h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

For goodness sake, Dave. I explained it, read it again! Why do you keep saying the same thing over again? If you read the replies, you'll be updated and you won't need to repeat the same nonsense.

Try that!

no you didn't. 1st, there's more sports cars in use than the ones you listed. 2nd, glorifying super cars like the ones you listed leads people to buy "less" super sports cars, but sports cars nonetheless. All of these sports cars waste gas, the same as trucks. Re-read your post, but replace the word "truck" with the words "sports car". It works just as well...

dave

Dave you seem to be confused about the difference between sports cars and supercars.

Sports cars usually don't use significantly more fuel than ordinary family cars of the equivalent size. What makes them sports cars is the difference in design. Often they'll be convertibles, often they'll have ride and handling packages that make them more responsive to use. Often it's inbuilt lightness coupled with changed gear and final-drive ratios that make them faster. The engines will be modified to make them more efficient and produce more power (sometimes at the expense of longevity) but they usually DON'T use up more of the world's valuable natural resources than a normal family car.

Supercars are expensive, purpose built hi-tech machines from manufacturers like Aston Martin, Ferrari, Lotus, Lamborghini, Porsche... They do use fuel at higher rates than an ordinary car. But they are made to such exacting standards and such high prices that they are sold in comparitevely tiny quantities. They are very rarely used as every-day transport, because they're usually an investment. Owners are keen to maintain their resale value and high usage erodes it. They're contribution to the world's overall fuel usage is not significant at all. These cars are a great deal safer than an average car to use because their superb handling makes an accident almost impossible, even with a moron at the wheel and their superior engineering and uprated brakes means their stopping distance is greatly reduced. Also, the great majority of supercars ever made are still in use. They tend to be meticulously well preserved and if they ever do deteriorate, they're restored and kept as a classic. meaning they're a very efficient use of the world's limited source of non-recyclable materials.

Grotesque, overweight Americans climbing into their enormous 4x4s just to go down to McDonalds to stuff their faces with cheese burgers, are a far greater threat to the Earth's finite natural resources. The fact that they value this indulgence so much that they find it necessary to invade Iraq and murder thousands of innocent people just to maintain it, is particularly offensive.

You make several factual points that I wish to agree with
1) sports cars don't use more fuel than family cars
2) they are designed differantly (ie convertible)

They use the same amount of fuel, but can transport a lower number of people. So at the end of the day, when it comes to x number of people were moved y miles on z gallons of petrol, a sports car is less efficient than a family car.

This is the same problem as a truck. You can get trucks that easily have the same gas mileage as family cars - but you're still only moving 2-3 people. In this case a truck is BETTER than the sports car b/c it can haul other things.

dave

ARRRGGHHH!

To answer your two points:

"They use the same amount of fuel, but can transport a lower number of people."

In theory, perhaps. But in reality, just observe a busy road during rush hour sometime. Most vehicles, of any size, have one person in them - two at the most. Most vehicles on most trips carry one or two people.

If a person buys a two seater car, they make that choice knowing that it will never be required to carry more than two people. Otherwise, why buy it? These cars do what they are purchased to do.

"You can get trucks that easily have the same gas mileage as family cars - but you're still only moving 2-3 people. In this case a truck is BETTER than the sports car b/c it can haul other things."

Again most trucks in America in private hands are used in the same way as a private car. Very rarely do they carry anything other than a fat American.

And it's very rare that a truck does the same gas-mileage as a car - unless it's a truly enormous car.

ive got a push bike,no fuel, no expense, no war,no problem,no, gridlock, no roadrage,...................no sweat.......((well some ))

By push bike you mean not a motorcycle? Me too. It gets around the city actually about as fast as a car, what with the lights & traffic.

dave

Yep, I've got a bike too. There's nothing like it for fitness.

Hello all.

I have some figures for fuel consumption of the McLaren F1, the world's fastest production road car. it can do a minimum (*minimum*) of 15mpg, whereas the Hummer can do a maximum (*maximum*) of about 10mpg. If you're lucky. so - draw your own conclusions.

The hummer is more useful than the F1, good point.

Actually the Hummer is one of the least useful vehicles ever concieved. It's too wide for most roads and incredibly difficult to drive in the real world. It was intended as a military vehicle and should never have been sold for civillian use.

Its only real use is to satisfy dumb Americans who have never grown up and have a desperate need to play with irresponsible, unnecessary toys.



Hi Dave

How useful is an F1 on real roads? Granted, the hummer shouldn't be in general use, but obviously neither should the F1. And, if you were to list conceivable uses that someone might have for a vehicle, the hummer would satisfy more of those than the F1.

dave

Dave, clearly you don't know what the McLaren F1 is. It's a three seater road car. Designed and made by the McLaren formula one people. It is extremely hi-tech and uses large amounts of carbon-fibre and aluminium.

Although it was designed about twelve years ago, it's still the fastest road car in existence, bar none.

Because it's built to last, it's a great contributor to ecology.

Because it's extremely comfortable and fast, it's practical transport.

Because it has superb handling, a central driving position and uprated brakes, it's extremely safe.

Because it costs about a million dollars, you'll probably never see one.

an ecological car that gets 15 mpg? Now that's one I would have put beyond even you.

dave

AH I can see your confusion, allow me to help.

One of these is an impractical wasteful mode of transport converted from a military design purchased by the fashion concious rich.

The other is an impractical slightly less wasteful mode of transpot converted from "sporting" use purchased by the fashion concious super-rich.

They both cost too much for what they actually do and in terms of damage to the environment neither of them is worth as much as a push bike in terms of energy input to distance travelled and they only serve the peupose of salving the egos of peolpe with too much cash and not enough sense.

Everything else you can say about them is meaningless chin music.

quite right blicky, I couldn't have said it better.

dave