[Eug]

You didn't misquote me. I quickly changed it to "six figures" but you caught it.

Actually you can get a pure electric car for less than $15000, but it's completely impractical, because it's limited to 25 mph and 35 mile range.

There are other cars around, but overall I consider electric cars impractical, at least for a primary car, because of the charge time and the range. It would make a good secondary car for city driving alone though.

[OreoCookie]

Aggressive cyclists?
I haven't seen many of those on the road (on trails it's a different story). They're the weakest participants in traffic and usually very careful. I almost got seriously injured last year, because a guy overtook me and then figured out it was too tight. So he slammed the breaks. Fortunately I always wear a helmet.

[CreepDogg]

Yeah, I don't want to get into an electric car debate because it's been done before.

Suffice it to say that for my wife and I, we each need a car, and most of our trips are 50 miles or less in city/suburban driving (with some metro-area highway driving so need to travel at highway speeds).

We would be just fine with one pure electric with maybe a 150 mi range, and one plug-in hybrid that could be used for longer trips. We'd use barely any gas. I think this is doable, and expect we'll see some usable cars in the next 5-10 years. Just hoping my current one lasts that long, because I really don't want to buy another gas-powered car.

I'm not worried about the charge time - of course it's not practical for long trips, but for the way I drive it would work fine. Really no different than my cell phone...

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Aggressive cyclists?
I haven't seen many of those on the road (on trails it's a different story).

They're all over the place here. Weaving in and out between cars, not respecting traffic lights. Etc.

[OreoCookie]

I still have a hard time believing this.
If you were talking about people on (motor) bikes, then there'd be no discussion, but neither in Berkeley, nor Japan nor Germany, I've seen an abundance of `aggressive' cyclists. Perhaps because I have always lived in urban areas, don't know … 

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I still have a hard time believing this.
If you were talking about people on (motor) bikes, then there'd be no discussion, but neither in Berkeley, nor Japan nor Germany, I've seen an abundance of `aggressive' cyclists. Perhaps because I have always lived in urban areas, don't know …

I live in Toronto, and used to live downtown. Aggressive cyclists are the norm downtown. A large proportion of them are bike couriers though. It's as if they have a death wish. What's worse is when they don't obey the traffic lights and almost get hit, they go ballistic, and sometimes even hit the stopped car with their fist. It's no surprise that many drivers here absolutely hate them.

[Mastrap]

I would say that the exact opposite is true, sorry Eug.

Toronto car drivers have absolutely no consideration for cyclists. At all. The worst I have ever seen, and I live and work downtown, is the occasional jumping of a red light.

If you want to see aggressive cycling then London (UK) would be a good place to start.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I still have a hard time believing this.
If you were talking about people on (motor) bikes, then there'd be no discussion, but neither in Berkeley, nor Japan nor Germany, I've seen an abundance of `aggressive' cyclists. Perhaps because I have always lived in urban areas, don't know … 

You've never seen aggressive bikers in Berkeley? Seriously? I've seen aggressive bikers pulling moronic **** on Grizzly Peak!

[peeb]

Originally Posted by tie 

The evidence suggests that it is about 10x more dangerous than driving, per mile. This is from memory but I think it is right.

I'd love to see evidence for that - frankly I don't believe it.
Is Bicycling Safe? - Raise the Hammer
This article is pretty interesting, if we take the stats at face value, "cycling is more dangerous than driving. Every 1.6 million kilometres (one million kilometres) cycled produces 0.039 cyclist fatalities, compared to 0.016 fatalities for motorists. They're both very low, but the risk for cycling is more than double."
Nowhere near 10 times.
More interesting though, is time spent in a vehicle - "the fatality rate for every million hours spent cycling is 0.26, compared to 0.47 per million driving hours (on-road motorcycling comes in at a whopping 8.80 deaths per million motorcycling hours). That is, riding a motor vehicle has nearly twice the risk of fatality as riding a bike for a given duration."

Plus, it then goes on to look at the ways in which you are decreasing your fatality risk from heart disease etc. I recommend the whole article.

Bicycle Almanac: Bike Safety Statistics
Risk is also mutable. Most cyclists die at night, and there are a lot of easy things to do to put yourself in a lower risk group than 'all cyclists'.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Mastrap 

I would say that the exact opposite is true, sorry Eug.

Perhaps you have seen it, but I saw all the time. (I used to ride downtown for years.) See below.

Toronto car drivers have absolutely no consideration for cyclists. At all. The worst I have ever seen, and I live and work downtown, is the occasional jumping of a red light.

I agree. Toronto car drivers have absolutely no consideration for cyclists. That doesn't mean cyclists are blameless. These aggressive cyclists make other cyclists look bad.

I used to see it all the time, as both I and my GF lived in the downtown core, AND I used to cycle downtown. I don't see it much outside the core though. As a cyclist looking at other cyclists downtown, you gain a new appreciation of just how assholish some cyclists are.

I was always taught to bike defensively. These cyclists don't, and then get pissed off when a driver doesn't see them.

[peeb]

Is Cycling Dangerous? -- The Risk of Bicycle Use -- Accidents, Fatalities, Injuries, and Benefits
This has some interesting stats on why cyclists are killed.

5.1% The bicyclist exited a driveway in front of an on-coming vehicle.
4.3% The bicyclist turned left in front of a passing vehicle.
3.9% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist, cause of the accident unclear.
2.7% The bicyclist was struck while traveling on the wrong (left) side of the road.
1.4% The bicyclist, on the wrong side, turned right in front of a vehicle.
1.3% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist and failed to see him.
1.2% The bicyclist lost control and swerved into the path of the vehicle.
.8% The bicyclist made a normal left turn but ignored on-coming traffic.
.6% The motorist lost control of the car and struck the bicyclist.
.5% The motorist struck a play vehicle (big wheel, bike with training wheels).

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Well, 5 minutes from where I work is an expensive area. To get a house that some people in this forum might be used to would cost over $2 million.

I would hazard a guess: San Jose, San Francisco, or New York.

[Dakar the Fourth]

He's in Canada, I believe. Toronto area, specifically.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Is Cycling Dangerous? -- The Risk of Bicycle Use -- Accidents, Fatalities, Injuries, and Benefits
This has some interesting stats on why cyclists are killed.

5.1% The bicyclist exited a driveway in front of an on-coming vehicle.
4.3% The bicyclist turned left in front of a passing vehicle.
3.9% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist, cause of the accident unclear.
2.7% The bicyclist was struck while traveling on the wrong (left) side of the road.
1.4% The bicyclist, on the wrong side, turned right in front of a vehicle.
1.3% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist and failed to see him.
1.2% The bicyclist lost control and swerved into the path of the vehicle.
.8% The bicyclist made a normal left turn but ignored on-coming traffic.
.6% The motorist lost control of the car and struck the bicyclist.
.5% The motorist struck a play vehicle (big wheel, bike with training wheels).

That's odd.

I would have thought that one of the most common causes is a car / truck making a right turn, not seeing the bicyclist next to them in the blind spot.

-t

[andi*pandi]

I have a short commute so am not hurting as much as some of you... but I am thinking that this summer I will give riding my bike to work a try. There is a tricky part over the highway and some very steep hills, but it could be a nice way to start the day. The money saved is bonus.

My folks have decided to fly and borrow a car for their summer visit rather than drive.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

That's odd.

I would have thought that one of the most common causes is a car / truck making a right turn, not seeing the bicyclist next to them in the blind spot.

-t

I agree that's strange - with any of these tables the devil is in the detail though - I wonder whether those types of incident tend to be less fatal / low speed? The full study is far more detailed - it looks like that table is an edited summary.
Crash-Type Manual for Bicyclists
http://www.tfhrc.gov/safety/pedbike/ctanbike/24.pdf

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Dakar the Fourth 

He's in Canada, I believe. Toronto area, specifically.

Right. Near where I work, $1 million gets you a reasonable mid-sized house, and $2 million gets you a nice recently built big one.

Nice area to ride bikes though. Almost no bike lanes, but relatively low traffic.

[Eug]

Heh. One of the local gas stations had a half price sale on gas, and there was a line up around the block. Recently it's been almost $1.20 per litre. Today it was 68 cents.



One guy says it "only" cost him $70 to fill his Hummer, because of this sale.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Is Cycling Dangerous? -- The Risk of Bicycle Use -- Accidents, Fatalities, Injuries, and Benefits
This has some interesting stats on why cyclists are killed.

5.1% The bicyclist exited a driveway in front of an on-coming vehicle.
4.3% The bicyclist turned left in front of a passing vehicle.
3.9% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist, cause of the accident unclear.
2.7% The bicyclist was struck while traveling on the wrong (left) side of the road.
1.4% The bicyclist, on the wrong side, turned right in front of a vehicle.
1.3% The motorist was overtaking the bicyclist and failed to see him.
1.2% The bicyclist lost control and swerved into the path of the vehicle.
.8% The bicyclist made a normal left turn but ignored on-coming traffic.
.6% The motorist lost control of the car and struck the bicyclist.
.5% The motorist struck a play vehicle (big wheel, bike with training wheels).

Not to mention the pollution being ingested.

[MacosNerd]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Aggressive cyclists?
I haven't seen many of those on the road (on trails it's a different story). They're the weakest participants in traffic and usually very careful. I almost got seriously injured last year, because a guy overtook me and then figured out it was too tight. So he slammed the breaks. Fortunately I always wear a helmet.

Originally Posted by Eug 

They're all over the place here. Weaving in and out between cars, not respecting traffic lights. Etc.

In Boston the cyclists are crazy, as well. Weaving and darting in and out of traffic, on and off the side walks. I've also seen drivers try to pinch them off the road, into another car or against the curbs.

[nonhuman]

As for the original question, I drive exactly as much as I have for the past two years: not at all. Since moving to Boston I've been working from home so have no commute. When I do need to go somewhere I take the T or, if need be, get a Zipcar. Oddly, i have owned 3 cars in the past two years: the Camaro I drove out here in from San Francisco then sold a couple months later, the Mercedes I drove for a couple months then sold, and now a Mazda 3 that I got an awesome deal on used and that my wife (in 8 days!) uses for her commute (about 30 miles each way).

I'm barely even aware of gas prices any more. I was shocked the other day when I had to buy gas for the first time in about a year that it was nearly $4/gallon.

[iLikebeer]

My gf's Ford Focus gets about twice the MPG as my Jeep, so we've been driving that everywhere. I'm trying to hold out until the fall when the Jetta TDIs should be available to buy with 50ish MPG and no batteries to fail.

Here in AZ, it seems people are driving slower than before, trying to get better gas mileage. There may be less cars on the road, but the traffic seems worse. The worst offenders are giant trucks and SUV's. I wish someone would tell them 30mph in a 40 zone won't give them better fuel economy. Lowest speed in your highest gear people!

[peeb]

Actually, 30mph will get you better milage than 40mph, surely? Also, slower traffic may actually improve congestion - it is stopping and starting that really creates jams.

[OreoCookie]

I'm not saying there aren't aggressive cyclists, but they are very, very few. We know we're weaker than a car. On the other hand, many drivers don't really look out for cyclists or worse, have contempt for them. Cars are infinitely more dangerous than bikes (the non-motorized variety) and cyclists have to be more alert than drivers. Otherwise they're dead or seriously injured.

[King Bob On The Cob]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually, 30mph will get you better milage than 40mph, surely? Also, slower traffic may actually improve congestion - it is stopping and starting that really creates jams.

I thought it was kind of a bell shaped curve up to 55 MPH...

And slower traffic in a place that's designed for faster traffic will create congestion as cars accelerate towards the slower cars from behind, creating a sort of artificial bottleneck.

[peeb]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

I thought it was kind of a bell shaped curve up to 55 MPH...

I'm pretty sure it's not.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by King Bob On The Cob 

I thought it was kind of a bell shaped curve up to 55 MPH...

And slower traffic in a place that's designed for faster traffic will create congestion as cars accelerate towards the slower cars from behind, creating a sort of artificial bottleneck.

No.

If everybody tries to maintain a constant speed, even though slower than the otherwise rated maximum, then the average speed will be higher than in the rubber-band stop-and-go of acceleration and deceleration.

The average speed just goes down the more cars there are.

And, of course, traffic lights still impose stops.

[ghporter]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Actually, 30mph will get you better milage than 40mph, surely? Also, slower traffic may actually improve congestion - it is stopping and starting that really creates jams.

30MPH is a better choice than 40 for stop-start type traffic, as in a downtown setting. But on a highway, 50-70 is better because after a point (which is dependent on the aerodynamics of the vehicle) you're just pushing against air resistance due to laminar air flow over the body. This drastically improves efficiency and thus mileage.

[tie]

Originally Posted by peeb 

More interesting though, is time spent in a vehicle - "the fatality rate for every million hours spent cycling is 0.26, compared to 0.47 per million driving hours (on-road motorcycling comes in at a whopping 8.80 deaths per million motorcycling hours). That is, riding a motor vehicle has nearly twice the risk of fatality as riding a bike for a given duration."

I think that more than twice as dangerous as driving makes bicycling pretty dangerous. And who cares what the risk is per unit time, one hour driving versus one hour bicycling? That is completely irrelevant.

[NeXTLoop]

Originally Posted by peeb 

Do you use the SUV for anything that you couldn't use a more gas efficient car for?

Unfortunately yes. I live in an area that has a lot of (not well maintained) gravel roads. Between the ground clearance, occasionally needing to pull a small work trailer, and needing 4WD for snow (live in a semi-rural area) an SUV or truck of some kind is almost a necessity. I go with the SUV so that I can combine the convenience of a car with the practicality of a truck.

So with an SUV as a necessity, my option for a second vehicle is either a very expensive fuel efficient car (such as a Prius or Jetta Diesel) or a very inexpensive motorcycle that gets far better gas mileage than the most efficient of cars.

[dreamryche]

Originally Posted by tie 

I think that more than twice as dangerous as driving makes bicycling pretty dangerous. And who cares what the risk is per unit time, one hour driving versus one hour bicycling? That is completely irrelevant.

A significant portion of cycling fatalities, as noted above, can be directly attributed to idiot people on bikes not playing by the rules. If you ride smart (obey the rules of the road and avoid heavy traffic when possible), you minimize your chances of injury.

[Andrew Stephens]

I can see some pretty shocking mpg figures on here. I guess milage isn't a consideration so much when fuel is still cheap.

How does diesel fuel go in the states. A nice compact diesel car should get you a healthy 60/70 mpg. Do Americans consider diesel as an option or is it some kind of freaky choice?

[Paco500]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

I can see some pretty shocking mpg figures on here. I guess milage isn't a consideration so much when fuel is still cheap.

How does diesel fuel go in the states. A nice compact diesel car should get you a healthy 60/70 mpg. Do Americans consider diesel as an option or is it some kind of freaky choice?

I am not an expert, but as I understand the US diesel market compared to the UK diesel market, the distribution system for "city" or clean diesel is not as mature, therefore the cars are not as clean, making them a less attractive option. Also, remember that the MPG figures quoted here are US gallons and not the larger imperial gallons used in the UK. Obviously, that's not all the difference, there are a lot of abysmal MPG figures quoted here, but the exact same car is going to be rated as attaining higher MPG in the UK than in the US.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Andrew Stephens 

I can see some pretty shocking mpg figures on here. I guess milage isn't a consideration so much when fuel is still cheap.

How does diesel fuel go in the states. A nice compact diesel car should get you a healthy 60/70 mpg. Do Americans consider diesel as an option or is it some kind of freaky choice?

Diesel vs. gasoline isn't really an appropriate comparison, in terms of mileage.

1) Diesel (now) costs significantly more than gasoline.
2) Particulate emissions for diesel are still significantly higher than for gasoline (although that's changing somewhat in North America).
3) Diesel has more energy per volume of fuel (but see above).

ie. Apples vs. oranges comparison.

P.S. Gallons in the US are smaller in than in the UK. According to the Leopard Dashboard unit converter, 1 US gallon = 0.83267418 Imperial gallons.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Diesel vs. gasoline isn't really an appropriate comparison, in terms of mileage.

1) Diesel (now) costs significantly more than gasoline.
2) Particulate emissions for diesel are still significantly higher than for gasoline (although that's changing somewhat in North America).
3) Diesel has more energy per volume of fuel (but see above).

ie. Apples vs. oranges comparison.

Why is that? Except for reason (1) which depends on your location, (2) has been adressed by car manufacturers (in most cases, filters that reduce particle emission have become standard just like catalyzers), whereas (3) means that diesel is a more efficient fuel per-se.

Originally Posted by Eug 

P.S. Gallons in the US are smaller in than in the UK. According to the Leopard Dashboard unit converter, 1 US gallon = 0.83267418 Imperial gallons.

That's obviously one thing to be kept in mind when comparing fuel efficiency in terms of gas-mileage, good point.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by dreamryche 

A significant portion of cycling fatalities, as noted above, can be directly attributed to idiot people on bikes not playing by the rules. If you ride smart (obey the rules of the road and avoid heavy traffic when possible), you minimize your chances of injury.

Are you saying that just because that's what you think the problem is or do you base this on something? Clearly the statistics on fatalities are not enough. IMO the problem are (car) drivers. I'm saying this as someone who drives cars and rides bicycles alike. I've made my licence in the middle of nowhere in PA and there were no bikes on the road. There was no emphasis on bicycles in the material I had to study to get my driver's permit. And there was no sense of responsibility by drivers that they had to look out for weaker participants in traffic.

In other countries, bikes are more abundant and are used more frequently by `normal people' who would like to get from A to B. Plus, there are higher standards in driving lessons. One of the principles (which is also put into legislation) is that stronger participants in traffic have more responsibilities than weaker participants. A truck driver needs to pay more attention and drive more carefully than someone driving a car. Someone driving a car needs to be more careful looking out for bikes and bicycles.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Why is that? Except for reason (1) which depends on your location, (2) has been adressed by car manufacturers (in most cases, filters that reduce particle emission have become standard just like catalyzers), whereas (3) means that diesel is a more efficient fuel per-se.

For 2, the filters don't solve the problem completely. Things are changing, but changing doesn't mean changed. So again, an apples to oranges comparison, esp. in North America.
For 3, you're just comparing two different types of fuels and like I said it's an apples vs oranges comparison. Cars that burn gasoline don't run on diesel and cars that burn diesel don't run on gasoline, because the fuel type is different enough that the engines have to be designed very differently. And yeah, while diesel has more energy per volume, it costs more. Should we use the arbitrary argument that diesel is more expensive because it costs more per volume? No, because it provides more energy for that higher cost, so that is balanced out to a certain extent. Furthermore, it takes significantly more oil to produce one gallon diesel than one gallon of gasoline. Don't forget about the environmental effects of producing the fuel before it even gets into your car.

IOW, the statement that "Diesel cars get better gas mileage than gasoline cars." doesn't really tell us much, in terms of environmental effect and energy efficiency.

I'm not knocking diesel, but I'm just saying that Diesel car A getting better mileage than Gas car B doesn't mean it's a "more efficient" car overall.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Eug 

And yeah, while diesel has more energy per volume, it costs more.

Nope. It's significantly cheaper in Europe, for example. However, diesel autos are taxed significantly higher here in Germany. Due to the much better mileage and significantly lower cost for diesel, it's still worth running diesel engines from a certain number of kilometers per year.

Although the price difference is slowly being eroded.

[Eug]

Let's put it another way.

OreoCookiethane gets 50 miles per gallon in the Volkswagon Caretta Version B
Eugasoline gets 25 miles per gallon in the Volkswagon Caretta Version A.

OreoCookie thus states that OreoCookiethane is a much more efficient fuel. Maybe yes, maybe no. Eug points out that Eugasoline costs exactly half as much, and has exactly half the emissions per gallon (both for the production of the fuel, and for the consumption of it).

Overall, that means Eugasoline and OreoCookiethane have the exact same overall efficiency, even though a car with OreoCookiethane goes twice as far on the same volume.

I'm not saying this is exactly the situation with gasoline vs. diesel, cuz it isn't, but it does illustrate that using the distance-per-volume argument alone really doesn't tell us much.

Originally Posted by analogika 

Nope. It's significantly cheaper in Europe, for example.

He lives in the US. Also, European diesel historically was often of much better quality than US diesel, but that is changing.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

For 2, the filters don't solve the problem completely. Things are changing, but changing doesn't mean changed. So again, an apples to oranges comparison, esp. in North America.

Bluetec engines satisfy the strictes emission standards in the US, so why do you say that they haven't changed already? What do you want to do, impose even stricter emission standards? Or even better, impose stricter emission standards on older vehicles?

Originally Posted by Eug 

For 3, you're just comparing two different types of fuels and like I said it's an apples vs oranges comparison. Cars that burn gasoline don't run on diesel and cars that burn diesel don't run on gasoline, because the fuel type is different enough that the engines have to be designed very differently. And yeah, while diesel has more energy per volume, it costs more.

It costs more where you live. But you can make the comparison independent of the costs of fuel (e. g. gas-mileage), but of course, you should also add this to the equation when you market it in a particular country. Then simply compare the `cost/mile' or whatever you like and see how a car with a diesel engine compares. So you can compare the two quite well with numbers, they're not apples and oranges.

Plus, there are other factors that may come into the equation, such as reliability and engine characteristics. Diesel engines have less moving parts and are usually more reliable. They are also deliver a lot more torque than a gas engine with similar displacement.

Originally Posted by Eug 

Furthermore, it takes significantly more oil to produce one gallon diesel than one gallon of gasoline. Don't forget about the environmental effects of producing the fuel before it even gets into your car.

That's not the whole story here. If you crack oil (i. e. you make crude oil into usable components such as kerosin, diesel, gas, heavy oil, etc.) you cannot simply eliminate one in favor of the other. Each refinery will produce diesel and gas (and all the other derivatives) at the same time. A mixed car fleet is an obvious answer to that (what else would you do with diesel you produce anyway?).

Originally Posted by Eug 

IOW, the statement that "Diesel cars get better gas mileage than gasoline cars." doesn't really tell us much, in terms of environmental effect and energy efficiency.

I'm not knocking diesel, but I'm just saying that Diesel car A getting better mileage than Gas car B doesn't mean it's a "more efficient" car overall.

No, it's not the whole story, but why don't you bring some numbers and compare the costs to run the two types of engines in a car of the same size?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Eug 

Let's put it another way.

OreoCookiethane gets 50 miles per gallon in the Volkswagon Caretta Version B
Eugasoline gets 25 miles per gallon in the Volkswagon Caretta Version A.

I don't like it when people put words into my mouth.
In any case, ethane is a gas which is measured in kilos when you purchase it and not in volume
Anyway, in the comparison above, B is more fuel efficient than A. It doesn't mean B is cheaper to run than A.
But if the cost of both types of fuels is such that B is cheaper to run (per mile) than A, than B is not just more fuel efficient, but also cheaper to run. Conversely, if the cost/mile in car A is cheaper than in car B, it doesn't mean it's more fuel efficient.

Originally Posted by Eug 

He lives in the US. Also, European diesel historically was often of much better quality than US diesel, but that is changing.

No, I don't, I forgot to change my location (my fault).

[Eug]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Bluetec engines satisfy the strictes emission standards in the US, so why do you say that they haven't changed already? What do you want to do, impose even stricter emission standards? Or even better, impose stricter emission standards on older vehicles?

It costs more where you live. But you can make the comparison independent of the costs of fuel (e. g. gas-mileage), but of course, you should also add this to the equation when you market it in a particular country. Then simply compare the `cost/mile' or whatever you like and see how a car with a diesel engine compares. So you can compare the two quite well with numbers, they're not apples and oranges.

Plus, there are other factors that may come into the equation, such as reliability and engine characteristics. Diesel engines have less moving parts and are usually more reliable. They are also deliver a lot more torque than a gas engine with similar displacement.

That's not the whole story here. If you crack oil (i. e. you make crude oil into usable components such as kerosin, diesel, gas, heavy oil, etc.) you cannot simply eliminate one in favor of the other. Each refinery will produce diesel and gas (and all the other derivatives) at the same time. A mixed car fleet is an obvious answer to that (what else would you do with diesel you produce anyway?).

No, it's not the whole story, but why don't you bring some numbers and compare the costs to run the two types of engines in a car of the same size?

Depending on location, diesel IS cheaper to run than gasoline. I fully agree with that. However, up until recently, you couldn't even own a diesel car in California, because it couldn't meet the emission standards there. Bluetec has recently allowed diesel cars to meet Tier II Bin 5 emission standards.

However, if you were to add similar types of technology to gasoline cars (for similar costs), then they would easily beat Tier II Bin 5 by a large margin. For example. A hybrid Prius is a PZEV car. I highly doubt that a hybrid diesel Jetta could even approach that designation economically with technology available in 2008.

So yes I agree that it may be cheaper to run diesel, but there are a zillion other factors to consider. Ironically, in my case the #1 consideration was even the above. It was that in downtown Toronto, diesel stations are few and far between. Finding diesel fuel to put in your car is a major PITA.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

No, I don't, I forgot to change my location (my fault).

Oh. If you now live in Europe, some of the arguments no longer apply.

[ghporter]

Does passenger car-grade diesel fuel provide anything like the same amount of energy per milliliter that regular gasoline does? I'm fairly certain E85 ethanol blends do not-there was a pretty good discussion of that a while back in our local paper when a large grocery chain started carrying E85 at their gas stations. The point is that if diesel isn't at least as energetic as regular gasoline, then you have to come up with some sort of conversion to determine whether a diesel-fueled car is as economical as a similar gasoline-fueled car at any given mileage level. Around here auto diesel is more expensive than premium gasoline, so I am really interested in whether it's worth it for my diesel-driving neighbors.

[nonhuman]

Diesel provides more energy per volume than gasoline.

Up until about a year ago, diesel was cheaper than gasoline around here (Somerville, MA) by about 50¢/gallon. At that time I was driving and older diesel car ('83 benz) and getting about 25 mpg with it. Coincidentally, right about the time that I sold the benz, diesel prices jumped and it is now about $1/gallon more than gasoline here. I'm now driving a Mazda 3 which also gets about 25 mpg. (Though as I said above, I'm not actually the driver.)

We'd like to eventually get a Tesla, hopefully when the WhiteStar is released it will be in our price range.

[OreoCookie]

Damnit, Safari ate my post. This reply may be shorter.
Also, one more disclaimer: I'm not a rabid supporter of diesel technology, in fact, I prefer public transportation to cars most of the time (it's cheaper and I can work). But I think diesel cars are still judged (at least on some emotional level) by the diesels that were imported in the 70 and 80s

@Eug
Diesel engines and gas engines have very different emission properties. The two main obstacles were NOx and fine particle emissions. The former is dealt with by `Bluetec' technology, the latter one is dealt with by other types of filters. Since gas-powered cars work differently, there is no simple equivalent technology. So your statement that `if you would invest similar technology into gas-powered combustion engines, you could easily best the newest Californian requirements' doesn't make sense.

Also, you don't need hybrid technology in diesel-powered cars to beat the fuel economy of a hybrid. A BMW 320d of the latest non-Bluetec generation consumes about 4.9 l/100 km (which amounts to about 50 mpg*). Now keep in mind, this is a car with a 177 hp engine.

* I'm aware that the testing cycles in Europe and in America are different, but this should just give you an idea what's possible with a fairly powerful engine.

Concerning gas stations, that's clearly a chicken-and-egg problem. In Germany, for instance, there are very few gas stations that offer gas (the real gaseous variety, not petrol-gas), so sales of bifuel cars are very slow. In Italy, there are many more gas stations that offer the `real thing,' so these cars are more popular.


@Glenn
Diesel engines are inherently more efficient at converting chemical energy into motion (physicists say that the Carnot efficiency is higher). The Carnot efficiency is a maximal efficiency no engine can best. That's why there are efforts underway to construct gas-powered engines that work the same way as diesel engines for low revs (i. e. without spark plugs), but like regular gas-powered engines in the high-rev regime.

In addition to that, diesel contains more energy. That's one of the reasons, why emissions are different and usually require more technology to deal with: the explosions are `harder' and the carbon doesn't have `time' to be oxidized as completely whereas nitrogen molecules are broken up and converted into nitrous oxides.

[dampeoples]

I drive the same, a short 8 mile drive to work, normally on a small SUV, but now that it's warm, on a motorcycle.

At work (I'm a mailman), I get in my old Jeep, and use around 4 gallons of gas to go 35 miles a day, which is horrible mileage, but it's all stop and start. The EMA I get is calculated every quarter, so we're always behind on what we get paid, so I feel it pecking away at my own money now. I currently get $24 a day to drive my own vehicle, which leaves me about $9 per day to cover everything else (tires, oil, insurance, tags, etc), so I'm always looking to save extra money.

After work, I generally go straight home, maybe running an errand or two. My wife drives 40 miles one way to work, and recently went to buy a more fuel efficient car. She failed at that, but she drove a Cherokee, and the car does a better job than that, at least.

[imitchellg5]

Unfortunately, I've been driving more, but it's all been highway driving so it doesn't make a huge difference. I normally get around 20-21 mpg around town, but with highway driving I've been getting about 27-28 mpg, so it evens out.

[Tesselator]

Hehehe... you Americans...

It's about $8.00 a gallon where I live. But with this peak-oil scam that is being
perpetrated on the world it'll likely be $10 a gallon in the USA soon enough.

Artificial Scarcity... (I hear "they" want to do the same thing with water. )

[analogika]

Originally Posted by Tesselator 

Hehehe... you Americans...

It's about $8.00 a gallon where I live. But with this peak-oil scam that is being
perpetrated on the world it'll likely be $10 a gallon in the USA soon enough.

Artificial Scarcity... (I hear "they" want to do the same thing with water. )

The problem is that water isn't artificially scarce. Water is a *real* problem.

If you think oil politics are bad, just wait till the REAL fighting begins - for water. In about twenty or so years...

[slpdLoad]

edit: tried to reply and didn't realize this was two pages