Living Car Free - What's a car, what's car free?

I've noticed most posters seem to have different notions as to what cars are, or car free living is. Naturally, the whole "box on wheels" comes up, but velomobiles fit this desciption, so there goes that. Maybe including an engine would concrete this definition? Nope, plenty of velomobiles have electric motors. Ah, then what about an internal combustion engine? Well, ok then, that works, kinda...
But wait there's more! Plenty of people consider motorcycles/mopeds to be car free, but they have wheels and IC engines... In fact, due to their "open" construction they're much more inefficient, inconvient, and polluting than *similar small cars. What about a 2-cycle engine strapped to the back of your bicycle? Bah? :roflmao:
Other aspects to consider, why are people "car free"? Do they dislike pollution, inefficiency, congestion, the release of carbon dioxide and various pollutants into our environment, or do they just hate cars? Kinda like those who just hate barn owls, or shovels, or cupcakes. 4 rlz guyz.
Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that while disliking current production auto's can have plenty of reasonable justifications, disliking (and attacking) the whole notion of a car and advocating "car-free'ness" because of any one of the (rational) aforementioned side effects (pollution, etc...) is just nuts. Why? Well, those side-effects aren't a direct result of any inherent characteristic of the car, they're a side-effect of fascism. Cars are cars, the can be designed to different specs depending on use, or more importantly, intended use. What if a small "car" using a small efficient IC engine is actually better for pollution, congestion, etc... than using a bicycle? Ehhhh?
So, anyway, intelligent comments, not so intelligent comments, umpa-lumpas, and things are welcome!

*shame these aren't in production any more, but that's facism for ya.

I've noticed most posters seem to have different notions as to what cars are, or car free living is. Naturally, the whole "box on wheels" comes up, but velomobiles fit this desciption, so there goes that. Maybe including an engine would concrete this definition? Nope, plenty of velomobiles have electric motors. Ah, then what about an internal combustion engine? Well, ok then, that works, kinda.

To me, "car" is a colloquial term for a motor vehicle, privately owned, and used for personal transportation. A city bus is not a "car", nor is a cab, or a delivery truck. An electric car, or a hybrid, is still a "car". So, when I advocate for people to be car-free (and cities to be car-free) I mean "no private motor vehicle for personal transportation."

While that is certainly a debatable definition, it works for me because generally everything that I would call a "car":

- generates air pollution (except the few all-electric)
- involves a great deal of manufacturing, accompanied with pollution
- ties down a great amount of resources for private use (metal, plastic, etc.)
- needs a lot of room (road) to operate
- is not human-powered
- is a shamefully inefficient way for one person to travel
- is pretty much evil incarnate ;)

I'm iffy on motorcycles, I guess if we could have emission-free ones they would be less objectionable to me, since they need a fraction of the space and resources of a car.

Wait just a minute! Are you promulgating heresy here?! Any internal combustion engine is going to produce CO2, and phytohydrocarbons, plus a host of other things not good for the lungs or the planet, and with the onset of peak oil, we also have to consider the future availability of fossil fuels. (No more oil = a whole bunch of misery) In my book, a motorcycle is better than a car, a moped is better than a motorcycle (smaller engine, less fuel per mile, less CO2 per mile), and a bicyle is better than all of these. Bikes, in my opinion, are possibly the most efficient form of personal transport ever devised, and should be encouraged. I'm not saying that those who own IC engines are evil, mind you. Just thoughtless and short-sighted, or maybe just poorly informed. (Just so you know: I have an 8hp outboard on my sailboat, so I'm as guilty as the next guy. But I'm thinking of switching to oars.)

i'd say car-free means you don't own or regularly use vehicles as heavy or heavier than what they typically carry, with the inefficiency, large footprint, and high-speed potential this generally implies. the gold standard is a bicycle. even a "heavy" assisted velomobile is a lot closer to a bicycle than a typical motorcycle or small car in the power/weight/speed departments.

... In fact, due to their "open" construction they're much more inefficient, inconvient, and polluting than *similar small cars.
Show me a small car that has a MSRP of $3K, costs under $200 a year to insure, and gets over 60mpg. There is no comparison. All this pollution per passenger mile crap that people spout about a SUV being better than a bike is complete BS, because most SUVs and cars only have one or MAYBE 2 passengers, but they are far from the 7 used in the calculations. My mother carpooled my entire youth and it was a very odd day that the van was full to capacity. You will never convince me a car is better than a bike for pollution, unless we are comparing 4 bikes to 1 car and that just doesn't happen in the USA.

Oh.. this'll be interesting! Allow me to address each one of your car characteristics...

- generates air pollution (except the few all-electric)
Like you stated below, manufacturing generates pollution, and use also generates pollution (especially in a city (with the exception of France/EV's)), since virtually all aspects of power generation are fossil fuel (FF) based. Most generation of electricity is done via FF's (except for France). Since we are talking about citys, personal generation via renewable methods (wind, solar) is much harder due to codes, etc.. and even EV's contribute to pollution. Given transmission losses, they end up accounting for ~ as much pollution as an equivalent diesel powered vehicle would, with differences in certain pollutants.
- involves a great deal of manufacturing, accompanied with pollution
Yes! Autos today are huge! Boats on wheels!
- ties down a great amount of resources for private use (metal, plastic, etc.)
Eh... Not strictly a problem considering those resources probably wouldn't be used for much else, but still, large size is related to poor efficiency, etc...
- needs a lot of room (road) to operate
Yes, huge ginormous monsters!
- is not human-powered
Well... Here's an interesting tidbit. Are humans more efficient than engines? Nope, not by a long shot, but we are more flexible than them.
- is a shamefully inefficient way for one person to travel
3000-8000lbs to move 200lbs of flesh and bone, most definitely inefficient. That's like having 80-160lb backpacks, or 5000-10000lb fridges!
- is pretty much evil incarnate ;)
In it's current incarnation, sure. :)

Now, the point I'm trying to make is that a car is the sum of it's parts. And in the case of today's autos, the sum of their parts is way too much. Vehicles that have been been (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messerschmitt_KR200) made (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_Isetta) over a half century ago use less fuel then the majority of our "environmentally friendly" hybrids. And it's not like the technology for 300-800mpg personal vehicles doesn't exist (http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/gw/vw1litre.htm). However, manufactrers purposefully build inefficient, polluting, large POS's. There are cuttung edge vehicles (http://www.physorg.com/news70040977.html) that get insane mileage in slow speed (15-25mph, sounds like downtown LA) conditions... And can get even better with drivetrain upgrades. Anyhow, my point is that these vehicles are very close to the cutting edge of automotive design and they probably create less pollution and are more efficient than almost everything else out there. They're so efficient that riding a bicycle is criminally inefficient in comparison. Why? Well, when riding a bicycle there's drag, lots of drag, so much drag that simply lowering the profile and adding a body can roughly double the vehicles speed. Well, ok, so there's drag, so what, the bicycle isn't powered by nasty FF's! But wait, it is...
Cycling requires that you consume more food than you would need to if you didn't cycle, and the large majority of food is grown using FF instensive processes, and is then trucked hundreds of miles from where it's grown. That's a huge overhead! Then we must consider the efficiency at which humans metabolize food, and transmit force to the pedals to move us so to speak (Also the impact of creating enough room so we can pedal properly has on vehicle aerodynamics, etc...), probably not the best, and almost definitely not better than an efficient diesel engine (~50% thermal efficiency). But where could we get fuel for these small diesels? Why locally of course. Lets assume our efficienct vehicles could get ~1000mpg, which seems pretty realistic. If the diesel engine was designed to run on plant oil, then each person would only need 1/20th of an acre worth of jatropha curcas to provide them with enough fuel to go 10,000 miles per year. naturally I wouldn't be growing this in apartment, but it could easily be done in hectare plantations within the city, or even in landscape. Other plants are viable as well.
Anyway, the point I'm trying to make is that cars can be more efficient at moving people than bicycles, better for the environment etc... Just because they aren't made doesn't mean the technology doesn't exist, it does and has been documented. It just means that the manufacturers design them to be inefficient, those manufacturers are people too (ok, maybe not ;)), albiet people who want to encourage consumption so they can make more money but people nonetheless. The fault, dear patc, is not in the cars, but in ourselves...

:D

P.s. If you need any references/further explanation don't hesitate to call me out on anything.


Show me a small car that has a MSRP of $3K, costs under $200 a year to insure, and gets over 60mpg. There is no comparison. All this pollution per passenger mile crap that people spout about a SUV being better than a bike is complete BS, because most SUVs and cars only have one or MAYBE 2 passengers, but they are far from the 7 used in the calculations. My mother carpooled my entire youth and it was a very odd day that the van was full to capacity. You will never convince me a car is better than a bike for pollution, unless we are comparing 4 bikes to 1 car and that just doesn't happen in the USA.

Well, you can get an older Honda civic (or vw diesel, but Hondas have emissions controls on them so we'll leave out the diesel for now) and with a combination of engine/aerodynamic modifications pull at least 60mpg (~40-50mpg stock) for around $3k. Complete insurance is ~$300 a year for me (vw diesel with max collision, etc... the whole bit), and I've been getting ~45mpg street ~50mpg city. The problem with comparing motorcycle (and diesel) pollution to gas powered automobile pollution is that motorbikes/diesels aren't regulated as strictly (if at all, at least until recently). For example, most don't even have catalytic converters, one of the first, most basic forms of hydrocarbon emissions reduction. Nevermind the levels of CO, NOx, and god knows what else... Odds are a motorcycle pollutes more than a passenger car because they have fewer emissions systems (barring CO2 of course, but that's not a pollutant, just a GHG). Given that your 250cc bike is ~10-20% of the size/FA of an older diesel vw or honda civic (or geo metro), don't you think it's a bit criminal that you're only getting 10-20% better mileage? And only slightly better than twice the mileage of the average four cylinder auto...


Wait just a minute! Are you promulgating heresy here?! Any internal combustion engine is going to produce CO2, and phytohydrocarbons, plus a host of other things not good for the lungs or the planet, and with the onset of peak oil, we also have to consider the future availability of fossil fuels. (No more oil = a whole bunch of misery) In my book, a motorcycle is better than a car, a moped is better than a motorcycle (smaller engine, less fuel per mile, less CO2 per mile), and a bicyle is better than all of these. Bikes, in my opinion, are possibly the most efficient form of personal transport ever devised, and should be encouraged. I'm not saying that those who own IC engines are evil, mind you. Just thoughtless and short-sighted, or maybe just poorly informed. (Just so you know: I have an 8hp outboard on my sailboat, so I'm as guilty as the next guy. But I'm thinking of switching to oars.)

Heresy witha twist! An internal combustion engine will only introduce more CO2 into the environment if we use a hydrocarbon that used to be out of the environment. Growing our own fuel can be easy if done correctly and the uses are to scale. In terms of energy availability, peak oil is only a concern to FF companies because they need to keep consumers hooked and allow the transition to a nuclear fission baseload/renewables on their terms. This way they can make as much cash as possible. It's not like we lack energy, fission can safely and effectively provide power for our society NP. But it's not as profitable because the owners can't externalize costs as easily, they must account for their waste streams etc...
France has a great nuclear program, they buy our nuclear waste, run it through their reactors to create more energy and reduce the size/intensity of the radioactive waste. Win, win! By the time they're done they have significantly less waste they we do and it's radioactive for a much shorter period... And new reactors haven't been built in 30 years iirc, there's tons of room for improvement. Now compared to ~3 million deaths from energy related pollution (WHO), nuclear power has a practically spotless track record. Like I stated before, biofuels (plant oil because of it's energy density and ease of use) are probably best for transportation fuels, where energy density is an advantage and production is as easy as letting the plant grow seeds. Well designed vehicles and emissions systems as well as hcci technology (a bit in the future) can provide clean, cheap, and reliable personal transportation.

To further your grad thesis- examine the social cost's of cars. Do a spreadsheet of 40k people dying a year going someplace they expected to arrive. Tabulate the isolation of a personal transportation system built on status and finacial achievment.
On a personal note, tell us what would happen if everybody did what you do, drive or bike.

To further your grad thesis- examine the social cost's of cars. Do a spreadsheet of 40k people dying a year going someplace they expected to arrive. Tabulate the isolation of a personal transportation system built on status and finacial achievment.
On a personal note, tell us what would happen if everybody did what you do, drive or bike.

Also include the societal costs of obesity and depression. Both of those issues are great for creating inefficient drag, through space and in our economy.

Don't forget the value of fun that can be experienced on a bike. :)

Early in the OP's post I thought he was trolling. I turned out to be wrong; thanks for bringing the radicals out. That's what I like about this subforum.

Is the OP suggesting that technology is inherently neutral in its effect?

http://www.bagophily.com/images/barf.gif
Don't you have something else to do? Anything?

Well, you can get an older Honda civic (or vw diesel, but Hondas have emissions controls on them so we'll leave out the diesel for now) and with a combination of engine/aerodynamic modifications pull at least 60mpg (~40-50mpg stock) for around $3k. Complete insurance is ~$300 a year for me (vw diesel with max collision, etc... the whole bit), and I've been getting ~45mpg street ~50mpg city. The problem with comparing motorcycle (and diesel) pollution to gas powered automobile pollution is that motorbikes/diesels aren't regulated as strictly (if at all, at least until recently). For example, most don't even have catalytic converters, one of the first, most basic forms of hydrocarbon emissions reduction. Nevermind the levels of CO, NOx, and god knows what else... Odds are a motorcycle pollutes more than a passenger car because they have fewer emissions systems (barring CO2 of course, but that's not a pollutant, just a GHG). Given that your 250cc bike is ~10-20% of the size/FA of an older diesel vw or honda civic (or geo metro), don't you think it's a bit criminal that you're only getting 10% better mileage? And only slightly better than twice the mileage of the average four cylinder auto...
To get that kind of mileage from that kind of car you'd have to find one that was flawlessly maintained (near zero probability), do all the work yourself (you obviously don't value your time), and I'm 23 and never had a car so insurance on that sucker would be at least 3x what you pay. The brand new motorcycle is much more reliable as well, something that I value when I am 300 or more miles from home for the weekend. I paid $2K for my bike with 540 miles on it. If I wanted to invest a grand and unlimited time I could get much better mileage from it, it will be more reliable, and have many more miles to go than the car. In addition, my little scoot can spank anything except a sportscar off the line, and that's something that makes me smile :). Find me something that'll go 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds and get that mileage. I'm betting yours does 0 to 60 on a good day ;). Sure, something that couldn't get out of it's own way could get better mileage than my bike, but if anything I'm considering trading some mileage for performance and getting a 600 that gets abot 45 mpg. Still beats the 25 or 30 of a passenger car, and the 15 of a similarly performing car. It's all about priorities, and having some fun on something cheap is one of mine :)

Don't forget the value of fun that can be experienced on a bike. :)
Take away half the wheels and the motor and it's more fun
Just take away 2 of the wheels and you are in for something truely addicting and unforgettable :D

As a young male my doctor was talking to me about my various risk factors.

He listed motorcycle accidents as among the top killers of people in my demographic. I wonder if this is true?

To further your grad thesis- examine the social cost's of cars. Do a spreadsheet of 40k people dying a year going someplace they expected to arrive. Tabulate the isolation of a personal transportation system built on status and finacial achievment.
On a personal note, tell us what would happen if everybody did what you do, drive or bike.

Geez, I wish this was a grad thesis, I'd be in hog heaven. Unfortunately I'm just BS'ing after doing a bit of research... Not only do ~40k people die in acidents each year, at least 30% (probably 40-60%) of automobile accident deaths happen to unwitting victims. Plus the ~40-60k that die each year due to complications from emissions. So you have a ~1 in 280 chance of dying from something transportation related that's not even your direct fault, unlike cholesterol or smoking. Small rigid cars are where it's at, accidents wouldn't be nearly as bad if there was only ~400lbs of stuff being thrown around at ~55mph. That, with fast local electric rail (maglev), and plenty of walkable/bikable paths is where transportation should be. That's about where it was before GM killed the electric trolley...
Something especially hilarious, out here in southern california one of freeways (91) is horrible, and there was an idea of sticking another highway through a mountain range between Riverside and Orange counties (lots of commuters), for something like 40-60 billion! WTF... For that kind of cash they could buy a 1l type car for every commuter on the 91, doubling it's carrying capacity, and reducing emissions, while saving lots of people a$$loads of cash on gas. With the same result.


Is the OP suggesting that technology is inherently neutral in its effect?

Pretty much, stuff generally does what people design it to, and it can generally be redesigned. However market forces tend to preclude this and create some nasty, stagnant situations. Kinda like how auto efficiency hasn't changed much over a century. For every technological advance we've made in autos, cars only get bigger and faster, with more gadgets than you can poke a stick at! The same can be seen in housing, energy production, essentially all the markets where the big players have enough to influence government, so much so they've practically become government, or at least individuals. ;)


To get that kind of mileage from that kind of car you'd have to find one that was flawlessly maintained (near zero probability), do all the work yourself (you obviously don't value your time), and I'm 23 and never had a car so insurance on that sucker would be at least 3x what you pay. The brand new motorcycle is much more reliable as well, something that I value when I am 300 or more miles from home for the weekend. I paid $2K for my bike with 540 miles on it. If I wanted to invest a grand and unlimited time I could get much better mileage from it, it will be more reliable, and have many more miles to go than the car. In addition, my little scoot can spank anything except a sportscar off the line, and that's something that makes me smile :). Find me something that'll go 0 to 60 in under 6 seconds and get that mileage. I'm betting yours does 0 to 60 on a good day ;). Sure, something that couldn't get out of it's own way could get better mileage than my bike, but if anything I'm considering trading some mileage for performance and getting a 600 that gets abot 45 mpg. Still beats the 25 or 30 of a passenger car, and the 15 of a similarly performing car. It's all about priorities, and having some fun on something cheap is one of mine :)

Nah, maintence is only obliquely related to efficiency. Weight (street), Frontal Area (FA,hwy), and Coefficient of Drag (Cx,hwy) are the primary factors. My vw was $400 and has most of the interior ripped out, a rattle can paint job, the engine held together by straw and bailing wire (I'm surprised it hasn't fallen out), and 350k miles on the it (original engine), but it still gets ~40mpg street with ~800lbs of people in it and starts up every time. I have a cb650 I need to get road worthy so commuting in traffic won't be as much of a pain, but in terms of performance and efficiency, I'd ultimately go for one of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdkEV-t9jg0) with a ~250-300hp vw v6 tdi, AC/heater, stereo, and removable body panels. Can you image how much fun 400ft/lbs of torque would be in a ~1000-1200lb vehicle. Probably get ~100mpg and run on biodiesel... :D

P.s You should look into fairings, you might be able to double your highway mileage!

Geez, I wish this was a grad thesis, I'd be in hog heaven. Unfortunately I'm just BS'ing after doing a bit of research... Not only do ~40k people die in acidents each year, at least 30% (probably 40-60%) of automobile accident deaths happen to unwitting victims. Plus the ~40-60k that die each year due to complications from emissions. So you have a ~1 in 280 chance of dying from something transportation related that's not even your direct fault, unlike cholesterol or smoking. Small rigid cars are where it's at, accidents wouldn't be nearly as bad if there was only ~400lbs of stuff being thrown around at ~55mph. That, with fast local electric rail (maglev), and plenty of walkable/bikable paths is where transportation should be. That's about where it was before GM killed the electric trolley...
Something especially hilarious, out here in southern california one of freeways (91) is horrible, and there was an idea of sticking another highway through a mountain range between Riverside and Orange counties (lots of commuters), for something like 40-60 billion! WTF... For that kind of cash they could buy a 1l type car for every commuter on the 91, doubling it's carrying capacity, and reducing emissions, while saving lots of people a$$loads of cash on gas. With the same result.


Saving people a lot of cash on gas isn't in the best interest of the people making decisions.

I think that lyeinyoureye is just an NSA or FBI bot sent to convince us to take part in a conspiracy.

As a young male my doctor was talking to me about my various risk factors.

He listed motorcycle accidents as among the top killers of people in my demographic. I wonder if this is true?
IF your state doesn't have a helmet law, yes. It's easy to be stupid on a motorcycle, but that doesn't mean you have to be. I ride with gear and frankly feel more at ease on difficult roads than I do on my bicycle. I can get out of a cager's way, keep up with traffic, and don't do stupid stuff (like wheelies and stoppies).

When I crashed it was a combination of a car stopping in front of me (I think it was insurance fraud aimed at the mercedes SUV behind me) and me being tired (not enough thyroid meds), sick, and malnourished (has been fixed now, found out about some food allergies). I walked away from it and my worst injury was a sore muscle in my hand. Bike did need a couple hundred worth of parts (I'm anal about keeping it looking kind of nice) and I bought some new gear. In a car I'd have gotten some pretty bad whiplash and probably still be seeing a chiro, but I know how to fall (limp, roll, think happy thoughts). It's all about being aware of the risks and minimizing them.

There's no way a person on a bike even comes close to the energy consumption of a person in a car, no matter how much ff-produced food the bicyclist eats. I mean, do the math:

over a distance of 1km:

Prius: 13,140 N (2890lbs) X 1000m = 13, 140,000J energy used per km

Person on bike: 230N (for a 50lbs bike) X 1000m = 230,000J energy used per km

That's a difference of 98.3%. That's a lot of bagels.

This is very generous, too. It doesn't take into account the inefficiency of the car (90% total energy lost as heat, maybe 80% for a hybrid), nor the amount of energy it takes to manufacture a car vs. a bike. To equal the car's energy use, the person on the bike would have to eat a LOT, over 3,000 calories per km, which is clearly absurd. It makes sense if you think about it; I mean, try pedaling a car.

PLUS, people who drive everywhere they go eat, too, in some cases more than bicyclists. Come on, admit it; how often have you seen a guy in a minivan eating a burrito at a stop light?

Pretty much, stuff generally does what people design it to, and it can generally be redesigned. However market forces tend to preclude this and create some nasty, stagnant situations. Kinda like how auto efficiency hasn't changed much over a century. For every technological advance we've made in autos, cars only get bigger and faster, with more gadgets than you can poke a stick at! The same can be seen in housing, energy production, essentially all the markets where the big players have enough to influence government, so much so they've practically become government, or at least individuals. ;)

Maybe primates are naturally more attracted to entertaining gadgets than to the moral standing of future generations and other animals.

I'm not sure as to specifically what you mean by "market". If you are saying that human forces alone dictate the quality of technology's impact, I'd ask you to imagine the physical consequences of technology also. Unforeseen physical realities can determine the outcome of some technology with little input from humans beyond initial creation.

If your definition of market includes both these causalities, then we agree.

Even with all of your statistics, my bike is one of the cleanest ways to travel to which I have ready access. And not supporting the auto industry helps to stir up the stagnation of which you are speaking.

There's no way a person on a bike even comes close to the energy consumption of a person in a car, no matter how much ff-produced food the bicyclist eats. I mean, do the math:

over a distance of 1km:

Prius: 13,140 N (2890lbs) X 1000m = 13, 140,000J energy used per km

Person on bike: 230N (for a 50lbs bike) X 1000m = 230,000J energy used per km

That's a difference of 98.3%. That's a lot of bagels.

This is very generous, too. It doesn't take into account the inefficiency of the car (90% total energy lost as heat, maybe 80% for a hybrid), nor the amount of energy it takes to manufacture a car vs. a bike. To equal the car's energy use, the person on the bike would have to eat a LOT, over 3,000 calories per km, which is clearly absurd. It makes sense if you think about it; I mean, try pedaling a car.

PLUS, people who drive everywhere they go eat, too, in some cases more than bicyclists. Come on, admit it; how often have you seen a guy in a minivan eating a burrito at a stop light?

But I'm not talking about current vehicles. Did you read my second post? Essentially, a cyclist is a low speed flying brick, and since small efficient diesel engines are more efficient than human legs, and it's easier to move a streamlined vehicle (something like leaner, meaner velomobile) through the air, then one of these vehicles with a small diesel would be much more efficient than a cyclist. It's just physics.
Now why are cars so big, well.. that's how the money goes. Same reason fatty and sugary foods are sold, etc... because some people can make more money that way.


I'm not sure as to specifically what you mean by "market". If you are saying that human forces alone dictate the quality of technology's impact, I'd ask you to imagine the physical consequences of technology also. Unforeseen physical realities can determine the outcome of some technology with little input from humans beyond initial creation.

Even with all of your statistics, my bike is one of the cleanest ways to travel to which I have ready access. And not supporting the auto industry helps to stir up the stagnation of which you are speaking.

Essentially, it's a mix of both human whims, and physical limitations/realities. The problem is, it can be a bit hard to distinguish the two, however in the face of obvious proof that hyper-efficient? autos can be built, then it must be human forces, namely those controlling the business' that control the market, keeping auto efficiency down. It'd be one thing if these were offered and no one bought them, but they're not! And every auto offered today is about as efficient as an auto offered a half century ago.

Anyway, my point is that being "car-free" is somewhat short sighted because cars aren't inherently inefficient, they're just designed that way by people. And given the physical constraints that cyclists and cars have, cars can ultimately be much more efficient. Not that cycling's a bad thing, it's fun, gets my blood pumping, and makes me cheerful. But it's certainly not the most efficient form of transportation out there (in all cases), which is what I'd like business to produce. In terms of economics, it's like grocery stores not offering fruits and vegatables because they don't sell as well. It's something that should be an option given it's minimal cost, ease of production, and benefits to society and the consumer.


I think that lyeinyoureye is just an NSA or FBI bot sent to convince us to take part in a conspiracy.

Maybe... :D

Guys, I am car free and enjoy it. But I would like to say that this car hating thing is really quite tiresome. Where do we get our food from and how is it transported? Transportation of Consumables is the #1 use of transportation energy in the United States according Richard Heinberg, a peak oil scholar. Also, where does our energy at large come from? If you're from the east coast, there is a good chance that the majority of it is coal fired plant power, or bio mass which is burning either wood or plant material to create heat, but in turn releases carbon into the air. How about, instead of indiscriminately talking **** about cars we look to understand their proper uses and how to maintain them. I see plenty of people prattling on and on about SUVs who own poorly maintained geo metros and yet, the GEO will have more emissions than a SUV that has been taken care of.

I see plenty of people prattling on and on about SUVs who own poorly maintained geo metros and yet, the GEO will have more emissions than a SUV that has been taken care of.

First off, this is a straw man unless you are responding to someone in this thread who drives a poorly maintained Geo Metro.

As for the rest of your statement, care to explain the proper use of cars (not just their proper construction)?

That would be a constructive post. :)

But I'm not talking about current vehicles. Did you read my second post? Essentially, a cyclist is a low speed flying brick, and since small efficient diesel engines are more efficient than human legs, and it's easier to move a streamlined vehicle (something like leaner, meaner velomobile) through the air, then one of these vehicles with a small diesel would be much more efficient than a cyclist. It's just physics.

Ultimately, however, I will never be convinved that one person per vehicle is ever going to be more efficient than public transit. The car vs. bike dichotomy is a simplistic one not reflective of the real options - in a city we have a wide range of options. The fundamental problem with "cars" is that they only support individual use (or very small group use) and are privately owned. In a dense urban setting that's an evolutionary dead-end.

Bikes are redeemed by being human-powered and nearly trivial in their use of resources.

Where do we get our food from and how is it transported? Transportation of Consumables is the #1 use of transportation energy in the United States according Richard Heinberg, a peak oil scholar.

Food is not transported in "cars" per my definition, and the definition used by many car-free advocates. This whole "where does your food/stuff come from" is a tiresome old rant. We could take every last "car" off the roads, and the remaining vehicles (e.g. delivery trucks) would cause relatively few issues.



Also, where does our energy at large come from? If you're from the east coast, there is a good chance that the majority of it is coal fired plant power, or bio mass which is burning either wood or plant material to create heat, but in turn releases carbon into the air. How about, instead of indiscriminately talking **** about cars we look to understand their proper uses and how to maintain them. I see plenty of people prattling on and on about SUVs who own poorly maintained geo metros and yet, the GEO will have more emissions than a SUV that has been taken care of.

Well, you won't see many people on a car-free forum owning Geos, poorly maintained or otherwise. I'm not sure what your point re: energy production is, this is completely unrelated to this discussion. (By "east coast" I assume you mean of the USA? Many countries have an east coast!) I don't know about you, but I am very capable of advocating for reduced car use in urban centres AND also advocating for greener energy and reduces energy use overall.

This thread seems to be turning into yet another car apologist thread.

[QUOTE=lyeinyoureye]But I'm not talking about current vehicles. Did you read my second post? Essentially, a cyclist is a low speed flying brick, and since small efficient <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=92&k=diesel%20engines&st=1" onmouseover="window.status='Search for: diesel engines'; self.ql_skeyphrase='diesel%20engines'; if(window.event) self.ql_sevent=window.event.srcElement; self.ql_timeout = setTimeout('ql_doMouseOver(1)', 1000); self.ql_isOverLink=true; return true;" onclick="if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; ql_closeiframe(); self.ql_skeyphrase='diesel%20engines'; window.status='Search for: diesel engines';return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; setTimeout('ql_closeiframe()', 1500); ">diesel engines</a> are more efficient than human legs, and it's easier to move a streamlined vehicle (something like leaner, meaner velomobile) through the air, then one of these vehicles with a small diesel would be much more efficient than a cyclist. It's just physics.
Now why are cars so big, well.. that's how the money goes. Same reason fatty and sugary foods are sold, etc... because some people can make more money that way.

I kinda like this thread; lyeinyoureye is playing devil's advocate to perfection. Anyway, if we're talking physics (which I tend to do, being a nerd) it doesn't matter how you improve an engine; it always takes the same amount of energy to move a given mass over a given distance. There is no way around this simple fact. The Prius example I gave before was assuming 100% efficiency, which has never happened in any machine ever produced; in real life, it uses a lot more energy than 130,000,000 J/km. Diesel engines, even very small, efficient ones, like that VW engine that gets 265 mpg, are heavy, and will never, ever be 100% efficient. It's always going to take more energy to push a car up a hill than a bike, period, even if you design an engine that has no friction and produces no heat. Unless, of course, you design a car that weighs 50 lbs or less. Electric isn't much better, either, because storage batteries are even heavier than diesel engines, and it takes more energy to charge the batteries than you would get if you just burned the fuel at the power plant. The only way engines can be desirable, from an environmental/resource conservation point of view, is to put them in buses and trains, and then pack those buses and trains with people, like they do in NYC and Tokyo. THAT is truly efficient.

And as for bikes being "bricks" through the air, that's true, but at speeds of 15-25 mph, complaining about air resistance is a bit silly, don't you think?

Bottom line: Private cars are nice, but collectively not worth the huge investment in energy, the resource depletion, and the environmental damage. They're simply not efficient enough to distribute freely among 6,200,000,000 primates with a fondness for velocity. Bikes, in combination with public transport, while kinda boring compared to a BMW 2002, are much more sensible and sustainable. Ditch the car; your grandchildren will thank you.

Although the following may be a very simplistic view, it describes my perspective of what car free means.

I feel the concept is a part of a greater concept, one that essentially come down to this: If you are physically capable and can do something without invoking a tool that adds harm to our future generations and ourselves, directly or indirectly through its employment, then you should do that option. It comes down to how much effort and critical thinking a person is willing to do. It seems many people as successive generations pass are becoming lazier, physically and mentally, and are willing to rely on the easy way that others are willing to provide ( for profit or otherwise ) instead of making an effort themselves to produce or procure what they desire using their given body and mind.

If you can get to the store and shop using a bicycle, even though it might take a couple of trips, you should do that instead of revving up your SUV and inflicting damage to the environment. If you can dig a garden with a shovel and your hands you should do that instead of using a gasoline powered roto-tiller. If you can use your mind to think of alternate solutions ( a better bicycle? ) to your needs you should do that instead of sitting in front of the mind numbing television set.

So car free is to me actually quite simple but does require an effort on the part of the individual.
If you can live without owning and using a car or with one less car then you should do so

Nah, maintence is only obliquely related to efficiency. Weight (street), Frontal Area (FA,hwy), and Coefficient of Drag (Cx,hwy) are the primary factors. My vw was $400 and has most of the interior ripped out, a rattle can paint job, the engine held together by straw and bailing wire (I'm surprised it hasn't fallen out), and 350k miles on the it (original engine), but it still gets ~40mpg street with ~800lbs of people in it and starts up every time. I have a cb650 I need to get road worthy so commuting in traffic won't be as much of a pain, but in terms of performance and efficiency, I'd ultimately go for one of these (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdkEV-t9jg0) with a ~250-300hp vw v6 tdi, AC/heater, stereo, and removable body panels. Can you image how much fun 400ft/lbs of torque would be in a ~1000-1200lb vehicle. Probably get ~100mpg and run on biodiesel... :D

P.s You should look into fairings, you might be able to double your highway mileage!
You can not convince me that a poorly maintained vehicle will get better mileage than a well maintained one. or that anything with 350K on it will require the same amount of care as a new car. Doesn't happen.

There are no touring/highway fairings available for the little ninja. I'm going to change the gearing and get a better windsield that should give me a few extra mpg.

Ahem, excuse me, motorheads: The planet is getting significantly warmer; we're the likely cause. Virtually all the recoverable oil on Earth has been discovered; it's going to get really expensive soon. . In 10-15 years, maybe less, oil will be so expensive only the wealthy will have any of it, and, as a result, other things, like food, medicine, and plastic, may get a lot scarcer too, and during a time of massive environmental/agricultural damage due to global warming. People may start starving in large numbers. Don't you think it's time to start thinking about something besides horsepower? (Yes, I'm astride a high horse, but it's a high horse worth riding.)

You can have your one tall horse, and I'll take a whole bunch of ponies :D

I'm an enigneer. I have faith in my colleagues. Once the car companies realize no one will want to buy a gasoline car, you will be amazed at how quickly they will put out some crazy new designs. They are already in the works now, but most of it won't be released until needed to avoid too much static from the paranoid granola crunchers. You wouldn't believe how much static some of the carbon fiber people get, so I don't blame them.

You can have your one tall horse, and I'll take a whole bunch of ponies :D

I'm an enigneer. I have faith in my colleagues. Once the car companies realize no one will want to buy a gasoline car, you will be amazed at how quickly they will put out some crazy new designs. They are already in the works now, but most of it won't be released until needed to avoid too much static from the paranoid granola crunchers. You wouldn't believe how much static some of the carbon fiber people get, so I don't blame them.


I'm sincerely curious: why would anyone complain about carbon fibers? (I'm kind of a granola cruncher, myself, and, honestly, I've got other stuff on my plate...)

Bleh, it's nanotubes that have it worse. CF just has resins and hardeners that some people get all upset about.

For the nanotubes, no toxicity and more specifically LD50 studies had been done last time I checked. Why? A commercial plant might make 2 kilos a day. It's horribly expensive. Too expensive to feed 1/2 a kilo to a rat (or some other rediculous amount that the rats would need to kill them) for 10 or 20 rats (need to have larger numbers than that for a good LD50). Long term studies haven't been done for the same reason. When it's affordable enough for animal studies then it will be affordable enough for there to be a teensy amount in your everyday life, so it's not really a problem. Heck, I've met lots of nanotube researchers and none of them had any strange twitches or 2 headed children and they are exposed more than anyone else. Greenpeace don't like that, but won't put their money where their mouth is. What else is new?

Don't even get me started on GMO foods. So much science is twisted by organizations so they can get donations to help "fight" it.

I kinda like this thread; lyeinyoureye is playing devil's advocate to perfection. Anyway, if we're talking physics (which I tend to do, being a nerd) it doesn't matter how you improve an engine; it always takes the same amount of energy to move a given mass over a given distance. There is no way around this simple fact. The Prius example I gave before was assuming 100% efficiency, which has never happened in any machine ever produced; in real life, it uses a lot more energy than 130,000,000 J/km. Diesel engines, even very small, efficient ones, like that VW engine that gets 265 mpg, are heavy, and will never, ever be 100% efficient. It's always going to take more energy to push a car up a hill than a bike, period, even if you design an engine that has no friction and produces no heat. Unless, of course, you design a car that weighs 50 lbs or less. Electric isn't much better, either, because storage batteries are even heavier than diesel engines, and it takes more energy to charge the batteries than you would get if you just burned the fuel at the power plant. The only way engines can be desirable, from an environmental/resource conservation point of view, is to put them in buses and trains, and then pack those buses and trains with people, like they do in NYC and Tokyo. THAT is truly efficient.

And as for bikes being "bricks" through the air, that's true, but at speeds of 15-25 mph, complaining about air resistance is a bit silly, don't you think?

Bottom line: Private cars are nice, but collectively not worth the huge investment in energy, the resource depletion, and the environmental damage. They're simply not efficient enough to distribute freely among 6,200,000,000 primates with a fondness for velocity. Bikes, in combination with public transport, while kinda boring compared to a BMW 2002, are much more sensible and sustainable. Ditch the car; your grandchildren will thank you.

But I'm not talking about Priui, or BMW 2002's (nice cars though ;)), or anything remotely related to vehicles on the road today. I'm talking about the concept of a car, compared to the concept of a bicycle.
-Realistically speaking a small turbocharged (TC'd) diesel will be ~30-50% efficient.
-Realistically speaking a 2-3hp high speed diesel/tranny will weigh < 75lbs, probably less considering the 8.5hp engine/tranny in the vw 1l weighs less than 150lbs, iirc.
-Realistically speaking, it's possible to more than double the top cruising speed of human powered transportation, velomobiles, etc... As a matter of fact, these things have gone pretty fast (http://www.speed101.com/)!

Now, do you really think when a human eats, they're more than 30-50% efficient at consuming, metabolizing, and transfering that energy to the wheels? Do you think the optimum aerodynamic profile is that of an enclosed cyclist, or that of an enclosed driver leaning back? As a fellow nerd, you must know that the force a vehicle must overcome to go some speed is composed of the rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and change in potential energy. Rolling resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance) is directly proportional to the weight of the vehicle, just like the change in potential energy. However, the force needed to overcome aerodynamic drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation) is proprotional to the frontal area, drag coefficient, and square of the speed.
If the average cyclist can sprint ~25-35mph riding alone, and some other cyclist in an enclosed bike can hit ~80mph (in 4 miles), what does that say about the amount of drag on the average cyclist? Well, that poor unenclosed cyclist has to expend ~5-7 times more energy than the enclosed cyclist to move at the same speed. That's a lot of drag! And, like I said before, it'd probably be easier to alter the person's position if they weren't pedeling, but were instead driving, further decreasing the frontal area and the drag coefficient. Toss in a 2-3hp drivetrain we're gonna triple or quadruple the power to weight ratio. Granted, this vehicle will probably weigh ~100lbs more than a bike and accelerate like a slow car, but it can hang with traffic and will probably get ~1000mpg, if not more. This technology is all out there.
Now, the human powered vehicle has to contend with a less aerodynamic profile, less power, and worse efficiency. They also need to content with how their food (power source) is grown, transported, and housed before they consume it. That's tons more overhead and further decreases efficiency. Since the energy density of certain crops allows their local use for fuel, we can grow our own fuel locally. However, due to the large size of croplands, we can't do this with our food. In terms of our transportation needs humans are not as flexible as what they create... I'm not saying these are for everyone, a couple miles to the store by bike is nice. But these things could replace cars and have lesser environmental impact then if we were to do the same thing with bikes. So, for long range heterogenous transportation routes, these things would own almost any other form of transportation, and the concept of a car is hard to beat because it is streamlined, efficient, and powerful, even if what's sold to us today isn't.


You can not convince me that a poorly maintained vehicle will get better mileage than a well maintained one. or that anything with 350K on it will require the same amount of care as a new car. Doesn't happen.

There are no touring/highway fairings available for the little ninja. I'm going to change the gearing and get a better windsield that should give me a few extra mpg.

Holy strawman batman! I didn't state that a poorly maintained vehicle will get better mileage than a well maintained one. or that anything with 350K on it will require the same amount of care as a new car. I stated...

Nah, maintence is only obliquely related to efficiency.
meaning that a vehicle in poor condition may see a slight decrease in vehicle efficiency, but it'll never drop to where it's as efficient as a vehicle twice it's size, or with twice the Cx. It just won't fly. My car's burning ~1L of oil every few hundred miles, but it's still almost as efficient as your bike, not because of the shape it's in (bad or good, bad in may case), but because it has a more efficient engine, and lower Cx. Also, you should really look into making fiberglass fairings, they'll do wonders. And as for altering gearing, gasoline engines will always be gasoline engines and always suffer from pumping losses. You can get shorter gears and increase efficiency marginally, but you'll increase wear... naturally it's the opposite for taller gears.


Ultimately, however, I will never be convinved that one person per vehicle is ever going to be more efficient than public transit. The car vs. bike dichotomy is a simplistic one not reflective of the real options - in a city we have a wide range of options. The fundamental problem with "cars" is that they only support individual use (or very small group use) and are privately owned. In a dense urban setting that's an evolutionary dead-end.

Bikes are redeemed by being human-powered and nearly trivial in their use of resources.

yes, there are many options. But what I'm getting at is that "efficient" cars can replace "inefficient" cars and be more efficient that bikes. If you like cycling, then that's your thing, but stating that cars are so horrible and bicycling is so great kinda misses out on a couple crucial points. Cars can be more efficient than bikes, but they aren't designed to be.
Yeah... cars... evolution. O.K. :bday:
Bikes may be trivial in their use of resources, but humans aren't. And humans need more inefficient resources to ride efficient bikes. Check out my first reply in this post. Humans are not more efficient than their creations, at least not yet... GE may change that. :)


In 10-15 years, maybe less, oil will be so expensive only the wealthy will have any of it, and, as a result, other things, like food, medicine, and plastic, may get a lot scarcer too, and during a time of massive environmental/agricultural damage due to global warming. People may start starving in large numbers. Don't you think it's time to start thinking about something besides horsepower?

WooHooo! :bday: :roflmao:
Now I may find it inconceivable or at the very least a bit unlikely that the relative position of your words could have a special deep significance or meaning that exclusively applies to everyone, but you should give me your assurance that these forcasts and predictions are all based on solid, scientific, documented evidence, so I would have to be some kind of moron not to reaize that every single one of the is absolutely true. Where was I?

P.s. People are starving in large numbers now. ;)

It would really cut down on energy lose if we didn't have to move at all.

Maybe you could design some sort of photosynthetic teat that humans of the future could suckle from for their entire lives; they might never have to move more than a few feet.

We could design them to live on ice so that they could just slide with out much effort.

Read my third reply in my post above! :lol:

The development of more fuel-efficient cars is likely something that many carfree people here support. I don't think many people relate to cars as they could be but rather we relate to them as they are.

I'd like to see someone make the argument that cars, even fantasy hyper-efficient ones, have a negative impact on society and should be abolished.

I think there are very many valid points to support the idea, but I'd be interested to know if anyone else has a perspective to share.

meaning that a vehicle in poor condition may see a slight decrease in vehicle efficiency, but it'll never drop to where it's as efficient as a vehicle twice it's size, or with twice the Cx. It just won't fly. My car's burning ~1L of oil every few hundred miles, but it's still almost as efficient as your bike, not because of the shape it's in (bad or good, bad in may case), but because it has a more efficient engine, and lower Cx. Also, you should really look into making fiberglass fairings, they'll do wonders. And as for altering gearing, gasoline engines will always be gasoline engines and always suffer from pumping losses. You can get shorter gears and increase efficiency marginally, but you'll increase wear... naturally it's the opposite for taller gears.
Holy shat, do you know what that burnt oil is doing to the environment?! Shame on you for talking up your car when it's one of the worst offenders out there. Have you ever had the displeasure of riding behind something burning that much oil?

But I'm not talking about Priui, or BMW 2002's (nice cars though ;)), or anything remotely related to vehicles on the road today. I'm talking about the concept of a car, compared to the concept of a bicycle.
-Realistically speaking a small turbocharged (TC'd) diesel will be ~30-50% efficient.
-Realistically speaking a 2-3hp high speed diesel/tranny will weigh < 75lbs, probably less considering the 8.5hp engine/tranny in the vw 1l weighs less than 150lbs, iirc.
-Realistically speaking, it's possible to more than double the top cruising speed of human powered transportation, velomobiles, etc... As a matter of fact, these things have gone pretty fast (http://www.speed101.com/)!

Now, do you really think when a human eats, they're more than 30-50% efficient at consuming, metabolizing, and transfering that energy to the wheels? Do you think the optimum aerodynamic profile is that of an enclosed cyclist, or that of an enclosed driver leaning back? As a fellow nerd, you must know that the force a vehicle must overcome to go some speed is composed of the rolling resistance, aerodynamic drag, and change in <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=92&k=potential%20energy&st=1" onmouseover="window.status='Search for: potential energy'; self.ql_skeyphrase='potential%20energy'; if(window.event) self.ql_sevent=window.event.srcElement; self.ql_timeout = setTimeout('ql_doMouseOver(1)', 1000); self.ql_isOverLink=true; return true;" onclick="if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; ql_closeiframe(); self.ql_skeyphrase='potential%20energy'; window.status='Search for: potential energy';return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; setTimeout('ql_closeiframe()', 1500); ">potential energy</a>. Rolling resistance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance) is directly proportional to the weight of the vehicle, just like the change in potential energy. However, the force needed to overcome aerodynamic drag (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_equation) is proprotional to the frontal area, drag coefficient, and square of the speed.
If the average cyclist can sprint ~25-35mph riding alone, and some other cyclist in an enclosed bike can hit ~80mph (in 4 miles), what does that say about the amount of drag on the average cyclist? Well, that poor unenclosed cyclist has to expend ~5-7 times more energy than the enclosed cyclist to move at the same speed. That's a lot of drag! And, like I said before, it'd probably be easier to alter the person's position if they weren't pedeling, but were instead driving, further decreasing the frontal area and the drag coefficient. Toss in a 2-3hp drivetrain we're gonna triple or quadruple the power to weight ratio. Granted, this vehicle will probably weigh ~100lbs more than a bike and accelerate like a slow car, but it can hang with traffic and will probably get ~1000mpg, if not more. This technology is all out there.
Now, the human powered vehicle has to contend with a less aerodynamic profile, less power, and worse efficiency. They also need to content with how their food (power source) is grown, transported, and housed before they consume it. That's tons more overhead and further decreases efficiency. Since the energy density of certain crops allows their local use for fuel, we can grow our own fuel locally. However, due to the large size of croplands, we can't do this with our food. In terms of our transportation needs humans are not as flexible as what they create... I'm not saying these are for everyone, a couple miles to the store by bike is nice. But these things could replace cars and have lesser environmental impact then if we were to do the same thing with bikes. So, for long range heterogenous transportation routes, these things would own almost any other form of transportation, and the concept of a car is hard to beat because it is streamlined, efficient, and powerful, even if what's sold to us today isn't.



Holy strawman batman! I didn't state that a poorly maintained vehicle will get better mileage than a well maintained one. or that anything with 350K on it will require the same amount of care as <a style='text-decoration: none; border-bottom: 3px double;' href="http://www.qklinkserver.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=92&k=a%20new%20car&st=1" onmouseover="window.status='Search for: a new car'; self.ql_skeyphrase='a%20new%20car'; if(window.event) self.ql_sevent=window.event.srcElement; self.ql_timeout = setTimeout('ql_doMouseOver(1)', 1000); self.ql_isOverLink=true; return true;" onclick="if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; ql_closeiframe(); self.ql_skeyphrase='a%20new%20car'; window.status='Search for: a new car';return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; if(self.ql_timeout) clearTimeout(self.ql_timeout); self.ql_isOverTip = false; setTimeout('ql_closeiframe()', 1500); ">a new car</a>. I stated...

meaning that a vehicle in poor condition may see a slight decrease in vehicle efficiency, but it'll never drop to where it's as efficient as a vehicle twice it's size, or with twice the Cx. It just won't fly. My car's burning ~1L of oil every few hundred miles, but it's still almost as efficient as your bike, not because of the shape it's in (bad or good, bad in may case), but because it has a more efficient engine, and lower Cx. Also, you should really look into making fiberglass fairings, they'll do wonders. And as for altering gearing, gasoline engines will always be gasoline engines and always suffer from pumping losses. You can get shorter gears and increase efficiency marginally, but you'll increase wear... naturally it's the opposite for taller gears.

I'm sorry, Lyeinyoureye, at this point I can only offer an anecdotal response: I ride my bike almost everywhere. When I can't ride, I take public transportation. I eat whether I ride my bike or not. Even on days when I put in ridiculous mileage, I don't eat significantantly more. People who drive cars exclusively probably don't eat any less than I do. If I cover 14 miles in a day in my bike, I eat 2,000 calories that day; if I put in 30 miles, I eat 2,000 calories; if I rent a car and drive, I still eat 2,000 calories. So: I can eat 2,000 calories of food, and then use 125,000,000J of energy per gallon of gas used, or I can eat 2,000 calories and use no additional fuel to get to the same destination.

But they don't need development. They're here! They're queer! Get used to it! ;)

Seriously, I'd love to see these mass produced and marketed as mopeds, at least in CA (the regulations would allow it). And while a small efficient diesel might cost an arm and a leg, there are plenty of small 2hp gas engines for dirt cheap, with the down side being a ~20-30% decrease in efficiency depending on pumping losses and gearing. With fiberglass shells these things could be sold detuned (less than 1hp) for maybe $1000 each? I just can't relate with bike forum members not relating to me relating with possible hyper-efficient personal transportation. ;)
But yes, it's entirely plausible that people would not like anything with an internal combustion engine. I mean, most people don't realize that going vegetarian is eleventy billlion times better for the environment than driving a hybrid. People don't really notice much unless they look really hard, and I'm just as guilty as anyone, it's just that everyone glosses over almost everything and really looks hard at a select few. And they're usually of the opposite, or same, or both, sexes...


Holy shat, do you know what that burnt oil is doing to the environment?! Shame on you for talking up your car when it's one of the worst offenders out there. Have you ever had the displeasure of riding behind something burning that much oil?

It's a diesel, it's doing it anyway. They're called oil burners for a reason! ;)
Besides, people on motorcycles with little to no emissions equipment shouldn't talk, at least I can say that diesel emissions research was quashed for corporate profit, what's your excuse for having little to no emissions equipment on your gasser. :p


I'm sorry, Lyeinyoureye, at this point I can only offer an anecdotal response: I ride my bike almost everywhere. When I can't ride, I take public transportation. I eat whether I ride my bike or not. Even on days when I put in ridiculous mileage, I don't eat significantantly more. People who drive cars exclusively probably don't eat any less than I do. If I cover 14 miles in a day in my bike, I eat 2,000 calories that day; if I put in 30 miles, I eat 2,000 calories; if I rent a car and drive, I still eat 2,000 calories. So: I can eat 2,000 calories of food, and then use 125,000,000J of energy per gallon of gas used, or I can eat 2,000 calories and use no additional fuel to get to the same destination.

This is true, we eat what we eat, no more, no less. And this probably branches off into a bit of psychological stuff as to why people over or under eat, don't modify their diets quickly, etc... But I can understand that if we're going to eat a certain amount regardless, we might as well do something useful with it.

Also! (http://www.recumbents.com/WISIL/whpsc2005/speedchallenge-2005.htm) :D

But think of the energy you could conserve if instead of burning those calories you converted them into a rich layer of blubber that could be used to cushion and insulate you from the ice as you nursed.


I have to say that I probably eat in a more sustainable way when I am putting in a lot of miles because my body will conk out if I eat too much processed crap.

I think we should cut all this pansy crap and merge into a giant world eating super-organism... I mean, why screw around when we can make serious strides in galactic domination? I noticed that when I was commuting ~15-20 miles a day to a job where I would do nothing but stand and walk, I couldn't eat too fatty or i would conk (oddly, salty pretzels weren't a problem). Smoking even one cigarette really killed my lung capacity the next day!

Zomg! Building one of these is totally doable! Image a bent, but with two different frame configurations that would lock into place. One that's upright, and looks like a normal bent, with the pedals in front and the rwd layout, and a "not quite so extreme" fiberglass(?) body would bolt up to the bent frame and significantly reduce energy expended overcoming drag. Now, in the other configuration the bent would flatten a bit with the rider being at a much less extreme angle, allowing for a much "shorter" and "wider" body to be fitted, and either two 2hp two stroke gasoline engines (~40lbs with gearing) or one 4hp diesel engine (~80lbs with gearing) to be fitted. Now I'm not sure what kinda of mileage we could expect, but considering most 1-2hp motorized bikes get ~100-200mpg, then by dropping the energy required to move at, let say 30mph, to 1/8th of what was required before, we'd be increasing mileage significantly (probably by a factor of 6-8). A diesel engine would be even better suited because of it's efficient operation (kiss pumping losses goodbye) and subsequent flat torque curve, meaning it has lots of grunt off the line. I think this thing could be used for trips to the store a few miles away, and the commute to work 50 miles away, while getting absolutely great mileage. All the parts that can't be fabricated are off the shelf, hell... if a large manufacturer mass produced something like this it'd cost under $1000, and get ~800-1200mpg@55mph. All while maintaining the basic characteristics of a velomobile... :)

I'd like to see someone make the argument that cars, even fantasy hyper-efficient ones, have a negative impact on society and should be abolished.

http://todd.cleverchimp.com/energy_and_equity/

It is relatively easy (depending where one lives) to be car free. It is near impossible to be oil free.

Al

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, motorcycles are worse for the environment than passenger autos. Light trucks (SUVs, vans and pickups) are worse yet. All are cars, as far as the environment is concerned.

In light of this, I like patc's definition.

Car: a motor powered vehicle intended primarily for private and personal use, not including wheelchairs or scooters.

This certainly is the definition that makes the most sense in the context of a bicycle forum rather than a motorcycle forum.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, motorcycles are worse for the environment than passenger autos. Light trucks (SUVs, vans and pickups) are worse yet. All are cars, as far as the environment is concerned.
This is the same per passenger mile **** I was warning about earlier.

i'd say car-free means you don't own or regularly use vehicles as heavy or heavier than what they typically carry, ....
I like this as a design criteria - the vehicle should weigh less than the typical payload. Simple and verifiable. That way it uses less energy moving the vehicle than moving the payload. I guess the
polluters will have to point out that with bikes the distinction between what it carries and what powers it is blurred since the engine and payload are the same. Still a bike plus person is lighter than car or motorcycle minus engine right?

I've noticed most posters seem to have different notions as to what cars are, or car free living is. Naturally, the whole "box on wheels" comes up, but velomobiles fit this desciption, so there goes that. Maybe including an engine would concrete this definition? Nope, plenty of velomobiles have electric motors. Ah, then what about an internal combustion engine? Well, ok then, that works, kinda...
But wait there's more! Plenty of people consider motorcycles/mopeds to be car free, but they have wheels and IC engines... In fact, due to their "open" construction they're much more inefficient, inconvient, and polluting than *similar small cars. What about a 2-cycle engine strapped to the back of your bicycle? Bah? :roflmao:
Other aspects to consider, why are people "car free"? Do they dislike pollution, inefficiency, congestion, the release of carbon dioxide and various pollutants into our environment, or do they just hate cars? Kinda like those who just hate barn owls, or shovels, or cupcakes. 4 rlz guyz.
Anyway, what I'm trying to get at is that while disliking current production auto's can have plenty of reasonable justifications, disliking (and attacking) the whole notion of a car and advocating "car-free'ness" because of any one of the (rational) aforementioned side effects (pollution, etc...) is just nuts. Why? Well, those side-effects aren't a direct result of any inherent characteristic of the car, they're a side-effect of fascism. Cars are cars, the can be designed to different specs depending on use, or more importantly, intended use. What if a small "car" using a small efficient IC engine is actually better for pollution, congestion, etc... than using a bicycle? Ehhhh?
So, anyway, intelligent comments, not so intelligent comments, umpa-lumpas, and things are welcome!

*shame these aren't in production any more, but that's facism for ya.

Thanks for the discussion. You will notice this discussion is split between people who see society and the impact of automobiles and .. others who like math. If you enjoyed and responded to the post's- expand and briefly define your view for both thoughts.
Start a thread about your cul-de-sac fascism, if you own a car as a matter-of-fact, and what would your town look like: if everybody did what you did.
And, OK start a thread about drag coefficent on velomobiles- that don't bring to mind an Oscar Meyer Hot Dog. Yeah I'm goading you.

This is the same per passenger mile **** I was warning about earlier.
Sorry, I don't understand, and I can't find your earlier warning. What's wrong with passenger-mile statistics? The average car trip (incl. light truck) has 1.9 passengers, the average bicycle or motorcycle trip has barely over 1 passenger.

I think i'm confused by your use of the word "bike." Here, the word usually means bicycle, but your posts make more sense if I read motorcycle when you say "bike."

Sorry, I don't understand, and I can't find your earlier warning. What's wrong with passenger-mile statistics? The average car trip (incl. light truck) has 1.9 passengers, the average bicycle or motorcycle trip has barely over 1 passenger.

I think i'm confused by your use of the word "bike." Here, the word usually means bicycle, but your posts make more sense if I read motorcycle when you say "bike."


Well I think what she is saying is that their are alot of cars out there with just one occupant. Now it would be great if we could all carpool everywhere, but we don't or else public transportation would be booming. We understand that the Civic would be more fuel effiecent than a motorcycle, IF it was carrying 4 passengers. In an instance where only one person is being moved then the motorcycle would work out better. Basically if Lauren had to go somewhere by herself, and she could not get 3 other people to go with her, than her 400 pound motorcycle will use less energy than a 2000 pound car. Public transportation in my area is ok, but not many people ride it. So the bus may be effiecent, but not if it only has two people on it.

I know it is about to be rush hour here, it would be nice if I looked out and saw cars and suv's loaded up with people, but instead I'm going to see one pissed off driver after another alone in the vehicle.

Well I think what she is saying is that their are alot of cars out there with just one occupant. Now it would be great if we could all carpool everywhere, but we don't or else public transportation would be booming. We understand that the Civic would be more fuel effiecent than a motorcycle, IF it was carrying 4 passengers. In an instance where only one person is being moved then the motorcycle would work out better. Basically if Lauren had to go somewhere by herself, and she could not get 3 other people to go with her, than her 400 pound motorcycle will use less energy than a 2000 pound car. Public transportation in my area is ok, but not many people ride it. So the bus may be effiecent, but not if it only has two people on it.

I know it is about to be rush hour here, it would be nice if I looked out and saw cars and suv's loaded up with people, but instead I'm going to see one pissed off driver after another alone in the vehicle.
Somebody gets it! Most vehicles are single passenger, and it's unquestionable that for one passenger or two the motorcycle is a more efficient solution. Not to mention more fun.

Somebody gets it! Most vehicles are single passenger, and it's unquestionable that for one passenger or two the motorcycle is a more efficient solution. Not to mention more fun.

Fine. Ignore the laws of physics. ;)

For me, it's all about minimalism. Ride the smallest vehicle that will transport you and your cargo in a reasonable amount of time.

The ultimate in minimalism when it comes to a single person is a pair of walking shoes, but it takes a lot of time and cargo space is very limited.

The next step up is a bicycle. Five to six times faster than walking, slightly expanded cargo space.

After that, electric motor-assist bicycles and scooters, which have the same cargo space as a regular bike, but higher speed.

Gas powered bikes, scooters, mopeds and motorcycles further improve on speed and distance over an assisted bike. It is also possible to transport a second passenger.

Small, fuel-efficient cars come next. Maximum distance, speed and cargo capacity are greatly increased. So is passenger capacity, up to 5 now.

Larger cars, vans and trucks come afterwards.

So, what's my point? Well, we should choose the vehicle that suits our needs. A trip to the post office to pick up stamps should not require anything more than a bicycle. A trip across town to visit relatives should require no more than a motorcycle or scooter. A trip to Best Buy to get a new TV should require no more than a small car. A trip to the home renovation store to pick up a ton of topsoil should require no more than a pickup truck.

I agree, that with adequate time and equipment, it is possible to pick up that ton of dirt on a bike. However the time, safety and fitness this would require is prohibitive to most people.

Ideally, I would like to have three vehicles in my garage: A bike (or five), a scooter or motorcycle, and a small car. These vehicles are enough for both me and my wife. I think this is a good combination for most people, and many can even ditch the car. The key here is that with this set of vehicles, the owners must not wuss out and take the car every time. I suppose it's almost human nature to do what is easiest, unless there are consequences. High gas prices may limit car use, but I'm not sure what else will...

Somebody gets it! Most vehicles are single passenger, and it's unquestionable that for one passenger or two the motorcycle is a more efficient solution. Not to mention more fun.
Sorry, but the UCS conclusion that motorcycles are worse for the environment are based on actual passenger miles. Cars carry 1.9 passengers, motorcycles carry like 1.01 passengers. Also, motorcycles are allowed to emit more pollutants. Also, motorcycles are built with proportionately more steel and rubber, so they pollute more when constructed. They didn't even mention the noise issue, which is pretty salient for me. Overall, I find cars and motorcycles to be almost equally distasteful and toxic.

As to which is more fun, that's a matter of personal preference. Almost every one here thinks bicycles are more fun than either.