Living Car Free - De-motorize Your Soul

Car-free (and sympathetic) cyclists who are also of a spiritual bent may be interested in this website (http://www.geezmagazine.org/demotorize/) I just discovered:


For the past 100 years the average speed at which human beings and their souls travel has steadily increased. But what if we're not meant to go that fast? What if it's spiritually unnatural, and slowly messing us up inside? Can we live at an ever-escalating pace without it affecting our spiritual health?

In addition to a stressful and abnormal pace of life, this age of hyper-mobility also has us tangled up in climate chaos, global power games and the biggest business on earth.

But how do we opt out? (And how do we keep from whithering with guilt?) We know what's wrong, we know what needs to be done, but we're somehow stuck on fast forward.

In the spirit of holy mischief, De-Motorize Your Soul frames the move away from oil as a practical experiment and an irresistible spiritual adventure. It proposes a set of spiritual exercises that offer alternatives to the internal combustion engine while also nurturing the soul.

Enjoy!

- John

For the past 100 years the average speed at which human beings and their souls travel has steadily increased


Only relative to the earth.
We've always been hurtling at 10's of 1000's of miles per second thru the universe.
Hold on tight.

Looks like a new site. I hope they continue to add content. Maybe some of us will contribute stuff. I've been riding my mountain bike in the snowy woods most mornings this week. The average speed on my computer has been 8.9 mph, trying to stay upright on the trails in snow and on ice. Is that slow enough? I have been so peaceful and content at work, after starting my day in slowness, and away from the motors.

I love the idea of giving up your car for lent. That's sublime.

eh I don't know, if I was capable of pedaling myself at 60 mph I'd have no objection to it lol

if its so wrong?

why does going fast feel so good?

I don't understand what speed has to do with oil. The Tesla Motors' new electric car can go 0-60 in 4 seconds with a top speed of 130mph. If you have solar/wind power at your home and recharge the car there you're using a car with zero emissions.

if its so wrong?

why does going fast feel so good?
I agree. Riding fast is fun, and it can be more pracical for distance travel also. But there's a different allure to going slowly. With bikes, you can do either or both. It's actually hard to go slow in a car, and it's hard to go fast as a pedestrian. So we have the best of both worlds. :)

Another thing you figure out on a bike: If you're going a long distance, you might get there sooner if you go more slowly. (Roody's Paradox)

Well, my soul sure enjoys rocketing down the autobahn at a steady 179 mph.

:D

Well, my soul sure enjoys rocketing down the autobahn at a steady 179 mph.

:D
Wow! What kind of bike do you ride that fast?

Well, my soul sure enjoys rocketing down the autobahn at a steady 179 mph.

:D
A steady 288Km/hr? Where, which autobahn? I've driven all around Bitburg, Trier and everywhere else in Germany especially south of Frankfurt. I don't know where you could maintain that speed.

Wow! What kind of bike do you ride that fast?
I was once driving my German Spec '86 Toyota Corolla at a routine 100mph on A48 near Trier and got passed en masse by a group of about 15 Motorcyclists who had to be going at least 40-50 mph faster than me. But I doubt they could maintain that speed for long, that Autobahn was too busy for that.

I don't understand what speed has to do with oil. The Tesla Motors' new electric car can go 0-60 in 4 seconds with a top speed of 130mph. If you have solar/wind power at your home and recharge the car there you're using a car with zero emissions.

manufacturing these things isnt very environmentaly friendy, and although they are more efficient, it doesnt make the non renewable resource problem go away, not on the scale of auto usage we enjoy now, and the emissions just get shifted out of direct sight

also, beware of these specs for these electric cars, at 30F you can knock off about 50%, the rules of physics and chemical batteries still applies

fast electric cars have been around for quite sometime, the physics and designs arent anything miraculous

The A60 between Bitburg and Wittlich is almost completely empty early on Sunday mornings. Shy of a few corners you can really book through there. Plus, I was exaggerating a bit as I would certainly not try to really maintain 180 for longer than a few minutes at a time. Things are moving so fast after a few minutes yourt body begins to climatize and it doesn't feel fast anymore. That's when it gets real dangerous. I've only done it a few times as it is a tremendous waste of gas.

manufacturing these things isnt very environmentaly friendy, and although they are more efficient, it doesnt make the non renewable resource problem go away, not on the scale of auto usage we enjoy now, and the emissions just get shifted out of direct sight

also, beware of these specs for these electric cars, at 30F you can knock off about 50%, the rules of physics and chemical batteries still applies

Although there is pollution associated with battery production, I'd guess they tend to cut overall emissions by a factor of three to four. They do require more energy to *build, but the pollution released while in operation is easily a quarter of what's released by a comparable gasoline vehicle. They are after all, four times more energy efficient well to wheel than gasoline powered cars are.

The only electric cars that have trouble with lower temperatures are home/hobbiest built versions. Any EV engineered with a lick of common sense will have a insulated, temperature regulated battery pack, like the Tesla Roadster does. You could just as easily complain about how straight water freezes in the cooling systems of ICE powered vehicles, but we don't use straight water for a reason. Just like a well engineered EV will have active thermal management.

To illustrate the efficiency of an EV, over 10,000 miles a sportscar like the Roadster will use ~2,000kwh of electricity per year, which is enough to power two fridges during the same time interval. A gas car that averages 25mph will use 400gallons~13,000kwh of gasoline per year. An interesting irony is that each gallon of gasoline requires at least 4.5kwh to extract, refine and distributed. The likely figure is probably somewhere around 6kwh per gallon of gas since it requires more than a lot of other petroleum products. So, we could either use energy to refine gasoline, which will take us ~10,000 miles in a year in a gasoline vehicle, or would could use that energy to directly power an EV, which should take us ~12,000 miles. With little to no pollution.

We are literally trading the some amount of clean useful energy, for slightly less useful energy, with all the pollution that comes with burning hydrocarbons. This happens because oil companies want to sell as much oil as they can, while they can. Sure, we could get more useful work and a fraction of the pollution if we used the natural gas/electricity directly, but then they wouldn't sell any oil... Oil use is all about profit.

*Something like 10% of total energy used during the life of a ICE powered vehicle, so a BEV probably requires at most, twice that amount.

"active thermal management" meaning heating the battery box or compartment means electric usage, lots of it, not all cars are in garages, The Tesla roadster everyone keeps raving about is useless if it sits outside in the cold overnight unless an external power source is provided to keep it warm, which btw, it does NOT have. The Tesla is a really bad example, the EV-1 formerly made by GM would be better really.

and please provide ample, accurate, and well annotated links to your other statements

The EV-1 was not a production automobile, and is one of the worst examples around, I bet there are private conversions with better battery insulation. It was made to comply with the CA ZEV mandate, while at the same time, GM fought this mandate. It was leased so that retrieval and destruction would be quick and easy. The Tesla Roadster is a production vehicle, that's being sold. The amount of heat needed by a resistive element depends on the R value of the insulation, the size of the box, and the outside temperature. Odds are, the Tesla uses an insulated box with a fairly high R value so the electricity (and drain on the pack) needed for resistive heating is minimized.

I'm not going to run through every single detail on all these since it'd take too long. If you'd like, I can come back later when I have the time and go through them in more detail, but for now I'll tell you what to look for.

Comparative mileage, well to wheels - The equivalent mpg figure, including charging efficiency, is located in the notes for the Tesla White Paper, iirc it's something like ~150mpg. Wikipedia has plenty on power plant efficiency, which depends on the power sources, it's generally ~40%. Electrical transmission efficiency is ~93%, fossil fuel extraction efficiency is ~83%. The average new car in America gets something south of 25mpg. This should be all you need here.

The electricity used per gallon of petroleum product produced is based on this (http://www.energy.ca.gov/pier/iaw/industry/petro.html) CA gov web page. It details the natural gas and electricity inputs for each barrel extracted and refined. The 4.5kwh per gallon refers to the energy that's spread equally across all ~40 gallons per barrel. Gasoline refining requires much more than bunker fuel or asphalt, and is probably closer to 6kwh per gallon based on the relative energy needed per process (it's somewhere, I'll find it later) and talks I've had with former industry peoplez. Take the energy from natural gas we could be getting by burning it in a plant plus the energy from electricity divided by the gallons of refined product we produce to get the electricity/NG kwh input per gallon.

Feel free to ask me about anything you feel I missed.

ya, you missed a big one

the costs in both resources and actual money to replace the existing fleet of vehicles with electric

currently all the numbers ive seen show that production of even hybrids is more resource intensive than building an SUV twice the size, and even with economies of scale, unless some new battery tech comes along that doesnt exist yet, there will be massive problems, it will still mean less vehicles and much less VMT(vehicle miles traveled)---------this is assuming of course that population growth and everything else in our McWorld keeps on keeping on, it is a systemic situation, just an auto mode change doesnt even come close to fixing the issues

you wanna get down to the nitty gritty instead of looking at the big picture, ok, figure out or find out how much extra its gonna cost energy wise to keep those batteries warm and how much extra space it will cost interior space wise, sorry, but the dismissive reply above doesnt cut it, its a real issue that will HAVE to be dealt with, and electric heat is a big loss

then take your numbers youve been posting for quite awhile now and start knocking off like 15% or more, because honestly, most seem quite optimistic versus what will happen in reality, cars arent just used in perfect weather on flat roads or on test tracks

we're going to be facing other challenges as well, like water for example, that is already rearing its ugly head in the oil and gas drilling industry, we be running into problems with ALL these things, natural gas, metals, water, etc etc

the reason I brought up the EV-1 is because its one of the few electric vehicles made in any real quantity will real world numbers to look at, the Tesla so far does not have this, not even close, and the EV-1 also is more like what a car is today, not a hotrod toy for the rich

there are a few conversions that have been around for quite awhile, like the ford fiesta and honda civic's, same with the prius plug in conversions, and they too also show that the numbers tend to run on the optimistic side vs what happens in real life

I think your gonna find, when its cold out, heating that battery pack, and then running the electric heat in that car to keep the interior warm and de-ice the windows when driving will bear out what has been known about these things since day one, they have their issues, they arent a panacea in any way.

Are they good enough to replace what the average driver needs, yup, I think they are, but unfortunately, it isnt the only issue. We will have other just as, if not more serious issues to deal with.

The A60 between Bitburg and Wittlich is almost completely empty early on Sunday mornings. Shy of a few corners you can really book through there. Plus, I was exaggerating a bit as I would certainly not try to really maintain 180 for longer than a few minutes at a time. Things are moving so fast after a few minutes yourt body begins to climatize and it doesn't feel fast anymore. That's when it gets real dangerous. I've only done it a few times as it is a tremendous waste of gas.
I always found that the fastest traffic on a routine basis was on the 8 lane (4 each way) A5 between Darmstadt and Frankfurt. The left lane was full of tailgating cars all going at least 200km/h. Quite a thrill for first time tourists renting cars from the Airport.

...will bear out what has been known about these things since day one, they have their issues, they arent a panacea in any way.

Bit like recumbents, really... ;)

Car-free (and sympathetic) cyclists who are also of a spiritual bent may be interested in this website (http://www.geezmagazine.org/demotorize/) I just discovered:

For the past 100 years the average speed at which human beings and their souls travel has steadily increased. But what if we're not meant to go that fast? What if it's spiritually unnatural, and slowly messing us up inside? Can we live at an ever-escalating pace without it affecting our spiritual health?

In addition to a stressful and abnormal pace of life, this age of hyper-mobility also has us tangled up in climate chaos, global power games and the biggest business on earth.

But how do we opt out? (And how do we keep from whithering with guilt?) We know what's wrong, we know what needs to be done, but we're somehow stuck on fast forward.

In the spirit of holy mischief, De-Motorize Your Soul frames the move away from oil as a practical experiment and an irresistible spiritual adventure. It proposes a set of spiritual exercises that offer alternatives to the internal combustion engine while also nurturing the soul.
Enjoy!

- John
I thought the topic proposed by the original post was fairly interesting. Maybe we can return to it?

I thought the topic proposed by the original post was fairly interesting. Maybe we can return to it?
Sure. Contribute your wisdom, or mysticism, or whatever you like. Just do it.

I don't understand what speed has to do with oil. The Tesla Motors' new electric car can go 0-60 in 4 seconds with a top speed of 130mph. If you have solar/wind power at your home and recharge the car there you're using a car with zero emissions.

How un-American!


Well, my soul sure enjoys rocketing down the autobahn at a steady 179 mph.

:D

See quote below, thank you.


I thought the topic proposed by the original post was fairly interesting. Maybe we can return to it?

ya, you missed a big one

the costs in both resources and actual money to replace the existing fleet of vehicles with electric

currently all the numbers ive seen show that production of even hybrids is more resource intensive than building an SUV twice the size, and even with economies of scale, unless some new battery tech comes along that doesnt exist yet, there will be massive problems, it will still mean less vehicles and much less VMT(vehicle miles traveled)---------this is assuming of course that population growth and everything else in our McWorld keeps on keeping on, it is a systemic situation, just an auto mode change doesnt even come close to fixing the issues
I completely agree with the McWorld side. Using 3-7,000lb vehicles to transport a 200lb human or two is nuts. But... So is using inefficient fossil fuel powered engines. It's all about keeping demand, price, and profits up. Soaring like the proud eagle. etc... As for the numbers you're referring to, they must made up, do you have any links to the study (please don't bring up GM's dust to dust study, where they claim an H3 will go 300,000 miles and a Prius barely 100,000, every Toyota I've owned has gone over 150,000 miles, and will probably go more). In order to get a vehicle that's twice the size of a 3000lb Prius for instance, we need to go for a ~6000-7000lb SUV. The Prius costs $23,000 w/o the hybrid credit/s, and the two corresponding SUVs that fit the twice the size mantra cost $30-37,000 iirc. So, if building a hybrid is really twice as resource intensive, shouldn't vehicles that are twice as large have the same MSRP? They should. The reality is, hybrids command a 15-30% cost premium, depending on the vehicle. Which, for the average driver, will be paid back over the life of the vehicle. Battery longevity was only an issue with M/T Honda Insight's, and current vehicle packs should go past 160,000 (http://avt.inl.gov/pdf/karner.pdf) miles.


However, it is clear from data collected to date, that battery performance is sufficient to provide stable vehicle fuel economy over a 160,000 mile HEV life.


you wanna get down to the nitty gritty instead of looking at the big picture, ok, figure out or find out how much extra its gonna cost energy wise to keep those batteries warm and how much extra space it will cost interior space wise, sorry, but the dismissive reply above doesnt cut it, its a real issue that will HAVE to be dealt with, and electric heat is a big loss

Well,

The R-value is the reciprocal of the amount of heat energy per area of material per degree difference between the outside and inside.
So if I'm reading this right, when we have something with an R value of say, 30, like three inches of Silica aerogel, the inside will be 30 degrees warmer than the outside.

The British system unit of heat is the British Thermal Unit, or BTU. A BTU is the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of a pound of water one degree Fahrenheit.
So, assuming the batteries have 40lbs of water for thermal management, the outside temperature is -10 degrees C or 15 degrees F, and the pack has an R value of 30, the battery management system will need to raise the water temperature by 10 degrees C in order to have a temperature of 25 degrees C, or 75 degrees F. This requires 400btu, or .11kwh. The car has a 50kwh battery pack, so this will require less than a percent of the total pack energy.


then take your numbers youve been posting for quite awhile now and start knocking off like 15% or more, because honestly, most seem quite optimistic versus what will happen in reality, cars arent just used in perfect weather on flat roads or on test tracks

Ah, well... Sure, why not? We can take into account lead footed drivers and we'll get that both the roadster and average car has 15% worse mileage than what the EPA measures. Or in my hands, they may both have 30% better. The point is, to compare them using the same test. From that we get how much more efficient one is than the other. It doesn't matter what the test is, so long as both vehicle types go through it for an accurate comparison.


we're going to be facing other challenges as well, like water for example, that is already rearing its ugly head in the oil and gas drilling industry, we be running into problems with ALL these things, natural gas, metals, water, etc etc

Well, sure. But, the more efficiently we use any resource, the less likely we are to have trouble with it. This runs contrary with our economic system, since in order to maximize profit, many companies have to sell as much of their product as quickly as possible. If there's one thing we have no want for, it's energy. We waste it left and right. Inefficient transportation, housing, fridges, etc... Any increase in efficiency is good for the consumer, but bad for business.


the reason I brought up the EV-1 is because its one of the few electric vehicles made in any real quantity will real world numbers to look at, the Tesla so far does not have this, not even close, and the EV-1 also is more like what a car is today, not a hotrod toy for the rich

Well, this brings up another good point about the Roadster. It's not mass market. Why? Because, the companies that have the ability to mass produce EVs/HEVs with decent all electric range and plug-in availability won't. So, the only way to show electric car tech is mature is to have it compete with low production gas vehicles, because then there is no drop in price due to mass production. And the results are great, the driver gets a faster, more reliable car for way less cash, compared to a similar igh end gas car. The EV-1 was a car that was, to a large extent, designed as a stop-gap while GM fought the ZEV mandate in court. They could've made it more aerodynamic, and insulated the pack, etc... But they only had to make an electric car, not a great electric car.


there are a few conversions that have been around for quite awhile, like the ford fiesta and honda civic's, same with the prius plug in conversions, and they too also show that the numbers tend to run on the optimistic side vs what happens in real life

I think your gonna find, when its cold out, heating that battery pack, and then running the electric heat in that car to keep the interior warm and de-ice the windows when driving will bear out what has been known about these things since day one, they have their issues, they arent a panacea in any way.

Are they good enough to replace what the average driver needs, yup, I think they are, but unfortunately, it isnt the only issue. We will have other just as, if not more serious issues to deal with.

Well sure. Dimwitted drivers can bring down the range of any car, but the point I'm making is that the way the roadster is designed, heating the batt pack is not going to have a significant impact on range. In fact, the heater and A/C would probably take way more energy.

40 lbs of water LOL?

uh, that battery pack will likely weigh up around 1000lbs using current technology for lead acid batteries, less for lithium ion, still the whole mass has to be kept warm, on top of that the insulation idea also has a problem, the heat must be gotten rid of as the pack is discharged, which is where batteries lose much of their efficiency, heat and internal resistance

then you also have a material problem, one which plagues the "fuel cell" as well, the materials needed to manufacture them are rare and expensive and do not exist in sufficient quantities to build massive numbers of vehicles

lithium ion batteries use cobalt these days

still, after all this, it still takes lots of oil and water and other materials to manufacture these things, and building electric cars with current tech is very resource intensive, more so that ICE powered vehicles

factor in all this together and like I said above, electric is no panacea, its not a magic bullet that will solve problems, it has all the same problems any possible solution does, energy density, materials needed, scale of the problem etc etc etc plus another rarely mentioned problem---> accidents

in order to make these things safe for the road costs weight and space and hence range, we dont want to be in a situation where a HAZMAT crew has to be called every time someone totals their electric car on the freeway, putting in a block of batteries with 400 or more volts and lots of amp-hrs is alot like packaging a small chemical bomb especially when some of these battery types have runaway issues already, can that be done, sure, but again it has its costs

you take a look at any of the existing electric cars, the serious ones that really are road ready and drive prettymuch like any other car and are relatively affordable, and they dont do too well, is it good enough? from a usage standpoint probably, from a manufacturing standpoint, nope, not even close

Originally Posted by Roody
I thought the topic proposed by the original post was fairly interesting. Maybe we can return to it?


Is this OT and interesting enuff for ya?


40 lbs of water LOL?

uh, that battery pack will likely weigh up around 1000lbs using current technology for lead acid batteries, less for lithium ion, still the whole mass has to be kept warm, on top of that the insulation idea also has a problem, the heat must be gotten rid of as the pack is discharged, which is where batteries lose much of their efficiency, heat and internal resistance

then you also have a material problem, one which plagues the "fuel cell" as well, the materials needed to manufacture them are rare and expensive and do not exist in sufficient quantities to build massive numbers of vehicles

lithium ion batteries use cobalt these days

still, after all this, it still takes lots of oil and water and other materials to manufacture these things, and building electric cars with current tech is very resource intensive, more so that ICE powered vehicles

factor in all this together and like I said above, electric is no panacea, its not a magic bullet that will solve problems, it has all the same problems any possible solution does, energy density, materials needed, scale of the problem etc etc etc plus another rarely mentioned problem---> accidents

in order to make these things safe for the road costs weight and space and hence range, we dont want to be in a situation where a HAZMAT crew has to be called every time someone totals their electric car on the freeway, putting in a block of batteries with 400 or more volts and lots of amp-hrs is alot like packaging a small chemical bomb especially when some of these battery types have runaway issues already, can that be done, sure, but again it has its costs

you take a look at any of the existing electric cars, the serious ones that really are road ready and drive prettymuch like any other car and are relatively affordable, and they dont do too well, is it good enough? from a usage standpoint probably, from a manufacturing standpoint, nope, not even close

It's a li-ion pack. If you understand how a radiator works, the cooling system is likely a radiator with a cut-off and heating element. Safety concerns aside, I'm not sure why people worry about a bunch of batteries on breakers but not liquid fuel that will evaporate and readily ignite in that form. ;)

Sure, it may take a ~15-60% increase in energy production costs, but otoh, it more than ~quarters lifetime energy use, so considering that the construction costs usually take ~20% of lifetime vehicle energy use, while the rest is inefficient use of fuel, a vehicle that increases operating efficiency by a factor of 6 will quarter the energy use, resulting in a vehicle that uses less than a third the energy of a gasoline vehicle.

Recycling also comes into play, as of now we don't throw away lead acid batteries, so any NiMH or li-ion packs will have a significant core value. You mentioned energy density, and this is another interesting aspect, because it requires auto manufacturers to build aerodynamic vehicles. A good electric car could also be an efficient gasoline or diesel hybrid. There have been many instances like the Ford Prodigy, Gm Precept, etc... but no major manufacturer has made a gasoline powered rolling shell with decent aerodynamics, probably because it's a significant risk wrt the EV community. If they build a vehicle with a drag coefficient of .15, and some yokel sticks enough LA batteries in it to go over a hundred miles, when before, the same number of batteries would've only resulted in a ~50 mile range, that represents a big slap in the face of any claim that batteries aren't ready. LA Batteries aren't ready to power a SUV with the aero of a brick, but they can push an aero car down the road pretty well.

Ovonics happened to bought out by GM, and then Texaco iirc. NiMHs are capable, but no one (i.e. Texaco) will make them in EV sizes/bulk, Solectria Sunrise, etc... And, the best EV would be one with a small (i.e. not the Volt) ICE engine for longer trips. Have it built with variable range/pack size, and a small ICE to keep costs in line with a "normal" vehicle. I could rant more, but it's simply a matter of profit. EVs in bulk could kill the service departments of $tealerships and the price of crude. They are bad for profit, even if they're good for the consumer (a drop in costs/pollution). Rant, etc... bleh. :D

Just out of curiosity, do any of you own a car? I'm not trying to start a debate, but the average motorist has no interest in electric cars, or even hybrids. When gas prices shot up, people were trading in their SUVs for Hyundais and Civics. Taking a loss of several thousand dollars in order to save a few bucks on gas. This was no altruistic decision, just another example of how short-sighted car owners can be.

nope, havent owned a car since 2001

I do have about 1.1 million miles of driving logged though, and Ive owned 23 vehicles in the past ranging from econoboxes to straight trucks

You know, it would be more polite to start a new thread about electric cars than to hijack this one. Please take the time to read or re-read the Original Post. You guys owe a big apology to JohnBrooking. If people--especially mods--don't follow the basic guidelines, this forum will go downhill.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

You guys owe a big apology to JohnBrooking. If people--especially mods--don't follow the basic guidelines, this forum will go downhill.

:mad: :mad: :mad:
Yeah! And the real guidelines are whatever Roody, the official etiquette meister says they are (or should be.) So wise up. Either join the spiritual group hugging and purity-of-thought sessions with Roody or get lost!

Yeah! And the real guidelines are whatever Roody, the official etiquette meister says they are (or should be.) So wise up. Either join the spiritual group hugging and purity-of-thought sessions with Roody or get lost!
Or, start a new thread with a title reflecting your topic. Then interested people will respond, and those who are not interested on't have to waste their time.

Oh I forgot. You don't start threads. You only hijack them.

http://www.bikeforums.net/search.php?searchid=3193122

You know, it would be more polite to start a new thread about electric cars than to hijack this one. Please take the time to read or re-read the Original Post. You guys owe a big apology to JohnBrooking. If people--especially mods--don't follow the basic guidelines, this forum will go downhill.

:mad: :mad: :mad:

In all fairness, it appears that this was way off topic when I made my comment. At least it's not a discussion about how fast some individuals drive.

I think going fast does damage the soul. Esp. in a car, you're sealed off from the world and it goes by so fast you no longer pay much attention to it. Like the conservative Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset said, the speed of trains and cars helps us "kill space and strangle time," which makes us gleeful. But it's not hard to see the down side of the lust for speed. In an effort to tear more life out of space and time, we end up with a lot less. Hell, we don't even have the speed anymore! When was the last time you got to go all out on a freeway in or even near an urban area? I remember in the 80's it wasn't uncommon for I-5 around Portland to have sparse traffic on it. Now it's 24/7 rush hour to one extent or another. It's much worse in Cal, of course. The wide open road is a pure myth.

I think going fast does damage the soul. Esp. in a car, you're sealed off from the world and it goes by so fast you no longer pay much attention to it. Like the conservative Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega y Gasset said, the speed of trains and cars helps us "kill space and strangle time," which makes us gleeful. But it's not hard to see the down side of the lust for speed. In an effort to tear more life out of space and time, we end up with a lot less. Hell, we don't even have the speed anymore! When was the last time you got to go all out on a freeway in or even near an urban area? I remember in the 80's it wasn't uncommon for I-5 around Portland to have sparse traffic on it. Now it's 24/7 rush hour to one extent or another. It's much worse in Cal, of course. The wide open road is a pure myth.
See Roody, it's OK to talk about speed. As long as the poster talks about it negatively.

It's definitely OT. And I tried PM'ing pedex to continue the discussion, but I guess the account doesn't accept PM's, or PM's from me. Since the only place besides a PM I had to put it was here, I figured I might as well continue the convo here. It's not like I randomly started spouting off about EVs/hybrids/etc...
donrhummy didn't understand the original statement about oil since there are high end EV sports cars, as well as biofueled vehicles, electric rail, etc... It doesn't have to just be oil, so why doesn't the statement include all forms of faster than "normal" travel. For that matter, why stop with motorization? Why not demechanize our souls? Just you, your feet, and the ground... No diabolical mechanical contraptions that pollute the Earth with their production. :D Etc... Then pedex stated that manufacturing of EVs isn't very environmentally friendly, and that at 30F the pack capacity drops by half, the first of which I thought was misleading, because the bulk of auto pollution comes from use, not production. And EVs are way more efficient in terms of use. The second was just plain wrong, li-ions loose iirc ~15-20% of pack capacity at freezing, but have the longest overall lifespan when at freezing (http://www.batteryuniversity.com/parttwo-34.htm).

Keep the lithium-ion battery cool. Avoid a hot car. For prolonged storage, keep the battery at a 40% charge level.
http://www.batteryuniversity.com/images/parttwo-34.gif

Etc...
If JohnBrooking would like the posts that are too OT moved, I'm sure a PM to a mod would result in the OT posts being split into another thread in foo or P&R. Not issues with that from this peanut gallery. ;)

I've owned cars off and on for the last 16 years.

The times that I don't are usually much less stressful.

Less bills. More exercise. Less stress from driving itself. Yes, driving can be fun, but is generally tiring, but not the good kind that you get from cycling.

Its not individual instances of speed that are injurious to the soul. That's not the point. A skier slaloming down a mountain pass might describe her experience as spiritual. If I could bike a continous 25 MPH I'd practically achieve nirvana. What's bad is the fall sense of empowerment cheap and easy access to "speed" provides. A sense that has been carefully inculcated in us by day after day of automobile advertisements. Feel bad? Feel blue? Hey! Buy a bigger SUV! That's the ticket. Stuck in freeway traffic day after day? Buy yet an even bigger SUV! Neighborhood falling apart? Move away! That neighborhood still not like you want it? Move still further away! You won't mind all that driving you'll have to do just to get a loaf of bread because every minute you spend will be with your best friend -- your car! You can eat in it. Drink in it. Sleep in it. Turn up the radio and tune out the world in it. Your entire identity becomes tied up with it: "Joe's a Ford person"; "That's a chic car"; "Did you see the new guy? He's got a Lexus!". Like Darth Vader, you gradually replace your human parts with machine parts. Whatever the situation, you can buy, power, and bully your way out.

Most things that are bad for the soul also have side effects that are bad for the physical realm as well. In the case of cars the side effects are urban sprawl, air pollution, global warming, obesity, road rage, oil wars, and 45,000 Americans dead every year. One can only imagine what will happen when 2 billion Chinese and Indians begin to emulate their Western counterparts.

And the solution is ... is ... I have no idea. It all looks pretty intractable at this point. But I guess a web site wouldn't hurt. Who knows -- it might even help :)

It almost sounds as if the problem isn't a car, or fridge, or Nacho chip... But greed, sloth, etc... Treat the disease, not the symptoms. :D

It almost sounds as if the problem isn't a car, or fridge, or Nacho chip... But greed, sloth, etc... Treat the disease, not the symptoms. :DHmm. Nobody has found a treatment for the "disease" in the last 6000 years, so all that's left is to apply some constraints to the more egregious symptoms.

BTW, what is that avatar?

Just out of curiosity, do any of you own a car? I'm not trying to start a debate, but the average motorist has no interest in electric cars, or even hybrids. When gas prices shot up, people were trading in their SUVs for Hyundais and Civics. Taking a loss of several thousand dollars in order to save a few bucks on gas. This was no altruistic decision, just another example of how short-sighted car owners can be.

See, but this doesn't matter. If electric cars become good enough to have the same (or better) capabilities as a gas car (i.e. go as many miles on one charge, as fast, etc) AND states like california force the car companies to make more of them, then they'll start replacing reg. gas cars. But it requires gov't help/forcing.

I could mumble something about the oil industry making sure that car manufacturers are not pressured by politicians to explore the true efficiency potential of the internal (infernal?) combustion engine, but that would sound like a conspiracy theory.

I could mumble something about the oil industry making sure that car manufacturers are not pressured by politicians to explore the true efficiency potential of the internal (infernal?) combustion engine, but that would sound like a conspiracy theory.This is probably true to some extent, but I think we also need to be fair here. Although the average vehicle's mileage has not dramatically increased since the '80s, it has not dramatically declined, either, and this in the midst of a renaissance of the muscle car era. I mean, I'm driving a box-shaped car powered by a 4-cylinder with 160 horsepower that gets 25-27 mpg highway (Honda Element). By way of comparison, in the '80s the V8s in the Chevy Caprice put out LESS power in some years and got worse mileage besides.

The real killer of innovative technology isn't the car companies. It's the motoring public that refuses to change or invest in new technology on a large scale. For example, Ford has tried to buiild more hybrids and alt fuel vehicles, but with their current financial state, they can't afford to because no one will buy them. I think we need to make public transportation a convenient and VIABLE option for the masses in the U.S. before we can even begin to make any other progress.



On topic, I think the overall fast pace of our lives does crush the soul. I mean, we get so busy with various events, work, and appointments that we as a society no longer know how to relax. I worked at a Michigan state park for a few summers while I was in college, and it was utterly amazing to me that peoples' vacations were as planned and orchestrated as the rest of their lives, especially in the later part of the summer. In June, people were there to hang out, maybe lay on the beach, sit around a fire, kick back, and generally unwind. The people in August essentially came in with fake smiles forced into their faces saying, "I'm going to have a good time no matter what, dammit!" Why? Because they had to try to cram in relaxation as part of their schedule.

But then, I guess that's what the ones in power want. The more they crush our soles in the rest of our lives, the less we'll notice the soul-crushing as we slave in our fake half-walled cubicles under the unnatural glow of flourescent lighting. By the time you look at the cumulative effect of it all, it's no damn wonder that the pasttime of choice in our modern society is to watch the drivel we call reality shows on TV and eat potato chips, since by the time we give what little of ourselves is left to the necessities of survival there's nothing left.

Going fast in a car, on a bike, on foot-good for the soul. Doing that because you need to be somewhere-bad for the soul.

Hmm. Nobody has found a treatment for the "disease" in the last 6000 years, so all that's left is to apply some constraints to the more egregious symptoms.

BTW, what is that avatar?

The problem with constraining certain symptoms is they tend to express themselves in other ways, maybe better, maybe worse, depending on who you ask. But it's still no excuse for not concentrating on being decent. :beer:

The problem with constraining certain symptoms is they tend to express themselves in other ways, maybe better, maybe worse, depending on who you ask. But it's still no excuse for not concentrating on being decent. :beer:
That's an interesting take on the issue. ("Symptom substitution" in psycho-analytic terms, or even the ego defenses of supression and repression.)

I was thinking that sometimes we confound two "religious" issues. First there is the question of morality and ethics--for example, it's wrong to burn gasoline because it harms others. Second, there is the issue of individual spirituality--for example, the effects of speed on the individual's spiritual or psychological well-being. On this forum we talk a lot about the first issue, but less about the second. I had hoped that this thread would generate some discussion of the second issue.

Unfortunately, I think the thread is pretty well fried by now. that's a shame. It's so easy to start a new thread when you want to start a new discussion. Those who aren't interested in spiritual discussions could have easily just skipped this thread, since the title was nicely descriptive of the content.