per gallon.

Efficiency here isn't so much a matter of law as a matter of necessity. Plus, I don't believe you chaps have to have an MOT test every year, which I always find a little surprising, which is at least another £100 a year expenditure minimum (assuming they find nothing wrong. Which never, ever happens).

Cars are just a joyless, damnable expense.

[Mud Duck]

Hopefully something is. Have you heard about Obama's new auto guidelines? They literally pull doubled mpg out of nowhere. You can't take a design that's been constantly refined over the past hundred years and magically make it twice as efficient basically overnight.

Yes we can! Remember it's a grand conspiracy between the oil companies, car companies, the Rotchild's and the Masons to keep the public reliant on gas! =)

[Sean_OBrien]

Hopefully something is. Have you heard about Obama's new auto guidelines? They literally pull doubled mpg out of nowhere. You can't take a design that's been constantly refined over the past hundred years and magically make it twice as efficient basically overnight.

More than most people actually realize it is an impossibility.

Right now, an extremely efficient infernal combustion engine can achieve roughly 35% efficiency - the energy put in in the form of gas being burned to create energy to move the car forward...35% goes towards moving the car forward, the other 65% is lost to things like frictional losses within the engine and drive train, thermal losses through the radiator and cooling system and even the noise produced itself is lost energy. Normal modern engines are at or around 30% efficient.

The theoretical maximum efficiency of an engine which burns a fuel source (whether it is a traditional infernal combustion engine, diesel or something more exotic like a turbine) is 63% based on the laws of thermodynamics as applied to the Rankine cycle...it also happens to apply if the fuel is petrol, alcohol, hydrogen or coal.

So, if you were to double the average efficiency (MPG) of the engine to have the same performance specifications (towing ability, load hauling, internal capacity, acceleration, top speed) you would need to approach or exceed the maximum achievable efficiency of the engine. However, that is a theoretical limit which is in reality unachievable. It assumes a complete negation of frictional losses and the only lost energy ends up being excess heat energy - something which isn't actually possible.

So - what is the end game? Moving the ball of course. In order to push the electric car (which doesn't play be the same rules) they put in an unobtainium restriction on gas engines. Car manufacturers will have to sell more subcompacts like Smart cars, Fits, Rios, Versas and other things in order to balance their mileage charts. Granted, you can't pull a boat with a Versa...and an electric car, with the battery that looses half its potential energy in sub-zero weather and another 5-10% running the resistive heaters to keep from dieing of exposure won't take off in a country where half the population lives North of the Mason-Dixon.

Few years time and enough corrosion from salt laden slush in the snow belt...should be interesting for class action lawyers (yes...two different issues, though not exclusionary).

[DarkLink]

Efficiency here isn't so much a matter of law as a matter of necessity.

Refer to Obrien's comment, as that was exactly what my comment was about. It's not a matter of law, it's not a matter of necessity, it's a matter of what is actually physically possible.

[Psychosplodge]

Hopefully something is. Have you heard about Obama's new auto guidelines? They literally pull doubled mpg out of nowhere. You can't take a design that's been constantly refined over the past hundred years and magically make it twice as efficient basically overnight.

I'm not sure how you figure that, american engines are somewhat pathetic compared to the power/size ratio that comes out of Europe. It's always funny when they have muscle cars on top gear and are all this is a 5litre v10 and it produces nothing in the way of hp compared to this v6 3.2 litre BMW engine...

So maybe he's just bringing you into line with that? Though without seeing the actual thing who knows?

[Wolfshade]

Certainly there has been a huge efficiency boost in recent years, we are looking at some engines with efficiencies that are better than 2 stroke engines. You can get 88 mpg in petrol engines, in terms of outputs you have 1l which are now the equivalent of 1.6l it is possible, but you have to have the desire to do it.

[DarkLink]

Ok, so your average car has say 25mpg. Something around there. That includes trucks and SUVs and other low-mileage vehicles, of which there are a lot in America because, don't forget, we are much more rural and spread out than most of England.

Obama's guideline is to get the average over 55mpg, more than doubled. Currently, the only vehicle that I can think of that can even touch that is the Prius, a car specifically designed for the sole purpose of being extremely fuel efficient.

There is some room for improvement. But I promise you, European cars don't get that much better gas mileage. If the guideline was, say 35mpg, it might be fiesable if you could convince people to buy Prii (plural for prius) instead of SUVs. 55mph, however is completely absurd and completely detached from reality.

It's also important to point out that alternative fuels, hybrid vehicles, etc, are similarly lacking in a clear cut answer. We use gas because it is extremely fuel dense and pretty efficient. Hydrogen is a desirable option not because it's an inherently better fuel, but simply because it mostly eliminates fuel emission pollution. Hybrids and electric vehicles are a red herring, because that electricity still comes from somewhere, and likely as not it's from an equally dirty source such as a coal plant. The fact that you need to stick two engines into a hybrid vehicle, combined with the fact that batteries have a very low energy density compared to gasoline, limit the efficiency gains you can squeeze out of your vehicle.

I'm not a mechanical engineer, but civil engineering covers a lot of the same stuff as mechanical engineering does, and I can tell you that there is no magical solution that those dirty oil companies are secretly hiding from us that is holding back engine efficiency. Engines and cars are almost as efficient as we can make them. It's an extremely mature technology. You can squeeze out an extra MPG here and there with clever tricks, you can shift your designs to lighter and thus a little more efficient designs (but at the expense of things like safety and power), but unless someone masters cold nuclear fusion in a suitcase tomorrow, more than doubling the average MPG of the world's vehicles is literally impossible.

[DarkLink]

That's not to say that we can't see some improvements. I'm a fan of this thing, though it wouldn't work well in cold weather: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20060227/free/302270007

[Psychosplodge]

25mpg? I get nearly 38 (without effort)in a 15 year old mondeo, I wouldn't consider getting owt with less than 30 ever, and you're starting off at 25? I suppose if you paid our fuel prices your manufacturers would make the cars more efficient.
A lot of the "blue motion" type cars they sell average around the 55mpg on paper. Prius are a con as they don't actually give you the claimed milage and they are full of heavy metals.

[Wolfshade]

We used to have an engagement team who were always on the road, they had fleet cars of for focus, they were between the team averaging over 50mpg, it is not that hard you just need to convert power to torque efficently, something which american cars do not seem able to do, that is probably because there is no desire to do so as the fuel price is so low. VW have a range of vehicles the blue motion which are 80mpg+, Fiat 500's are 70+,
et al -> http://www.nextgreencar.com/best-mpg-cars/

[Sean_OBrien]

I'm not sure how you figure that, american engines are somewhat pathetic compared to the power/size ratio that comes out of Europe. It's always funny when they have muscle cars on top gear and are all this is a 5litre v10 and it produces nothing in the way of hp compared to this v6 3.2 litre BMW engine...

Completely different on so many levels.

You can't compare the output of a 5L v10 to the output of a 3.2L v6 and say that because the output of the 3.2L is the same or higher it is more efficient (it likely is...however you are looking at the wrong numbers). You need to compare the actual power output compared to the energy input to determine the efficiency. For example, my little toy car has a 2L engine and when I am hammering it about, it gets about 16 MPG but produces nearly 400 HP. I also have a big truck with a 5.7L engine that tows my trailers and what not which gets around 16 MPG and also has around 400 HP as well.

The two engines are completely different, however when used to a similar level of stress - they get comparable mileage out of the energy put into them. Granted, when I am not towing a boat or hauling a load, the truck gets almost 20 MPG and the little car gets almost 30 MPG...however at that point I am not actually using the peak power output of the specific engines.

The laws of physics apply and limit the potential improvements. Without something new, we will not see significant increases in efficiency beyond the 35% level. That will mean smaller engines and smaller cars in order to meet the arbitrary mileage numbers which really do not accurately reflect real increases in efficiency (because if you were to overload that small engine it would run at a reduced efficiency and increased wear and potential for failure than an efficient large engine).

[Psychosplodge]

You may say that, I just know they always mock them as under performing compared to what's readily available in the rest of the world, I missed Japan and Korea off before, when in reality they are at least on a par with what Europe producers.

[Wolfshade]

Compare the engine sizes and horsepower differences between the Dodge Viper the and Jaguar XJ220, then compare top speeds. The issue is inefficiencies in converting power to torque.

[Sean_OBrien]

You may say that, I just know they always mock them as under performing compared to what's readily available in the rest of the world, I missed Japan and Korea off before, when in reality they are at least on a par with what Europe producers.


Compare the engine sizes and horsepower differences between the Dodge Viper the and Jaguar XJ220, then compare top speeds. The issue is inefficiencies in converting power to torque.

I think there might be a little bit of a translational difference between British and American...

Power and Torque are two different things when applied to cars. Again, going back to my own garage - that little 2 liter engine gets a bit over 400 bhp at peak and around 300 ft/lb of torque. The pickup gets right around 400 bhp and almost 500 ft/lb of torque at peak. The two engines are designed for different things though, so the power is available in different RPM bands (my Imp it is all high revs while the truck has low end torque to pull trees up by roots and what not).

Neither of those are referencing the efficiency. If you watch Top Gear, you will notice from time to time whoever is driving mentions how fast the fuel is being drank away on the track. I can get 30 mpg with the cruise control set driving on the interstate in my Imp, but if I am hammering the gears on the track and winding the engine out till the redline hits just in time to drop the gear and here the waste gates fire off before hammering it again around a corner on the track or a back mountain road - I am lucky if I get 16 mpg.

Regarding the specific comparison between something like a Viper and the XJ220 there is also no exact comparison which can be made just off the numbers which you site. Things like top speed will be determined by the aerodynamics, gearing and redlines of the engines in question. Acceleration is something that you can look at though 0-60 in 3.4 for the Viper and 3.3 for the Jag. The horsepower relating to displacement is misleading though as it doesn't take into account the impact which turbochargers have on the effective displacement of an engine compared to naturally aspirated engines like used on the Viper.

The increased air being forced into the cylinders prior to combustion by the turbo chargers will allow a 2 liter engine to produce power comparable to a 2.5 or 3L engine depending on boost levels. However, the air alone won't produce more power - you need air and fuel. That is why when my little car is being abused it doesn't get better gas mileage than my big truck even though the engine is less than half the size. The turbochargers are forcing so much more gas and air into the cylinders each cycle than a regular engine is able to suck in of its own accord on the intake stroke.

That said - there are a lot of problems in US car design...though most of them actually are more relating to fitment of parts than actual inefficiencies. Someone who is a glutton for punishment can pick up a crate engine from one of the Detroit companies, balance and mill the parts and get numbers which are comparable to what comes out of the European and Japanese companies for the same size engine. That has minimal impact on the mileage and efficiency in normal driving though.

[DarkLink]

25mpg? I get nearly 38 (without effort)in a 15 year old mondeo, I wouldn't consider getting owt with less than 30 ever, and you're starting off at 25? I suppose if you paid our fuel prices your manufacturers would make the cars more efficient.


On average.

I drive a Toyota Echo. I get 42mpg on the freeway. Most people don't drive Echos. For Americans, a car's utility has traditionally trumped it's fuel efficiency. We drive SUVs and trucks and such, because you can do all sorts of stuff with SUVs and trucks, from hauling trailers to loading up for a road trip to driving in the mountains. The fact that they got poor gas mileage has only recently become a concern here. People are slowly transitioning to smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicles.

And it's not a matter of how efficient our engines are. We have engines typically tuned for extra power, for the utility, but our fuel efficient models are just as efficient as yours.




A lot of the "blue motion" type cars they sell average around the 55mpg on paper. Prius are a con as they don't actually give you the claimed milage and they are full of heavy metals.

55mpg on paper. That's closer to 50 in reality, and we're talking about cars specifically designed for fuel efficiency. But Obama's projected 55mpg average is just that, an average. That's including utility vehicles like trucks and SUVs. Meaning that we need to have cars getting 70+mpg to balance out all those 30mpg big cars, assuming you can even get a Ford F350 up from 10mpg to 30mpg. Which you can't. It's blatantly obvious that it's not realistic. And most Americans would laugh you out of the room for even mentioning a smart car or something similar.

Edit:
It's also worth noting that some of those smart car type vehicles are simply not practical for many Americans. Driving needs in most of the US are very, very different from in Europe.

[Psychosplodge]

@Sean O'Brien, so your suggesting the difference in similar size vehicles is shoddy workmanship coming out of detroit?


On average.

I drive a Toyota Echo. I get 42mpg on the freeway. Most people don't drive Echos. For Americans, a car's utility has traditionally trumped it's fuel efficiency. We drive SUVs and trucks and such, because you can do all sorts of stuff with SUVs and trucks, from hauling trailers to loading up for a road trip to driving in the mountains. The fact that they got poor gas mileage has only recently become a concern here. People are slowly transitioning to smaller, lighter, and more fuel efficient vehicles.

And it's not a matter of how efficient our engines are. We have engines typically tuned for extra power, for the utility, but our fuel efficient models are just as efficient as yours.
Everyone's fuel efficiency goes up when you're cruising on the motorway, cause you're not accelerating. I know last time I went to the south coast, about the same distance I cover in a week, and it only cost me half as much as normal to fill up(despite fuel being more expensive further south).
Had to look toyota echo up, why do you have to rename everything?:D also why they put a boot on a yaris ? O_o


55mpg on paper. That's closer to 50 in reality, and we're talking about cars specifically designed for fuel efficiency. But Obama's projected 55mpg average is just that, an average. That's including utility vehicles like trucks and SUVs. Meaning that we need to have cars getting 70+mpg to balance out all those 30mpg big cars, assuming you can even get a Ford F350 up from 10mpg to 30mpg. Which you can't. It's blatantly obvious that it's not realistic. And most Americans would laugh you out of the room for even mentioning a smart car or something similar.

Edit:
It's also worth noting that some of those smart car type vehicles are simply not practical for many Americans. Driving needs in most of the US are very, very different from in Europe.
Sorry looking it up on the VW site, Wolfie's figures are more accurate, it's apparently possible to return figures I stated from a modern diesel estate...

[Wolfshade]

I think the thing is that it is possible, you just need the desire to, we still have our fair share of large engine cars, one of the first cars I brought was a 3l v8 which was an absolute beast on the motorways I would be getting 30/40 mpg, driving urban milage I would be down to below 20. Back then it was costing £70 to fill up and that was when fuel was less than £1/l.

I am not sure that US & UK driving requirements are all that different, in both countries the majority of the population live in urban environments (76% and 86% respectively).

What is different is peoples attitudes, and they are changing. As fuel prices rise, in the UK I believe that they are amongst the highest in the world, the average Joe starts to value fuel efficiency but they also do not want to have their driving experiance suffer as a result. In your garage, I doubt that the majority of people would need a truck and certainly not for pulling up roots. Similiar with SUVs, there is now a breakaway group of 4x4s which are designed for urban environments. The more people are interested in fuel efficient engines that still deliever the same torque (developing power is the easy part, converting it to torque is the difficult part). Interesting, it is electric engines which are so much better at creating torque than normal internal combustion. Why not harvest energy from while under braking? I am looking at getting an electric car for my urban driving, the thing which is currently stopping me is the re-charge time. If that can be brought down, or maybe use plug and play battery packs (such as in some renaults). The technology isn't quite there, but it is damn close.

Obama is creating the demand for efficiency, he is driving it and industry will catch up. The more efficient you become the further your resources go and the longer term you can look. I for one do not want to be held to ransom by OPEC who manipulate price something terrible.

[Psychosplodge]

See if I had a workshop I'd consider converting a roof mount for a landrover or van and borrow power off the overhead tramlines...

[Wolfshade]

A Trolly landy :)

I really want a defender 25, but I have no reason to have one and the fuel is crazy.
Fiat did a little 4x4 Panda, which is quite awesome.

[Psychosplodge]

I want a QT Wildcat....but A Defender to play with instead would be potentially fun...

[Wolfshade]

Wildcats are landys turned up to 11 zoom!

My brother in law is floating about in his 390z but is looking at possibly the evoke (he and my sister work for jaguar landrover) to do more rugged stuff like carrying canoes and stuff

[Psychosplodge]

The modern ones don't have the same appeal, if it's new I'd be worrying about keeping it in good nick rather than enjoying it properly...

[Wolfshade]

Yeah that is why I'd like an old 25 need a screw driver or an allen key at can total deconstruct the beastyy

[alshrive]

A Trolly landy :)

I really want a defender 25, but I have no reason to have one and the fuel is crazy.
Fiat did a little 4x4 Panda, which is quite awesome.

I had the luck to be able to trial one of these once and they are an absolute hoot to drive off road! they are just bonkers little things that look so out of place amongst the other competitors (predominantly series 2 and 3 land rovers!)

[Wolfshade]

One of my mates lives in rural wales and has one for him and one for his wife, and driving doqwn their 500yd dirt track drive you realise why they have it. We visited over new year the once and there was snow and ice and those things just kept going, kept grip and we flew past some people in there more poncy never-been off roaders

[Psychosplodge]

yeah, the pretend ones just can't compete. I remember when we had the floods in 07, a colleague was in his 110, and the police were advising a particular road was shut, but they also told him an x5 had just gone up it, so there was no way he wasn't following it lol.

[alshrive]

allow me to share what i now drive when off-roading

3005

my dad was a nutter and built it himself and i sometimes go off-roading with him (he is an off-road driving instructor for landrover experience)

[Psychosplodge]

Cool, needs a roll cage and more spots, and painting black....

It can't be that hard building your own, they had a series following a wench doing it in one of the monthly landrover mags :D

[Wolfshade]

It makes me smile :)

[alshrive]

it was awkward because that that actually has the working of a Range Rover underneath! and that is a 100inch wheelbase. the vehicle my dad made is an 88, which means hacking a foot out fo the middle of the workings of a range rover! oh i remember the cursing...

[Psychosplodge]

Nice. Surely there was a parts supplier to provide the appropriate conversion kit, there seems to be for everything else for custom builds...

[alshrive]

what is the point in that! the manly approach involves looking at it and then taking a giant tool to it! and if that doesn't work it can always be fixed with the application of further giant tools!

[Psychosplodge]

Less swearing? Though you can still hit with a big hammer...

[Wolfshade]

It is for this reason that I love scrapheap challenge!

[Psychosplodge]

I love the idea of entering, the reality is i'm not quite that practical lol.

[alshrive]

i would just completely abandon the challenge that they have set and end up making a set of garden furniture or something! not sure how good a table will be a competition to hurl burning logs across a lake (or whatever ridiculous challenge they set that day!)

[Psychosplodge]

As longer as you did a proper job...

[alshrive]

yes we should all become members of the Barley Pickers!

[Wolfshade]

Lol fail epically :)

[Psychosplodge]

you can only do that by setting out to do the epic...

[Wolfshade]

Yes and suitably elaborate

[Psychosplodge]

Indeed, definitely over complicate it...

[Denzark]

Right derailers. If you were going to crayon over an interesting massdebate with 4x4 wet dreams, you could at least have got the ultimate. Defender 90 SWB. Add a V8 Snatch engine. Landrover of the Gods ensues.

[Psychosplodge]

Prefer the 110.

[Wolfshade]

I still think the 25 is cute because it is so tiny :)

One thing we seem to all agree if you want to off road do it in a defender

[Psychosplodge]

Pretty much...

[Wolfshade]

Oh noes the interent is broken we have consensus!

[Psychosplodge]

It's ok, we have division within the consensus!

[Wolfshade]

Fiat Panda 4x4 1.2l all the way abay!

[Denzark]

LR Wolf...

[Wolfshade]

LR?

Edit:
Land Rover?

[Wolfshade]

Also, for those still trying to get 55mpg

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-19894031

[Denzark]

LR?

Edit:
Land Rover?

Yer. The UK Milspec Landy. Known as Wolf - allegedly an acronym for Wheel on left fairing - where the spare sits. The urban myth was that these would do 90 - but when they did they would automatically start to drift left (or maybe right I forget). Supposedly cue squaddies crashing as they tried it out.

[Wolfshade]

You learn something new each day.
I know a former policeman (retired) who drove an experimental gas turbine for trials for the motorway patrol group, the thing really flew, unfortunately it had issues going at slow speeds, below 50

[Sean_OBrien]

You learn something new each day.
I know a former policeman (retired) who drove an experimental gas turbine for trials for the motorway patrol group, the thing really flew, unfortunately it had issues going at slow speeds, below 50

All in getting a proper transmission set up. The Abrams uses gas turbines and has not problems going below 50. Then there is also this:

http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/cars/custom-built/ecojet-definitive-edition/index.shtml#item=66551

Mostly bits from Corvettes with a custom body and a turbine from a Bell 222. Top end gearing should allow it to do 245 mph. 0-160 mph faster than a T-38. Funny enough though, it is named "Ecojet" but it burns 8 gallons of diesel per hour at idle, 14 gph at highway speeds and 57 gph at full throttle. That ends up giving it a 5 mpg highway mileage number.

[Wolfshade]

lol that is not perhaps that good.

One thing that confuses me/irritates me is unit analysis of mpg.
Miles, that is in length not a problem.
Gallon, that is a volume and so can be expressed in terms of miles^3,
so Miles/Gallon could be re-written in miles^2 which is an area :o

[Drunkencorgimaster]

I'm not a scientist, but I m an archaeologist and many of the techniques used to gather evidence on ancient climate were pioneere by archaeologists or for archaeology. Frankly it makes me sick how they are being abused, and they are. We know, for example, that even the current high tempature in 1998 was still lower than those in the medieval warm period which in turn was not as warm as the Roman period in Europe. So the response to this inconvenient fact? Release a study done in a few dozen trees in Siberia 'proving' that the MWP didn't happen, in defiance of the vast, vast bulk of evidence accrued by archaeologists over the past century.

This is exactly right. Well, actually I don't know about you being an archaeologist or not but the rest of this is certainly accurate. It is very curious how these historical warming periods keep getting ignored in the discussion. I've read bizarre arguments that have tried to claim the warming was regionally limited to northern Europe alone. If that was the case how is it that elephants lived in northern Chine in the Shang Dynasty (c. 1500BCE)? Or Vikings found grapes in Newfoundland in 1000?

[Psychosplodge]

LR Wolf...

They're properly amphibious aren't they?

[Denzark]

They're properly amphibious aren't they?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_Rover_Wolf

Apparently so - I didn't know. In summary, with a snorkel for windscreen depth and a special Royal Marine varaint that can be fully submerged. I don't know if this is a wah and no one has edited it out. Ask Aldramelech if he rocks up any time soon!

[Psychosplodge]

Nah I'm pretty sure it's true, a lad I used to work with wanted one, and it's fording ability was part of the reason. He was a proper hardcore offroader lol

[Sean_OBrien]

Properly amphibious...no. By properly amphibious I am refering to something like a LAV or one of the many WWII era duck type vehicles that could function as a boat or a land vehicle.

However, the LRW and vehicles like it are designed where as long as air is coming into the intake and there is enough pressure on the exhaust to overcome the water pressure (or has an additional extension there as well) you can drive it through water which entirely covers the engine and much of the passenger compartment.

http://img3.photographersdirect.com/img/22442/wm/pd3355102.jpg

It isn't properly amphibious in the sense that it can float, merely that when you are driving through deep water an extension on the intake allows it to keep air coming in and it can drive through water which is much deeper than conventionally designed trucks. I have a similar setup on my FJ for the same purpose - granted, for me it is less about making amphibious assaults and more about getting about in the event of a hurricane or other flooding in the local area.

[Psychosplodge]

Yeah, poor choice of wording, but amphibious is a lot shorter than can wade to the depth it's windscreen...

[Sean_OBrien]

Pertinent article...not to Rovers or to Opinions - but to what a big chunk of the thread ended up covering:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217286/Global-warming-stopped-16-years-ago-reveals-Met-Office-report-quietly-released--chart-prove-it.html

I do find it funny though that back in 2009 when the trend was first getting noticed, Jones said - it will only be significant if it lasts for 15 years. Now that it has lasted for 16 years, he says it will only be significant if it lasts till 2019... Hard to actually debate an issue when one side moves the goal posts for you constantly.