Crippling Technology

246
4662
Print Friendly, PDF & Email

So much would be possible – if it weren’t for the government.'85 Civic

Government, remember, is not composed of experts in much of anything – except control and manipulation. Politicians and bureaucrats are not people who do things.

They force others to do things.

In the car world, you have the ridiculous spectacle of non-engineer mechanical imbeciles dictating functional parameters of engine design to people who actually do know how a four-stroke engine works, the meaning of stoichiometry; who understand that there is an inherent conflict between fuel economy and “safety.” That the more a car is designed to meet the first objective, the less it will meet the second.

And the reverse.

Result?

The engineers are told to deliver both in equal measure – and we end up with cars that are heavy and thirsty.

It’s a tragedy – a comic one, when you put it in context.'15 Civic

Here we are – almost 2016 – and the typical new car is about as economical to drive as the typical car of 1985. This is hard to believe, but you should believe it because it’s true. The typical car of the early-mid-1980s was averaging mid-high 20s – just like today. There were numerous models available that approached or even exceeded 40 MPG on the highway. A few (like the diesel-powered VW Rabbit) got into the 50s.

They did this without direct-injection or even port fuel-injection. Many still had carburetors. Eight and nine-speed transmissions (with the top three gears being overdrives) were unheard of. Most automatics of this era had four speeds. Some still had just three.

But the one thing the cars of that era did have was less weight – about 500-800 pounds less of it, on average, than comparable cars have today. And the sole and only reason for all this additional weight is the increased demand for “safety” eructing from the solons in Washington. Well, so we must presume. Because the people who actually buy the cars were never offered the free choice. It would be interesting to find out what they’d choose if they did have that choice.

We can make some rough calculations.fat people

Let’s start with a pretty fuel-efficient (but ridiculously heavy) car like the current/2015 Honda Civic sedan. This compact (by current standards) weighs in at 2,811 pounds. A 1985 Civic sedan (see here) weighed 1,962 pounds – 849 pounds less than the current model.

It is not surprising that – notwithstanding a direct-injected engine with variable valve timing and an ultra-efficient continuously variable (CVT) automatic transmission – the ’15 Civic sedan only averages 33 MPG – vs. 27 MPG for its ancestor from 30 years ago.

A six MPG overall improvement.

Pathetic.direct injection

But absolutely understandable, given the almost 900 pounds additional metal the ’15 is carrying around. And it is carrying it in order to pass muster with Uncle’s “safety” mandates – which include a mandate that a car’s roof must be able to bear the entire weight of the car in the event the car rolls on its back. Of course, most cars live their entire lives – from dealer’s showroom to crusher, many years hence – without ever rolling on their back. Probably there are many people out there who would prefer to have been carting around 900 pounds less metal all those years – saving thousands of very real dollars in fuel costs rather than having to pay for some bureaucrat’s idea of what might be helpful if the car ever did roll on its back.

And it is thousands of dollars we’re talking about. If the ’15 Civic – with all its technological advantages – weighed what the ’85 Civic weighed, it is certain the car would be averaging 40-45 MPG. It would, after all be 30 percent lighter. And a 10 MPG or so uptick is probably a very conservative estimate. 

Over a typical vehicle of life of 15 years or so, the savings would be no small change. Figure one less fill-up per month for the typical driver and assume a fill-up equals about 13 gallons at today’s $2.25 or so per gallon. That’s about $30 a month saved – or $360 a year in your pocket instead of ExxonMobil’s. Over fifteen years, the savings amounts to $5,400 – and that’s assuming the cost of gas stays the same.gas expenses

Which, probably, it won’t. It’s likely to go up.

But even if it doesn’t, that’s still five grand you didn’t have to spend on gas.

Well, wouldn’t have to spend on gas – were it not for the fact that you’re denied this option. A bureaucrat in Washington (well, ok, several of them) have decided your “safety” – as defined by them – is more important than your right (past tense) to drive an economical car. The cost-benefit calculation has been taken out of your hands, as if you were still an eight-year-old and needed momma to make sure you don’t chew on lead paint chips.

Here, by the way, is a real-world example of the kind of car we could have – and which the Mexicans do have. It’s the Chevy Matiz – and it costs less than $7,000 U.S. and gets 45-50 MPG… . But it’s not “safe” – so you’re not allowed to buy it.

It’s even worse when it comes to diesels.

The federal flapdoodle imposed on them has made them barely more economical to operate than many of today’s gas engines – and a lot more expensive to buy, feed and maintain. Diesels used to simple and cheap. Now they are complicated and pricey – and their small advantage at the pump is very questionable, economically-speaking, vs. what you have to pay for them up front.urea injection

Again, Uncle.

With all the technology on tap, modern diesels would be able to deliver 60-plus MPG on average, in a car that weighed less than 2,000 pounds like our ’85 Civic example. You’d think – if your thoughts were logical – that government bureaucrats would be “all over” that. They are, after all, here to help… .

Except they’re not.

Consciously or not, the desideratum of politicians and bureaucrats is control and direction. If this were not true, then force would not be necessary. They’d rely on reason and persuasion. Surely that would be sufficient. If the object of the exercise weren’t control and direction.

But of course, it is.

And that, friends, is why we have “high tech” cars that get maybe 6 MPG better than their ancestors did 30 years ago.

If you value independent media, please support independent media. We depend on you to keep the wheels turning! As you can see from the pie chart (on the main page, top right column) we’re way low at the moment. Please help, if you can. 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer to avoid PayPal, our mailing address is:

EPautos
721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers are free to those who sign up for a $5 or more monthly recurring donation to support EPautos, or for a one-time donation of $10 or more. (Please be sure to tell us you want a sticker – and also, provide an address, so we know where to mail the thing!)EPautoslogo

 

Share Button

246 COMMENTS

  1. the best article ever also the best comments and replies eric.

    i’m just happy that i was around in the 1950s when cars and engines came of age.

    thanks to carl anton duntov and his 1949 cadillac and olds engine (which in reality were kettering v8s), that when duntov arrived at gm, they bought the kettering engine company and voilà , the v8 race started.

    i have had 47 new cars and built two cars in the late 50s – an olds and a fordollac. fun that will not ever be possible soon.

    only if you are wealthy thanks to barrett-jackson and look a-likes who have made hot rodding only for the wealthy; that fordollac i built in 1958 cost 850 bucks total and was a complete rebuilt engine paint interior all in three weeks in time for college.

  2. Clover just posted “Brent bars…”

    That’s all the farther I read clover, maybe it will be approved by an admin, maybe it won’t. The effect will be the same though.

    You do seem to have increased the frequency and lengths of your posts, but you still seem to be missing the mark 100% of the time.

    And that is what makes you nothing but another turd in eric’s punchbowl.

    Make your case for why paychecks are paychecks if you can.

    It would greatly help if you’d also be at least partially responsive to somebody at least some of the time.

    Where I am earning taxable income as an independent contractor, bids are made for local government projects, to the extent that the majority of “my company’s” revenue is governmental in nature right now.

    I can’t see the harm or risk in my disclosing that fact here.

    Isn’t it reasonable for you to tell us something so basic.

    Are you a street thug. A count or lord of the manor. A squire. A bondsmen. A courtesan or lapidary.

    We’re all interacting here in a state of plasma, it’s true, outside of time and mainly at the speed of light. Amid the cyber-aether. There’s no accepted way to identify whose electrons are whose. But even so, why not humor us?
    http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/04/q-if-a-photon-doesnt-experience-time-then-how-can-it-travel/

    The Inexplicable Universe with Neil Tyson
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swYIBbFxuH0

    Are you really that inexplicable?

  3. Science is about understanding and mastering nature. You’ll know you’re engaged in it, because you’ll see tangible results. You’ll end up with new technologies, know with certainty how to navigate what used to be a murky fearful life-threatening unknown.

    Soviet exercises that support cattle management protocols to protect people from second-hand smoke have little to do with science. And everything to do with martialization of human beings.

    It’s a science that’s being done to you. Not science that is done for you. Not really science at all, but rather dogma to justify authoritarian rule.

    I could do a study show that riding a bike in a busy city downtown is incredibly dangerous. It might kill you immediately. It might cause other second-hand bikers who are forced to share the roads with bikers to get in accident and even die.

    From an actuarial standpoint, mixing bikes and multi-ton vehicles is extremely accidentogenic. Countless lives will be saved, by not allowing bikes to use the roads with motor vehicles.

    This is why you have to fight the war on tobacco, or drugs, or fast food, or whatever false war. Sooner, rather than later, they will come for the things you care about.

    Smoking cigarettes take years to harm you, if ever. And they also present benefits besides the risks.

    If you support smoking regulations. If you believe their regulation has any kind of scientific basis. You logically must also support separation of bikes and cars.

    This will save far more lives than smoking prohibitions. Once this is done, we can move forward to separating motorcycles and semis as well.

    There are many opportunities here. They shouldn’t be able to travel at such a high speed. Lives are saved by restricting speed of motor vehicles too.

    Its hard not to get angered talking about this, which doesn’t help my case, but I think my point is clear.

    Allowing people to ride bicycles in traffic is a danger to the rider, and to the innocent drivers who don’t want to have to worry about killing some idiot biker who rudely brings his non-motorized vehicle onto a road meant for motor vehicles.

    A scientific investigation of tobacco would lead to alternative ways to get nicotine. It would lead to better ways to deliver the desired effect. The downsides of smoking, would become less and less, if anyone were legitimately interested in pursuing scientific discovery.

    There also a scientific inquiry that could be made so we could learn how being an author can become a profitable profession again.

    This would require a great deal of effort, and ingenuity. Perhaps more than any of us possess or is willing to contribute to the cause.

    Which is a shame really.

    If we really were men of above average knowledge and ability, we’d find a way to persevere and thrive.

    Until then, I guess we can all keep pointing out problems and flaws, and waiting for some outside force or event to bring the kind of world we all want into existence.

    It happened to the Native Americans version 1.0. And now it’s happened to Native Americans version 2.0 like us.

    We can sit around in our garage teepees thinking about the good old days, before we had our asses handed to us by the men who speak with forked tongues who stole our land and way of life from us right before our eyes.

  4. An intelligent rational man should know he’s on the wrong side of an argument when he slips into clover-speak and utters the nonsense term “occupational hazard.”

    There is obviously no such thing as “occupational hazard.”

    There are owners of businesses.

    And there are people they hire to work in their businesses.

    There are no fucking occupations, that is slippery slope voodoo garbage that sends you tumbling down the hill into a clover clusterfuck pile up at the bottom of a steaming shitpile of wrongthinking.

    A man can claim to be an engineer if he can pay his own way and run his own business where he is employed as such.

    Otherwise he is an interchangeable piece of commodity labor.

    The men who own businesses might give them the title of engineer. Or perhaps only call them advanced janitors or the like.

    It’s easy for us to recognize bottom of the barrel clovers who are utterly illiterate.

    It’s far more difficult, and important that we call out cloverism even when we see it in the highest echelons of otherwise productive people who legitimately add great value to products and perform rare and highly sought after services.

    If you work in a pit crew for a NASCAR racer, or as a roughneck in the oil patch, you know damn well what you’re getting into and are free to work somewhere else with less risk.

    As a worker in restaurants, you are free to choose the conditions you work under by ending your employment and finding somewhere more suitable.

    You have no rights whatsoever to any kind of expected occupational conditions that would supersede the rights of your employer.

    That is the kind of nonsense purveyors of the political method would wish you to believe.

    • Tor,
      The language is what it is. I do my best to communicate in ways people understand. If you don’t like it at least present a coherent explanation why instead of simply saying I’m participating in cloverism. Because in all that babble you have not presented a case why there aren’t any occupations (in terms of what one does for a living) or why the term is cloverism, you have simply made the declaration as if this should be background information like using ‘we’ for what a government does. Sorry, this is entirely new or at least obscure enough that I’ve not come across it and you’ll have to present a case of why this is the wrong word to use.

      Also once again you seem to go out of your way to try and troll me or something with the sanitation engineer material.

      Dictionary.com defines occupation as:
      1. a person’s usual or principal work or business, especially as a means of earning a living; vocation: Her occupation was dentistry.
      2. any activity in which a person is engaged.

      I fail to see any cloverism in “occupational hazard” which is a hazard of the work one is engaged in.

      Lastly I made no comment or implication about being not being free to choose another line of work or anything else. Of course people are free to do something else. Of course everything has it’s risks. Duh.

  5. In informal discussion with engineers about weight saving in cars between manual and power windows; the weight savings were about nil as modern power window mechanisms weighed about the same as their manual counterparts.

    Weight difference: Power vs manual windows.
    http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/weight-difference-power-vs-manual-windows-21817.html

    Master list of 65+ proven mods for increasing MPG
    http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/master-list-65-proven-mods-increasing-mpg-5170.html

    The average new car weighed 3,221 pounds in 1987 but 4,009 pounds in 2010.
    http://www.nber.org/papers/w17170#fromrss

    One study found that higher fuel-economy standards imposed in the 1980s led to 2,000 additional deaths per year. If Americans suddenly start buying many more ultra-light cars, it is not hard to imagine more deadly accidents as a result.

    It’s an unattractive choice. We can all buy heavier cars, all be a bit safer, and all pay more for gas.

    Or some of us can buy heavier cars, pay more for gas, and be safer while others buy lighter cars, pay less for gas, and die more often on the road.

    As for the third option—we all buy lighter cars, all pay less for gas, and all be safer—good luck trying to sell that to America.

  6. Re: Crip Technology…
    http://cdn.pimpmyspace.org/media/pms/c/sc/cp/po/0355l.jpg

    I am with you when it comes to the over-reach of gang activity regulations, but I tend to veer from the libertarian mind-set when it comes to the neighborhood environmental side.

    I don’t have a perfect solution, but I do somewhat agree with having some sort of regulation on gangs, both in drug distribution and production and in strong arm tactics to impose authority.

    The typical libertarian response of employing private protection agents against gangs who terrorize an area to force them to clean up their act, doesn’t really work when you’re talking about millions of individuals who use violence a little with each aggressive act.

    Plus, even if we employed private security guards that followed our explicit instructions, the damage has been done at that point and the broken neighborhoods can’t just stop future violence and expect things to somehow work themselves out.

    Anyway, when it comes to safety…it all seems silly anyway because you can easily go out and buy a gun, knife, etc, that’s just as lethal if not more so than the weapons used by gang members.

    Heck, you can even own weapons without a license in many states! But, keep in mind, the government is all about THE CHILDREN!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

    I agree, if some municipality wants to pass ordinances that permit gang activity, then let it be.

    If Wackenhut or various security companies want to market their services as making anarchy safer, and bash cities without ordinances and private security in their commercials for being dangerous, then the market will fix itself (or people who don’t care about safety will take the known risks).

    The other side is that magazines, and guys like you, would be able to publish reviews and also note the results of private safety services as compared to government imposed police and court systems, and could still “certify” their safety ratings.

    Much like UL does in my industry (vibrators). We pay them to certify our female pleasuring devices, so we can put their logo in our marketing and packaging and give our customers that warm fuzzy feeling (though it is also to conform with some federal codes).

    • Not as bad as you think Danny,check check out the modern chevy vs the old 59″solid chevy”,besides the old 70 model trucks were deathtraps,the roofs would collapse,some models could incinerate you,as for mr I want modern(but still dont understand the need for all those airbags and stability controls,ad nauseum.Agree with you completely on the emissions business,old cars and motorcycles really stink.

  7. I am with you when it comes to the over-reach of safety standards, but I tend to veer from the libertarian mind-set when it comes to the emissions side. I don’t have a perfect solution, but I do somewhat agree with having some sort of regulation on emissions, both in cars and in factories. The typical libertarian response of suing a company who pollutes an area to force them to clean up their act, doesn’t really work when you’re talking about millions of individuals who pollute a little with each car. Plus, even if we followed that rule, the damage has been done at that point and the “earth” can’t sue people to clean up the air.

    Anyway, when it comes to safety…it all seems silly anyway because you can easily go out and buy a motorcycle, moped, etc, that can go just as fast if not faster than some cars, with nearly no safety features. Heck, you can even ride without a helmet in most states! But, keep in mind, the government is all about THE CHILDREN!! THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

    I agree, if Kia wants to make a car that has no airbags that only costs $5000, then let it be. If Subaru or Volvo wants to market their products as being safer, and bash Kia in their commercials for being dangerous, then the market will fix itself (or people who don’t care about safety will take the known risks). The other side is that magazines, and guys like you, would be able to publish reviews and also note private safety test organizations results such as IIHS, would still “certify” their cars. Much like UL does in my industry (door locks). We pay them to certify our locks, so we can put their logo in our marketing and packaging and give our customers that warm fuzzy feeling (though it is also to conform with some local codes).

    The valid argument in some cases would be that a driver of an “unsafe” car could potentially do some harm to someone in a “safe” car. For instance, even today, someone driving a 70’s pickup truck could do a lot of damage hitting a car that is built today with crumple zones, etc. I see that argument, but there are people still driving 70’s trucks, so those haven’t been “outlawed” (yet) so the problem is already there.

    • The existing pollution standards are what the gunvermin has determined will be allowed – with input from TPTB of course.
      Here’s a nice example of pollution where the gunvermin not only allows it, but punishes the victim – pollen from a GMO crop (most often Monsanto) drifts into the field of a farmer who has been saving his own seed for generations. Now he is liable to Monsanto for theft of their patented genetics – even though he doesn’t want it.

  8. I’ve not yet done the math to assess whether a free market will bring us greater prosperity and innovation or not. Probably too complex for anyone to do so, for now. This does seem to be one of the fundamental assertions of this blog, and it is an important question to be sure.

    Anecdotally, I believe statism and the use of force on producers of value is a crippling technology, without a doubt.

    But now that Dave Head has reared his head here, personally, I’m more concerned about how coercive technologies have crippled our humanity.

    Regardless of the math and science. We can defeat these coercive demons on the basis of our humanity. The world doesn’t only need more innovations. It also needs more humanity and rewarding social interaction.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Svj3MFWIt-c

    Consider these women, and all women for the most part. Oversized round pegs pounded into the square holes of a brute force, anthill of society.

    Men provide them dresses, makeup, hairstyling, lighting, heat, clothes, recording technology, unlimited entertainment options. And they are grateful, of course.

    But they are not free to take or leave these marvels. They must look a certain way, talk a certain way, use science to shut down their bodies. Wear clothes at all times. Follow millions of protocols and submit to millions of constraints.

    It’s not a contrived “women’s liberation” they want deep down. It’s a human liberation. Just listen and take any woman serious for a few minutes and really read her verbally and non-verbally, and you’ll see how foreign and oppressive all this “progress” really is for her.

    Her simple and honest responses are all the data you’ll ever need. You don’t need science, math, engineering, and technology to read her. Just use your senses and your heart. What she really needs. Is the same thing you know you need. Freedom from violent coercion and inhuman pressure to live in an alien and unnatural way, that makes her sick and miserable in a clearly recognizable observable manner.

    All of us are indeed crippled. Irreparably so. It’s hard to discern among those of us here. But among women, its shockingly easy to see what’s been done against each of them.

    Yet it would take only one generation, and everything could change. All we need do is insist we not be forced to do things against our will, and that’s it.[1]

    Clovers are ambivalent about having force used against them. If we are able to remove it from all of our lives, they won’t miss it. That is quite unlikely, of course. But what is possible, is the PTB will conclude it’s not cost effective to continue to use force against us. A small, but vocal and powerful micro-minority.

    So in the end, we conceivably will be granted a waiver, and we will keep to ourselves and live productive lives, yet no be forced. And the clovers won’t bother us, because the PTB will tell them there is no need to bother us, they are handling it.
    ______________________
    [1] [footnote meant as proof of my assertion.] I submit the following illustration of how a small segment of consumers could keep GMOs out of their food supply. In this same manner, we could keep force out of our political lives. (I don’t know how to simplify this better, sorry.)
    – – – –

    GMOs are pretty much a lost cause, economically.

    There is an asymmetry as follows: A tiny proportion of “stubborn” eaters could determine the consumption habits of the entire country.

    It is a key that Kosher people (representing <.3% of the US population) do not eat nonKosher, but nonKosher people eat Kosher. Many goods are Kosher but nonKosher people can't tell because they do not recognize the small cryptic (U) or (K) sign on the can.

    Which is why it suffices that a tiny portion of the population becomes "stubborn" NonGMO for the entire food supply to be NonGMO.

    I have discovered that the difference in price at the supermarket level between organic and nonorganic comes from distribution, not production. Production costs play a tiny role.

    Costco and Walmart are now into organic (they represent about 4% of US GDP) and growth of organic would not depend on demand, but on distribution efficiency.

    Where does this nonlinear effect come from? If the price differential is small, it is easier at a wedding to accommodate NonGMO people by having everybody eat NonGMO, rather than introduce a new category.

    The same is true at the level of a restaurant or a supermarket. This "scaling" is called renormalization group.

    When you do the work to show the asymmetry in attached exercise. Ignore the exact numerical details; what matters is the nonlinearity, how things tip one way.
    https://scontent.flas1-2.fna.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xpf1/v/t1.0-9/11954721_10153287323903375_5762286106949802273_n.png?oh=c207d731d6ceeae6bec9175ba3d73533&oe=5662EE85

    The moral of this exercise: the GMO industry spends time "converting" journalists and others, but all this is a waste of time when it radicalizes a segment of the population.

    The GMO renormalization result in closed form is: Renorm(n):=1-(1-p)^{4^n}…
    https://www.facebook.com/pages/Nassim-Nicholas-Taleb/13012333374?fref=photo
    ___________________

    • We Libertarians do not all subscribe to the “Randian” ethic,but as a whole we feel that as long as we are not harming other people,we should be unfettered,because most of us are responsible Adults,with better then average powers of reasoning.

  9. Hey Eric you want some anti government humor. Elio Motors is one step closer to releasing one of the most amusing jokes ever. Because their half car has three wheels, its a motorcycle. So if I get the joke it can be sold in ‘stores’ not dealers, it can toss all those silly catalytic converters and what not. My guess is there is a bunch of other stuff they tossed too. They sure will keep the airbags, but ya know, there is a class of Linuses that like their safety blankets. If you are wondering where to get it serviced, they teamed up with Pep Boys so they better coverage and my guess more consistent quality of service than many dealer systems. I always thought the dealers I dealt with had better staffs than the local pep boys but who knows.

    That said it appears they did not cheap out and had an Elio specific motor designed by a top notch engine designer and it will be machined by Chrysler’s wholly owned subsidiary. So they will reduce emissions the old fashioned way, efficiency and aerodynamics.

    The $6,800 Car: How Elio Motors Plans to Disrupt the Car Industry
    Watch the video below to learn about how Elio Motors is planning to market a $6,800 car that gets a whopping 84 miles to the gallon.

    http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2015/08/13/the-6800-car-how-elio-motors-plans-to-disrupt-the.aspx

    If this comes to fruition I wonder how the establishment will explain how half a car costs a quarter of a car.

  10. There are 33 thousand entries in the Cornell U law site for “oxides of nitrogen emissions”
    https://www.law.cornell.edu/search/site/oxides%2520of%2520nitrogen%2520emissions

    Can anyone direct me to the one pertaining to Honda Civic manufacturing in the US in the years 1985 and 2015?

    There must also be regs in Japan and many other countries as well. Can anyone help me locate those citations as well.

    UN ENVIRONMENTAL INDICATORS & STATS – NOx EMISSIONS PER CAPITA
    http://unstats.un.org/unsd/environment/air_nox_emissions.htm

    • light duty passenger car historical new car NOx limits:
      1975-1977: Phase 1: 3.1g/mi
      1977-1981: Phase 2: 2.0g/mi
      1981-1994: Phase 3: 1.0g/mi
      1994-2004: Tier 1: 0.40g/mi
      2004-2009: Tier 2: 0.07g/mi
      2009-2017: Tier 3: 0.02g/mi

      • With the tier 3 limits,already so low,50% is almost meaningless,with hydrocarbon chemistry and technology such as it is,the practical limits have already been reached,if they keep it up,soon they will be demanding the disintergration of matter itself.The matter in a gal of gas has to go somewhere,it doesnt just disappear

  11. There’s plenty of total curb weight lists. And anecdotally, in every model I looked at, the weights go up and up over time.
    http://cars.lovetoknow.com/List_of_Car_Weights

    This guy did his own research by disassembling a 1996 Mitsubishi GLX and weighing each part without the hardware where sensible.
    http://www.dsmtuners.com/threads/curb-weight-breakdown.422042/

    Spreadsheet of his results.
    http://www.dsmtuners.com/attachments/2g-weight-breakdown-xlsx.131779/

    Linguistically, logically, and dogmatically, eric’s hypothesis seems highly reasonable and correct. But has this already been conclusively proven somewhere in a manner consistently reproducible? Couldn’t we prove this using our own citations, research, analyses, and reports?

    Settling it as a question of fact and amassing proof would require hundreds or thousands of measurements and then graphing the data points to see how well or how poorly reality conforms to eric’s assertions + any modifications / refinements => final hypothesis.

    The studies likely exist on the internet, but most likely lie buried in all kinds of complexity which makes finding a simple truth such as passenger vehicle weight trends hard to discern.

    Curb Weight – The weight of a vehicle without passengers or payload, but including all fluids (oil, gas, coolant , etc.) and other equipment specified as standard.

    • Good find on the DSM weights; I looked at the spreadsheet. Would it be correct to assume he was able to reduce 667lbs from a 1996 eclipse by removing BS?

      2518.32 BASE Car Base – Must have Equipment
      184 POT Base Added Weight
      125.9 POT Loss Weight in Base -could be removed
      541.1 LOSS Weight Removed Weight
      2797.22 Net Weight Current Weight
      3185.3 Gross Weight Stock Car Weight
      654.4 Information Duplicated component Entry

      • jw4free has activity there this August, you can ask him direct
        http://www.dsmtuners.com/members/jw4free.101109/

        1995. Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX
        TURBO TYPE: 20g
        TRANSMISSION TYPE: Manual
        BUILD TYPE: Road Course

        MODS-BOLT-ON:
        1G Intake manifold and Throttle Body,
        Custom turbo: IHI Compressor (54.5mm), internal wastegated RB25 turbine housing and oil only center section
        Swain Tech coated T3 Tubular header,
        Long path Front mount Intercooler,
        780 CC Precision Turbo injectors,
        AEM Fuel Rail,
        FPR, -6AN Braided Fuel line,
        255 Walbro rewire
        EGR Delete
        420a Radiator and water pipe Delete

        MODS-ENGINE:
        4G64 Built short block,
        1G Head

        MODS-EMS & LOGGING:
        DSMLink V3,
        Innovate WB o2 gauge XD-16 & LC-1,
        Engine fuse panel moved to center console
        Electric Fuel Pressure, Boost, Water Temp, and Diff Air Temp Gauges

        MODS-DRIVETRAIN:
        ACT 2600# Clutch,
        Scattershield
        Custom Short throw shifter and knob

        MODS-HANDLING:
        1″ drop,
        18″ x 8.5″ wheels,
        Alternator Relocate,
        Battery in Trunk with master cutoff behind license plate,
        Racing Seats,
        Steering wheel mods (for added leg room)
        Fiberglass hood with Carbontrix reverse scoop,
        Deletes – Stereo, Air bags, Cruise Control, A/C, Heater

    • Your article didn’t take into account cleanliness of the engine:

      That 85 Civic got decent MPG but doesn’t meet minimum pollution standards. It emits about 100 times more NOx than current law allows, whereas the modern Civic is almost as clean as an EV (labeled Partial-ZEV).

      I suppose that’s another example of politicians interfering, by mandating low emissions, but I like being able to see L.A. rather than a cloud of smog. 😉 And breathing clean air.

      BTW my current commuter is a 1900-pound Honda Insight rated over 60mpg. And both Honda and Ford make lightweight compacts that get 43 and 45mpg. It’s possible to get efficient cars, but does require some research.

      • Hi Dave,

        I’d be very surprised if the ’85 Civic emitted 100 times the NOx (or any other pollutant). Don’t forget that the ’70s-era Civic CVCC was able to pass emissions standards without a catalytic converter.

        I don’t doubt the ’85’s emissions were higher than a ’15s. But how much? And we should also factor in that an engine that burns less fuel will produce less exhaust by volume, too – which means lower overall emissions.

        • There is also the issue of diminishing returns, a concept that the “green” crowd is unfamiliar with, or at least pretends to not to be.

          Standards by 1985 were already quite low, most cars by then had computer controls and 3-way catalysts. Reducing emissions, say, 80% lower than a 1985 vehicle produced is not going to have nearly the same effect as reducing emissions 80% from a 1960 vehicle. In fact the practical effect on air quality is likely nil. Doesn’t stop the greenies though, they don’t care how much money you have to spend and how much complexity you have to add to get squeeze out that last little bit.

        • The 1985 Civic was allowed to emit 3 gram/mile of NOx (lean burn tech like CVCC makes a lot of NOx). Today that level is completely illegal… the limit is now 0.07 gram/mile.

          The modern Civic is even stricter (to qualify for PZEV credits). It is limited to just 0.02 gram/mile, and to achieve that Honda stopped using lean-burn tech about ten years ago, which of course lowered the MPG.

          So back to point:

          3 divided by 0.02 == Over 100 times cleaner in the NOx pollution
          🙂
          😀

          • Hi Dave,

            Yes, but one should also factor in the total fuel consumption. If car “A” emits 3 gram/mile of NOx but uses 30 percent less fuel than car “B: (which emits .07 gram/mile) then the overall reduction is not quite as dramatic, right?

            But ultimately, my argument on this issue centers on diminishing returns. We are at the point now – and have been, for some time – that reductions are very small and costly. Cars have been “clean” since the ’90s at least and it’s debatable whether a fraction of a percent reduction in a certain gas is worth the cost of the technology necessary to achieve it as well as the reduction in fuel efficiency that often attends it.

          • Diminishing returns – “over 100 times cleaner” than an already low value does not necessarily translate into any real-world results. It does mean more complexity and cost to get those last few grams out.

            • It’s another example of Mark Twain’s ‘Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics.’ If something is lowered from 2 parts/billion to 1 part/billion, that’s a 50% reduction.

      • “I suppose that’s another example of politicians interfering, by mandating low emissions, but I like being able to see L.A. rather than a cloud of smog. (smug emoji) And breathing clean air.”

        – IMO this comments deserves a clover.

        In other, words you consider coercively sterilized air of such high value that you are thankful your wishes are violently imposed by government?

        How important is it to you? Would you personally rob, cage, injure, kill the makers of cars who “dirty the peoples air.”

        Do you have the individual courage required to enforce your convictions?

        Are you willing to man up and take action for this outcome you consider desirable?

        Or are you just another cowardly clover, happy to play the bottom and accommodate the federal mafia tops?

      • The emissions gains from 1985 have been in the diminishing returns part of the curve for new cars. No where near a 100 times anything. The relevant advancement since 1985 is holding the new car level of emissions much longer, OBD2, and the like. That was the last of the low hanging fruit.

        Now are these diminishing bang for the buck returns meaningful in a different way? Yes, when multiplied by millions of cars but on an individual basis not really.One person driving an ’85 Civic instead of a 2015 Civic isn’t going matter one bit. But for all the gains we get in the USA the trade, monetary and other policies that have sent manufacturing to China wipe them all out and then some. The best bang for the buck is to get the rest of the planet up to at least 1985 standards, not squeeze more out of cars in the USA, europe, and other places with similar standards.

        • Canada, Europe, Japan, Australia, India, and China are well past 1985 standards. CN, EU, JP and AU cars are essentially equal to US minimums, and China/India are just one decade behind.

          And YES the allowable NOx level in a 1985 Civic versus 2015 Civic has dropped from 3 g/mile to 0.02 g/mile…… that’s over 100 times lower in the NOx pollutant.

          Aside: I believe every human being has an inalienable right to life, and that also includes a right to non-polluted air….. just as we have enjoyed for thousands of years. If I’m sitting in a restaurant & I smell smoke, I’ll ask them to leave. I’m not obligated to sit and have my lungs poisoned & right-to-life infringed. (Same with cars but on a city-wide scale.)

          • Except you don’t own the restaurant. If you have a problem with smoke then it is up to YOU to leave. The owner is well within his rights to tell the smoker to stay or leave. After all it is HIS/HER property. As for the city, you don’t own it. If you want cleaner air, MOVE! Otherwise STFU!

            BTW, I agree with Tor, you earned the Government Lover award the very first time you pressed a button on your keyboard.

            Guitarman6052

            • All we’re trying to do here, IMO, is find a way to live unmolested beyond the corral.
              http://oooorgle.com/BeyondTheCorral/

              If only we could amass enough resources, muscle, and pull. We would form our own Intentional Community where we could each live harmoniously in peace the way we each consent to explicitly.
              http://www.ic.org/directory/listings/

              In many ways, we were all born in captivity, but we don’t wish to continue. We each believe there has to be a way to finish our lives subject only to the laws of physics and that natural world.

              The more we escape our crippling societies, the better things will be for us.

            • By that logic, a person could poor poison into the local river, damage the drinking supply for the people, and the city could do absolutely nothing to punish the criminal that violated the people’s rights.

              I disagree. I’m a libertarian like Jefferson (“…government restrains individuals from harming other citizens.”), not an anarchist supporting lawlessness. The city or state government exists to protect the Common property of a people, including their water supply & air supply, from those that make them undrinkable or unbreathable
              .

              • But the Non-Aggression Principle forbids aggressive violence ‘or the threat thereof.’ Pouring poison in a river is obviously a threat of violence.

              • You’re a monster dude, seriously.

                You’re exactly like Jefferson, I agree.

                A rotten dessicated corpse, dust, and worms. Powder wig and pockets full of posies to hide the smell of your decay.

                A fright and terror to behold, I’d take regular clover over you any day.

                You are the walking dead ruling class who has ended civilization as we know it.
                http://www.amc.com/shows/fear-the-walking-dead/video-extras/trailer-civilization-ends-fear-the-walking-dead-series-premiere

                I can see you, cackling, with your laser sight pointed at the bikini clad waitresses foreheads..

                Is the health code, is all ladies, please desist serving my GMO chemical porridge, it’s nothing personal. Nothing is personal with me after all, just dry calculations and rote specifications written by soulless creepertarians like myself.

                If you don’t put on a hairnet and rubber gloves while bringing me my food, you’ll leave me no choice but to shoot you.

                It is my duty to decide and to lord it over you all. now I am become death, the destroyer of worlds
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb13ynu3Iac

            • David Ward, from what I have always heard here libertarians feel they have the right to do whatever the hell they feel like as long as they do not harm others. So if a person is sitting down and eating with their family at a restaurant, are you saying the family needs to then walk out the door as soon as someone else lights up so they are not harmed? I am sure the owner and the family would love you. What gives the smoker the right to harm others? They surely are not living by the libertarian ideals.Clover

              • Clover,

                The restaurant owner has the right to set “terms and conditions.” So, if he decides he’s ok with people smoking in his (note, not your) establishment and you choose to enter the restaurant (no one’s forcing you; you are free to choose to dine elsewhere) then you have accepted these “terms and conditions.” If another patron smokes, you either put up with it or leave and go to another restaurant where the owner has decided to forbid smoking.

                I understand that the concept of private property is beyond your ken.

                • Eric you missed the point. There were no smokers when the family entered. Tell me why they then have to leave since they were there first smoke free? What gives the smoker the right to set the terms of who he feels like harming? Where does that fit under libertarians ideals of harming no one?Clover

                  • No, Clover – you missed the point.

                    A restaurant is private property. If the owner decides to allow smoking, then anyone who freely enters does so understanding that smoking may happen. They either accept this – or they dine somewhere else.

                    If someone comes to my home as a guest and I decide to begin playing music they don’t like or smoke, or fart or do whatever, then they have the choice to stay or leave – but no right to tell me to change the music, not smoke, stop farting or whatever.

                    Private property, Clover. My house, someone else’s restaurant.

                    • Eric where was the sign or person warning the family that they can expect to be harmed when they enter by smokers? Eric I do not have a problem if the sign is displayed at the door. If not, the smoker is the one that has no right to harm others under libertarian laws. If the owner wants to lose business then yes it is his right. A solution where I live is that smokers are given an area outside so they harm no others. Eric you are not a true libertarian if you say that someone else has the right to harm others by smoking. I actually know a small town that has one smoking bar. I have no problem with that and I do not have to go there. The owner loses business. They serve food there but I am not going into their establishment. By the way, the owner died a few months ago with lung cancer.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Do you post warnings signs at your home to let visitors know in advance about various things in the home or that you do which they may not like?

                      A restaurant or a bar is private property, just the same. You are free to come (assuming the owner welcomes you) or go (if the place does not suit you).

                      If you don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke and someone lights up, you have the following recourse:

                      Ask the smoker to put out their cigarette.

                      Or, leave

                      PS: It’s preposterous to claim anyone is “harmed” by getting a a mere whiff of someone else’s cigarette smoke. It’s perhaps annoying – like walking into a fart. But nothing more – assuming you walk out of the fart’s effective smell radius – or step away from where someone’s smoking. And that’s the key thing, Clover. The smoker is not forcing you to inhale his fumes. You entered the restaurant by choice – and are free to stay or go, as you like.

                    • Eric there is scientific proof that second hand smoke kills. Again you as a libertarian feel you have the right to harm others. You have the right to give a high risk of harm to others. Eric that says it all. You say you are all about not harming others but that is another lie that you tell us.Clover

                    • Clover, there is no evidence that detecting a whiff of secondhand smoke has ever killed anyone. Annoyed them, perhaps.

                      But that is another thing.

                      As is typical of your species, you hyperbolize everything. You’re a neurotic old harpie, full of fear and hate. “Safety”! The children!

                      No wonder man has not returned to the Moon.

                      Men are becoming scarce.

                  • clover, it must have been “your” family to not notice it was a smoking environment. I have problems going into a place where people regularly smoke after-hours just to check out a problem.

                    I certainly don’t expect a business, or anywhere else, to cater to my desires though. There are always “non-smoking” areas, even if they back right up to the smoking area.

                    Many places have tables, television and everything else that’s inside except smokers. And if, like me, the smokers follow you outside you can always use those two things on the bottom of your legs and walk away. Just put on foot in front of the other till you reach your vehicle, get inside and drive to another location.

                    Several years ago I had a local(at that time)bar even stock my favorite beer that NOBODY else drank. I liked the company but I would see everyone there but me smoked…..and smoked heavily. There was only one person there who seemed to be bothered by the smoke and that was me. Did I try to make everyone quit smoking? Did I go to the city council and ask them to ban smoking in bars? What I did, was go home, stuff my clothes into a trash bag, take a long shower, drink me beer cold as I liked and forewent the bar. 50 people in the bar and I’m the only one not smoking. It doesn’t take a genius who needs to leave. The bar owner wouldn’t have lasted a week with only my business. It’s called free enterprise.

                    I have the right to not go into a smoking environment and every other person has that right too and if a restaurant or bar wants to allow smoking, they have the right to allow it or ban it or have separate areas. You can’t legislate health, of which smoking is only one aspect.

                    If you DO try to legislate health, you do so at the end of the barrel of a gun. It(govt.)always comes down to lethal force.

                    • 30 some years ago my then wife (all my exes live in Texas) went to work at the Non-Smokers Inn, which proclaimed itself the first in the world. It was voluntary. The owner said he could charge lower rates, not just because of fewer cleaning problems and no burn holes in carpet or bedspreads. He said non-smokers were more considerate people. I started watching at my own work and, sure enough, not only did the smokers drop their butts on the floor, they were more likely to litter otherwise as well.
                      The ‘colonel’ did not want non-smoking legislated. He wanted the non-smokers to appreciate the service he was offering them.
                      It’s called ‘the free market.’

                    • What brought about the laws is how inconsiderate so many smokers are. It goes to backwards american courtesy where we aren’t supposed to call out the rudeness and poor behavior of others when it comes intrusions upon others. We are just supposed to accept it. Which means we get more of it because it gives those who do it advantage. Like our Clover here who doesn’t want to wait for a gap in traffic and just pulls out and expects others to brake. The other driver who sounds his horn is the rude one to Clover. Backwards.

                    • PtB, advertised non-smoking rooms gained popularity to the point it seems to be very mainstay now.

                      You’re right about smokers being trashier people than non. I never throw anything down or out the window but I’ve been in crewcabs when all four windows were down at the same time and trash flying out each one. As JC said, I hung my head, I hung my head.

                      CJ and I just returned from a walk down the driveway. I picked up trash left by the renters, nothing bad but a RealTree piece of cardboard and a water bottle. Still, before I started leasing my place there was nothing on it, not even a beer can. Now smashed cans are common along with cig butts.

                    • “Eric there is scientific proof that second hand smoke kills.” – Clover

                      Actually Clover, there is not. Not a single valid study has been able to show a statistically significant link between exposure to SHS and increased morbidity. The “SHS kills” lie began because the anti-smoking zealots were not making as much headway as they hoped.

                      Newsflash Clover, authoritarian control freaks lie, shamelessly and often. They claim to be concerned with the welfare of others but their true goal is to impose their preferences, by force, on everyone. The “SHS kills” campaign is a textbook case of the intentional corruption of science in pursuit of a political agenda. For a detailed analysis of this intentional misrepresentation of science, go here:

                      http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

                      I doubt you will, as you seem unwilling to ever question whether the “facts”, as you see them, are actually true.

                      The assertion that “SHS kills is based largely on two sources: the 1993 EPA study, and the first W.H.O. study. The first was a meta-analysis of the currently existing 33 studies on the topic. The EPA eventually threw out all but 11 studies to reach the preordained conclusion that SHS kills. Problem was, even after discarding 2/3 of the available studies, they still couldn’t establish a statistically significant link between SHS exposure and increased morbidity. So, they did what all control freaks do, they cheated; abandoning valid scientific practice by lowering the confidence level of the study. The errors, fraud and misrepresentation of this study were so egregious that it was ruled invalid by a Federal judge in 1998. Of course, control freaks continue to claim the study is valid.

                      The original W.H.O study is even more interesting. It was a rigorous, well planned and controlled observational study. Problem is, when the results came in, they showed no statistically significant link between SHS exposure and increased morbidity. W.H.O. responded by burying the study. They were eventually forced, by court order, to release the study. Then, they simply lied about what it said, knowing that very few people would bother to check the actual study.

                      Since then, the lies have gotten more extreme and hyperbolic, and Clovers like you thoughtlessly lap it up.

                      Finally, even if the absurd claims of the anti-smoking fascists were true, that would still not justify using force to dictate to a property owner whether or not they may allow smoking on their property. When Santa Fe passed a comprehensive ban on smoking, over 80% of the restaurants and quite a few of the bars had already adopted smoke free policies. You see, this is the civilized, voluntary approach. Business owners responded to the desires of most of their customers and accommodated them. The business/property owner is the only person morally entitled to set these polices.

                      Particularly ironic is the fact that the “problem” had already been solved, peacefully and non-coercively, by the market. Of course this fact didn’t matter to the control freaks. They had to make sure that smokers were punished. It was unacceptable to them that smokers could go anywhere and be left in peace.

                      Jeremy

                    • Inconsiderate smokers? Well, if they have that little consideration for themselves and their loved ones, why should we expect any better of them in general.
                      Yes, it’s their right to do it. But that doesn’t make it a good idea.

          • China isn’t even at 1975 from a practical stand point. (I don’t have any more time to check where they are on paper but reality and paper in China can be very divergent) The politically connected there pollute at will. People don’t even know what clear sky looks like anymore and are amazed when things get shut down to clear up the skies for foreign visitors. I knew what clear sky looked like in suburban cook county Illinois in 1975. There was still industry not far from where I lived then. Cars were huge with carbs and one could smell the HCs in the air and it was nothing like a Chinese city today. Not even LA reached the horrors of a modern Chinese city.

            What’s allowable and what is actually put out are two different things. You don’t design stuff at the limits because then many units off the production line won’t make it. It’s far too late and I am far too tired to try and navigate government websites at the moment… but just a quick look Tier 2 standards are 0.02g while Tier 1 (1994) is 0.4g ( https://www.dieselnet.com/standards/us/ld.php ) In 1981 it was 1.0g in 1975 it was 3.1g ( http://www.ehso.com/ehshome/auto-emissions_chronol.htm note: this site uses the 100K mi figure for tier 1) So, no, no factor of 100, and NOx is the lagging value as it is.

            Another way to put it: 1985 was in phase3, which was a 76% reduction in NOx while HC and CO were at 96%. ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK218144/ )

            We don’t live in a property rights system, we live in a system where the state grants its friends the ability to pollute. Furthermore reacting as if I made a pro pollution argument isn’t playing fair. The simple fact is that pollution wise the powers that be enacted policies that moved manufacturing away from where things would be done cleaner. Cleaning up the USA another step towards zero is vastly more expensive and accomplishes far less than cleaning up other parts of the world that still have a lot of low hanging fruit.

            • As I pointed-out elsewhere, the rest of the world HAS already cleaned-up their cars. Europe is essentially equal to the US now, and China is almost there too:

              – All new cars have to meet Euro 4 standards. So in other words China is meeting first-world standards from 2005.

              – In India new cars must meet the 2005 Euro standards.

              You say “go after the low hanging fruit” by cleaning-up other parts of the world. Well… it’s already been done. Cars sold in developing countries like India and China are now as clean as any US or EU car sold in 2005 or later.

              • Hi Dave,

                Sure – but as I’m guessing you know, the difference in compliance cost, 2005 vs. 2015 is quite significant while the actual difference (not percentage) in emissions is slight.

                In other words, diminishing returns.

                This has been the case since the late 1990s and arguably since the late 1980s.

                We’re at the point now of chasing fractional total reductions (not percentages) at ever-increasing cost, as well as complexity.

                One way to reduce the total output of harmful emissions that would not entail elaborate technology (and high cost) would be to simply do away with government “safety” mandates and thereby make it legal for automakers to sell very light, highly fuel-efficient compacts and subcompacts. A 1,500 pound car with a 1 liter, three cylinder engine would need to burn significantly less fuel than a 2,300 pound car with a 1.8 liter four cylinder engine. Even if the 1.8 liter were fractionally less “polluting” than the 1 liter engine, its total output of emissions would be higher simply by dint of burning more fuel.

                If say 25 percent of the vehicle fleet consisted of such cars – which would be likely since they’d be inexpensive to buy as well as to drive – then a huge reduction in emissions and fuel consumption could be achieved and everyone (except the ninnies in government) would be happy.

                What do you think?

                • (1) I understand the diminishing returns argument, however as long as I can still see exhaust hanging over LA, that means the cars are still not clean enough.

                  (2) Meeting the new 2015 Tier II is not that difficult. The engines are simply adjusted to run richer & reduce NOx and CO.

                  (3) I’ve been hit several times by the self-centered assholes in SoCal….. let’s keep the safety equipment in place.

                  (4) I don’t think the weight problem is airbags & such. I think it’s all the other luxuries like LCDs, in-dash computers, heated or motorized seats, et cetera. Also expanding size to gain more interior space (compare 2000 Civic to 2015 Civic). In other words Customer Demand not government.

                  (5) The CAFE increase to 55 in 2025 is supposed to address the fleet & get more lightweight cars sold. So far it appears to be working as CAFE is climbing year-to-year:

                  Nissan 40.6
                  Honda 39.6
                  Toyota 39.1
                  Ford 36.8
                  Volkswagen 36.6
                  General Motors 33.8
                  Fiat-chrysler 31.3

                  • Hi Dave,

                    (1) Haze has been present in the LA basin long before there were cars.

                    (2) I didn’t say difficult; I said complex and costly.

                    (3) That you’ve been hit by “self centered assholes” doesn’t entitle you to force me (or any other person who hasn’t harmed you) to buy “safety” equipment any more than it would entitle you to confiscate my guns because some asshole shot up a school.

                    Most “accidents” are the result of driver error – and avoidable. “Safe” cars are to a great extent just another form of idiot-proofing.

                    (4) The weight problem is directly correlated with “safety” mandates – specifically, the need to meet impact and rollover standards that have become absurd. Even a micro car like the Fiat 500 weighs an obscene number given what it is.

                    (5) The cars are getting heavier – and the efficiency gains achieved via increasingly elaborate technology (viz, nine-speed transmissions, multiple turbos, direct injection). If the “safety” mandates did not exist, car companies could build a modern iteration of a car like the old VW Beetle. About 1,500 pounds (instead of 2,300) and with a small, fuel-injected engine and overdrive, it’d be capable of 50-plus MPG and would cost around $10,000 out the door.

                  • Just adjust richer? No. That hurts fuel economy and VOC (formally HC). Meanwhile the government is forcing ethanol into the fuel which is to make cars leaner running. Although anything with an O2 sensor adjusts.

              • Have you seen what China looks like? The government allows it’s friends to dump whatever they want into the air and water. Don’t tell me China is clean because it isn’t. Even if on paper they are supposed to meet the relatively new (as in this year*) to them euro 4 dollars to doughtnuts the friends of the government don’t just like the manufacturing plants, the electric plants, and everything else where the owners are politically protected. That’s how it works. It’s always about giving some people the upper hand by allowing them to violate other people’s rights, foul the commons, etc and so forth. The more impoverished and politically without power the people are the worse it gets. That’s how it has always been.

                *From Jan. 1, 2015, China will adopt the long-delayed national stage 4 emission standard (NS4) – the equivalent of Euro 4 standards – on diesel vehicles, meaning automakers will be allowed to sell only trucks and lorries that puff out lower levels of pollutants than they do currently.
                http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/08/uk-china-autos-pollution-idUSKBN0EJ0WN20140608

                • When was the last time

                  you were in China

                  and saw the air quality?

                  Probably never… you’re just going by what Liberal lackeys tell you on the tv. They have a story to tell: “Cars destroy the planet” and they will outright lie to push that propaganda.

                  Stop believing the lamestream lie & look at the actual fact (new cars in China & India must meet Euro 4). Give these developing countries credit for trying to eliminate the smog hanging over their cities.

                  • What I learn about China does not come from the media. I’ve been in design and manufacturing for 20 years. You figure it out how I learn about China.

                    Cars don’t destroy the planet. It’s funny when people have to resort to try and label me to one side of the D-and-R nonsense. If you read what I wrote you’d note that I mentioned a variety of sources. Of course they will clamp down on cars first, that hurts regular people. And how does China do it? By rationing use in many cases.

                    The simple fact is that in China if you are connected you get to pollute, just like in the USA, but more so.

                    Ever go to a part supplier’s facility in the USA and they show you an older process that makes better quality parts but it’s banned by the EPA? So why do they have it? For the parts they make for the US Military. Governments world wide are big time polluters.

                    Pollution is a political concern and it always has been. It’s always those who can use government to foul other people’s property and the commons for their own bottom line. Socialize the costs, privatize the profits.

          • Hi Dave,

            I need to dig into the totals and percentages to deal with the emissions of the ’85 vs. the ’15 intelligently.

            But the restaurant thing is clearcut: The owner has the right (morally, if not legally these days) to set “terms and conditions.” If he wants to allow smoking, then that’s his right. You have the right to not eat there (or to get up and leave) but you do not have the right to impose a “no smoking” rule. A restaurant or bar is private property.

            Unfortunately, courts have ruled they are “public accommodations” – in effect, public property. This is dangerous nonsense in a free society. And it’s one of the reasons why our society is no longer free.

            • It wasn’t the courts….. it was the State legislatures that designated restaurants, stores, indoor malls, et cetera as “public facilities” or accommodations. The lawmakers redefined private business as a mid-level category, so they could regulate them more strictly (no discrimination, no smoking, no bikini-clad waitresses, etc).

              As for China:

              Their laws state all current cars have to meet Euro 4 standards. And then Euro 5 takes effect starting 2018. So in other words brand-new cars in China are meeting first-world standards from 2005 (NOx level of 0.1 gram/mile). They are much cleaner than the old 1985 standards (3 grams per mile).

              I’ve never been to China (nor you I guess), so I cannot comment on actual enforcement. I just know what the law states: Euro 4.

              😉 🙂 😀

              • “It wasn’t the courts….. it was the State legislatures” – except I’d be willing to bet the states didn’t start down that path until after the Civil Rights Act of 1964 destroyed the constitutional right of association.

              • “It wasn’t the courts….. it was the State legislatures that designated restaurants…”

                Let me translate for you: a criminal enterprise (i.e., the state) essentially seized private property in order to impose its own arbitrary rules. This was done under threat of sending armed thugs/enforcers to, if they deem it necessary, kill anyone foolish enough to believe their business was actually their own property where they could set their own rules.

                As to auto emissions, I drive a 1972 model with a large carbureted V8. Even the crude emission controls available at the time of its manufacture have been completely disabled. I’ll nail the throttle a bit harder in your honor next
                I take her out for a spin.

                ???? 🙂 ????

                • Jason Flinders the reason states passed no smoking laws is because it was proven with statistics and with medical testing that second hand smoke was killing innocent kids and adults. Libertarians enjoy harming others though. Back when smoking was allowed all over my chances of getting killed by second hand smoke vs the chance of getting killed or injured by our police was about a million to one. With that said, Eric continues to say how violent the government is but it is fine for smokers to injure and kill others by the 10s of thousands.Clover

                  • Clover,

                    Perhaps if they inhale it for years. But that is their free choice. They can leave. Or not go in.

                    Again: Private property.

                    The owner of a restaurant or bar has as much right to allow – or forbid – smoking in his establishment as you or I have to allow or forbid it in our homes.

                    If you don’t want to be exposed to smoke, then don’t go to private establishments where smoking is allowed.

                    So simple. So beyond the ken of Clover!

                    • So, not to play Devil’s Advocate too aggressively here, but…
                      How does this all tie together, given the below?
                      https://downtrend.com/71superb/wheelchair-bound-man-ordered-to-get-rid-of-his-gun-after-he-defended-himself-against-an-intruder/

                      I agree with the problems vis-a-vis smoking and “private property.” I see, though, that there is a plan in the works to ensure that we are all disenfranchised this way: that we won’t own OUR homes, and of course, renters DO NOT own their domicile; I fear (as noted elsewhere) we’ll be hung by our own petard.

                      Similar to:
                      http://christophercantwell.com/2015/08/31/reality-as-a-prerequisite-of-liberty/

                      Excerpt:
                      A neighboring society known as Idiocracy sees the weakness of Voluntaria and with it the opportunity to plunder their once plentiful resources. Voluntaria mounts its defenses, and in keeping with its newfound egalitarian culture, puts its women on the front lines of combat in equal or even greater numbers than the males. Both sides suffer heavy casualties, but Idiocracy only loses males, while Voluntaria lost many of its females. Voluntaria is therefore unable to rebuild their population as rapidly as Idiocracy, due to the biological limits of human breeding.

                      18 years later, Idiocracy unites a continent by force, and Voluntaria is no more. That is quite the shame, because Voluntaria was home to some fine libertarians once, and now they have been wiped from the Earth. Now the crops are being watered with Brawndo under the orders of President Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho, because it’s got electrolytes.

                    • Fine Eric if you want the local grocery store to allow smoking, the post office and all restaurants then we have what we had 20 years ago. Innocent people getting killed and injured by the libertarians who feel they have the right to harm others. If people want to harm themselves we do not have much control over that. If they are harming others then it is our business. Libertarians supposedly say that you can do whatever you want as long as it harms no one else. Smoking around others does harm others. Eric I have no problem with people allowed to smoke in a dedicated smoking area that is blocked off from others. What we used to have when smokers sat on one side of a restaurant still harmed others. It was the cigarette companies who pushed that stupidity. We have learned from the past what second hand smoke does to others but libertarians are too stupid to learn from the past. Libertarians are too stupid to learn that if you drive after you have been drinking you have a far higher chance of injuring others. Libertarians just do not care if they harm others even though they say that is what they are all about.Clover

                    • Notice your verbiage, Clover:

                      “if you want the local grocery store to allow smoking…”

                      Allow, Clover?

                      Who owns the store, Clover? You?

                      Isn’t the owner’s decision to “allow” (or not allow) smoking or whatever else in his store?

                      Is anyone forcing you to patronize the store, Clover? Are you free to go somewhere else?

                      Jesus Christ… it’s no wonder I have blood pressure…

                    • Eric a true Libertarians who follows the do not harm others at any cost would go and smoke outside away from others. So you really do not believe in not harming others? You are a jerk.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Your “mind” is like the surface of the ocean after an airplane crash – littered with random debris.

                      If I am working in my garage, where there are volatile and noxious chemicals, potentially dangerous tools and equipment, etc. – and you choose to come into my garage, knowing such things are likely to be there, then it is not my obligation to pack up my solvents and so on to make you feel comfy. If the aromas and so on bother you, leave.

                      Or – don’t come in the first place.

                      Do you see?

                      A restaurant is no different. It is private property. Not your property.

                      If the owner has decided to allow smoking and you freely decide to enter his restaurant, you do so accepting that someone might smoke in the restaurant. If that is unacceptable to you, then no one’s forcing you to eat there. Go somewhere else.

                      You don’t have the right to force the owner to accommodate you.

                      Is it that hard to understand?

                    • Eric it is not the owners responsibility to determine if you have the right to harm others. I will not be coming to your house so I could care less if it is dangerous. If you hire someone to come to your house to do some work it is not your right to blow smoke in their face and thus cause harm to them. It is your responsibility as a libertarian to not cause harm to others.Clover

                    • Clover,

                      No one has the right to harm another person. But that is not what we are discussing. We are discussing whether a person who dislikes second hand smoke has the right to force the owner of a private business to accommodate his preferences. To force others to not smoke in a privately owned space he does not own.

                      He does not.

                      And, moreover, catching a whiff of second-hand smoke is not going to harm anyone. It’s not Sarin, you neurotic ninny.

                      If smoke annoys you, leave. If you feel it’s a health hazard, then don’t fucking go in.

                      No one is forcing you to go in – nor to sit there and breath it in, are they?

                      Tell me, Clover (as you style it):

                      How would you feel about being ordered – violence threatened to coerce your compliance – to let some random asshole who demanded it into your home? Then demanded that you refrain from (pick one) smoking or farting or lighting a scent candle or any of a dozen other things?

                      Why – explain, please – is the standard any different for a privately owned restaurant? It is private property, Clover.

                      Is it your restaurant, Clover? Do you pay the mortgage and taxes? Are you compelled to enter? Not allowed to leave?

                      No? Then what the fuck gives you the right to dictate to the owner what he’ll allow inside his premises?

                    • No Eric we are not talking about someone who like second hand smoke or not. They found out many years ago that second hand smoke harms others. Do you understand that? They have found out through tests and statistics that second hand smoke kills and injures. Clover

                      Are you saying you have the right to harm others because you refuse to agree with documented facts?

                    • Clover,

                      Repeated, continuous exposure to second-hand smoke may pose a health hazard to some. But no one is forcing them to be continuously or repeatedly exposed to it in a privately owned establishment. They have the right to not go in. The right to not be forced to stay in.

                      What they don’t have is the right to force the owners to forbid smoking in their got-damned private establishment!

                      Don’t like smoke?

                      Don’t go there. Or, leave.

                    • Eric it is impossible to have a discussion with someone like you who is either ignorant of the facts or is flat out stupid or a big fat liar. Which are you? They can see in tests that even small amounts of inhaled smoke can cause problems and harm.
                      Clover
                      Your are too busy creating lies to have been reading actual facts. Libertarians make up what ever the hell lies you feel like. Eric I can not keep up with all of your lies.

                    • Eric one very funny thing I read about smoking in public. You have ever right to do it but keep a plastic bag over your head so you do not infringe on my rights.Clover

                    • A privately owned business/dwelling is not “public,” Clover.

                      This is the entire point.

                      Private property is privately owned.

                      That means the owner controls it – not you.

                      The owner does you no harm by allowing smoking, if he chooses, because you have the choice to not enter the premises – and also to leave, whenever you wish to leave.

                      So long as you’re not forced to be there or to remain there – so long as you have the option to not be there in the first place – the owner is within his rights to allow others to smoke (if he wishes).

                      If catching a whiff of second hand smoke is harmful (utter nonsense) then it is a burden you’ve chosen to accept by voluntarily entering premises where you knew smoking might happen.

                      Or do you also believe that a person who is allergic to seafood who chooses to enter Red Lobster has a legitimate complaint against that restaurant? A “right” to force them to not sell seafood?

                      Please, Clover, “tell me”….

                    • Our government has ruled that a private company who hires workers to serve those customers has the obligation to make the work space safe for employees. If the largest employer in town who hires 80 percent of the population says that smoking is now OK by them then are you saying that I have to move because the largest employer now decides it is fine to have a dangerous work space? Eric you arguments are overruled by public safety standards. Do you say that an employee has the right to shoot guns around in the work space if the employer does not object? What if the employer does not object to you decking another person. Is that OK also? It is a private work place so whatever the owner says is the rule of the land?

                    • Clover,

                      You slip right back into your subjective, utilitarian “arguments.” Ignoring the moral issue – private property.

                      I don’t give a flip what the government (not “our” government) decrees. If the government decreed that slavery shall henceforth be legal, would it make it moral, Clover?

                      The moral issue, you dolt, is that a privately-owned establishment is privately owned and no one except the owner has the right to decide whether to allow or not allow smoking.

                      You don’t like smoke?

                      Don’t go there.

                      You’re not forced to go in there – or to stay there.

                      You’re free to avoid the place. To go somewhere that suits you better.

                      What you want, Clover, is to force your views/wants on others, in their space, on their property. To – in a very real sense – enslave them. Because you are taking control of their property, forcing them to do with it as you decree.

                      And don’t be an imbecile (though I realize you can’t help it). Equating a whiff of someone else’s cigarette smoke with being physically assaulted is retarded, even for you.

                    • Eric second hand smoke harms others. There is no debating that because it is a fact. So you say that as long as something is done on private property then no laws can cover it? So slaver, murder, and rape are fine to do as long as it is private property? Eric how stupid are you?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      Show me the evidence that sniffing a whiff of smoke for a few seconds poses a threat to anyone’s health.

                      Is it an annoyance, if you don’t like the smell of cigarette smoke? Sure.

                      But a health hazard? To smell a little smoke, as when entering a restaurant?

                      Bullshit.

                      Maybe if someone continuously and repeatedly is exposed. But this will not happen if you do not go into a privately owned establishment where you know (your obligation to know or find out) that people might be smoking. Nor if you leave, when you first smell smoke.

                      Which is your obligation, Clover, if you freely choose to enter a privately owned establishment that allows smoking.

                      You’re not forced to go in – or to stay.

                      Do you get it?

                      Of course you don’t.

                      You’re a Clover!

                    • Secondhand smoke is an occupational hazard for the people who work in smoke filled establishments. How much? there is debate.

                    • Hi Brent,

                      I don’t doubt that ongoing exposure to cigarette smoke is probably unhealthful and may be a real problem for people who have asthma, etc.

                      But if the smoke is inside a privately owned establishment and people are not forced to go inside or remain inside, then those who wish to avoid the smoke should simply not go inside – or leave, in the event someone begins to smoke and it bothers them to that extent.

                      I say this as a non-smoker who doesn’t like cigarette smoke but loves private property.

                      It’s like this: If I accept a ride in a car owned by a smoker, I accept that his car is going to smell of smoke; that he may light up – and if he does, I am obliged to either grin and bear it or ask him to let me out.

                      A bar or restaurant is no different. These are privately owned and anyone who goes in does so of their free will, and they’re free to go at any time. It’s their burden to accept the chance they may be exposed to smells they don’t like – and which may even be unhealthful. But they have no right to force the owner to disallow smoking for their sake.

                    • Eric a poison may not kill you in smaller amounts but it certainly harms you. Are you going to be the judge on what that amount should be? Second hand smoke is a poison or in fact many. Even small amounts are not good for you and can kill you if you have asthma or other condition.Tell me Eric what kind of person would continue smoking in their car if you are riding with them and you ask them you would prefer if they do not smoke because it is hazardous to you. Would they be a true libertarian who likes harming others if they continue? Yes Eric you may not be able to change the fact that the car smells like smoke but a true libertarian or any decent person would not light up when asked not to. If they are not able to stop smoking they can ask you if you want out but they really have addiction problems if that is the case. Again Eric you say that people have the right to harm others. Clover
                      So Eric is a person being harmed when they can not go into a place where you are intentionally harming others by your actions? Again Eric with your statements the person who harms others has more rights than anyone else. Is that a good thing? It is just like you saying that the person breaking the speeding limit by the most has full reign of the road and others need to pull off because he has more rights.

                    • Clover (aaleroy or whatever your name actually is):

                      To use the word “poison” to describe catching a mere whiff of someone else’s cigarette smoke is the sort of hysteric fishwifery you specialize in. You’re not being harmed. Just annoyed. Like being in the presence of a screeching baby or rap music or any of a number of such things.

                      Anyhow, the point remains: If it bothers you, then don’t go into private establishments (or cars) where you might be exposed to it.

                      You certainly have the right to hope that a smoker who owns a car you’re riding in won’t light up; and I agree it would be a nice gesture for him to not light up, if he knows it bothers you. But the issue here, Clover, is whether you have any business forcing him to not smoke – in his car or his restaurant or any other privately owned piece of property.

                    • Again Eric you show your stupidity that smoke harms no one. Thouands of dead people who never smoked and only had second hand smoke would tell you that you are a stupid person or a liar if they were not already dead caused by second hand smoke. Eric if you go and sit in a smoke filled room and later go and get a checkup by a doctor they could tell you were around smoke. It would still be in their lungs for days. That is fine with you though. Clover

                      Eric a smoker now days should be informed enough that their second hand smoke harms others. You should not have to force them not to harm others as you say.
                      Eric an owner of an establishment does not have the right to tell others they can harm other people. Eric if an owner creates his own smokers den and does not hire others then I have no problem with it. When you say that an owner of a grocery store has the right to allow smoking then you are wrong. If the largest employer of a town says that smoking is now allowed then he is wrong. He has no right to tell people they can harm others.

                    • Clover,

                      Rather than sputter and spit like an old lady, how about providing some objective proof that briefly smelling a whiff of second-hand smoke presents a health threat to people?

                      It’s bullshit. Hysterical, exaggerated, 190 proof bullshit. If I’m wrong, prove it. Show me the medical study that proves catching a whiff of someone else’s smoke for a moment or so constitutes a danger to people’s health. You won’t – because you can’t.

                      Now, if you choose to remain in a privately owned establishment where smoking is happening and choose to expose yourself continuously and repeatedly over an extended period of time … then I don’t doubt there could be a significant health risk.

                      But that’s your choice, isn’t it?

                      You chose to go into a privately owned place that allows smoking. You are under no obligation to go in there. It’s not the DMV. It’s not a “public” space. No one forced you to go in. If the place allows smoking, you knew that before you went in – yet chose to enter anyhow. And you have the choice to get up and leave. Or better yet, not go in at all.

                      You also have the right to not work for a privately owned business that allows smoking.

                      Here’s an illustration to make the point:

                      Let’s say you are looking to hire someone to paint the interior of your house. You’re a smoker. It’s your house. Private property that you bought and which you pay the taxes on. You interview a guy who is interested in being hired to do the work you need done. But he demands that you not smoke in your house. He sics the government on you to force you to not smoke in your house.

                      Do you consider this morally right, Clover?

                      No doubt, you do.

                      Because you have no understanding whatsoever of the concept of private property – and thus, no comprehension of the concept of rights.

                    • Clover,

                      Your own words reveal the silliness of your argument:

                      “Tell me if the government produced hazardous smoke that you had to breath

                      You have the free choice to enter a privately owned establishment – or not. You do have to breathe anything at all!

                      Are you forced to go in? Forced to remain in? No, of course you are not.

                      You are free to avoid the place. It is private property.

                      Your demand is that a privately owned establishment which you’re free to avoid be forced to cater to your sensitivities.

                      Do you see the problem, Clover?

                      What if someone who happens to be allergic to seafood chooses to go into a restaurant that serves seafood? Should the restaurant be required to make sure there is no smell of seafood, so that people who are allergic can enter the place?

                      Your problem, Clover, is an inability to grok rights. In particular property rights.

                      Certainly, I have no right to smoke in a court or similar government office, where others are forced to go. But if I buy a restaurant, it is my restaurant. No one is forcing you to eat there. No one is forcing you to stay there. If I allow smoking, then it’s up to you to decide whether that’s something you’re ok with – or not. Just as it would be my right to have topless waitresses, or allow drinking (which is a toxin, don’t forget, that can cause health issues).

                      Where does it end, Clover?

                      For people like you, there is no end to it. You can’t be content to deal with people on a free and voluntary basis. You have an urge to force them to do as you think right, even though you have no right to do that.

                    • Clover, water will kill you at a high enough dosage. Perhaps you should apply your logic and stop consuming water. This is true of most substances, there is a point where they harm you, below that point isn’t an issue.

                    • So Eric if the owner can set the laws on his establishment then what if he says it is fine to deck anyone who walks in? Does he have the right to set laws on his property that harms others? Clover

                      Even Brent said that smoke is dangerous to those who breath it. Do people who cause harm to others have more rights?

                    • It’s either because he’s incapable of separating his opinions from facts or he’s incapable of dealing with facts any other way.

                    • Brent said “Secondhand smoke is an occupational hazard for the people who work in smoke filled establishments. How much? there is debate.”Clover

                      If that is saying that smoke is good for you then I will eat my hat.

                    • Clover,

                      No one said it was good for you. I said it was an annoyance – to get a whiff of it, briefly.

                      Why must you always lie? Distort what people actually said? Or did not say?

                    • A direct quote from Brent: “Secondhand smoke is an occupational hazard for the people who work in smoke filled establishments. How much? there is debate.”Clover

                      A direct quote from Eric: “No one said it was good for you.”

                      Finally I agree with both of you on something. Yes second hand smoke is a hazard and it is not good for you. With that said who has the right to create a hazard for others that is not good for them. Who has the right to harm others? That is like I have the right to be shooting guns in front of your house. It is your responsibility to stay in your basement if you do not want to get hit.

                    • Clover,

                      I never agreed that sniffing a whiff of second-hand smoke constitutes a “hazard.” I stated that it is an annoyance to some people. And that’s all a whiff of second-hand smoke is. I defy you to produce any evidence that catching a momentary whiff of smoke has harmed or can harm anyone. It’s bullshit.

                      If someone were forced to constantly breathe second-hand smoke, then, yes, I’d agree it rose to the level of a hazard and would therefore not be justifiable on a moral basis.

                      But that is just the point, Clover. No one is forced to expose themselves constantly to second-hand smoke in the situations we’ve been discussing. You are not forced to enter or remain inside a private restaurant or bar where people are smoking. You are free to not go in – and to leave. Do you deny this? Or is it your position that you have a right to enter a privately owned establishment and force the owner to accommodate your preferences?

                      A privately-owned bar or restaurant is private property, Clover. It is no different than your home. You allow people in. But they are free to leave – or not enter, if they find your home unpleasant or worry that your smoking in your home might affect their health. You are not forcing them to breathe the smoke.

                      This is the critical point, Clover.

                      But it’s one you won’t discuss because you know that to do so would vitiate your control-freak arguments.

                    • So Eric if you say one whiff of smoke causes no harm then in your words how many whiffs cause harm under your understanding? Yes I believe one whiff of smoke is not good for you and even one whiff of smoke negatively affects your body. That can and has been tested. Clover
                      It really does not matter though because the laws that we have in most states say that you do not have the right to harm others in a workplace or other public area. I can now freely walk into almost any business or workplace and not be harmed by second hand smoke. I and millions of people actually like that fact. I and millions of others believe we have the right not to be harmed. I know that you disagree but 100s millions of people do not a rats ass that you feel you have the right to harm others.

                    • Clover,

                      Show me the objective evidence that smelling a whiff of smoke for a moment presents a health risk. You can’t – because none such exists. Your argument (such as it is) relies on hysteria and falsification; on conflating the probable health risk of repeated and prolonged exposure to smoke with a moment’s whiff of it.

                      Next, let’s address the illiteracy issue.

                      A private restaurant or bar, etc. is not a “public” space. The “public” does not own it, does not pay the mortgage or the rent or the taxes. The owner does.

                      Open to the public does not mean the public owns the place. It means the owner is willing to allow people (the public) to enter or do business there, on his terms. Because he is the owner.

                      Not you.

                      You have the right to not take your business there. To not enter. To leave, if you decide it’s not for you.

                      But you and the millions of coercive collectivists out there have no more moral right to forbid smoking on private property than I have to order you about in your home.

                    • Eric it not my job to produce information to you. You go look it up how much of a toxic substance is safe for you . For one thing that is dependent on the person. I have better things to do. I have an overdrive transmission to install in my riding lawn mower. Clover

                      Tell me Eric where in the constitution does it say that it is OK for owners to increase harm or dangers to their employees? I think we went past that a long time ago when in some towns the owners of the business had no safety standards and could cause harm to their employees whenever they felt like it to save themselves a buck. People were treated like slaves and did not have options. Do you want to go back to that?

                    • Clover,

                      When you make an assertion – e.g., catching a momentary whiff of second-hand smoke constitutes a health hazard – it is your obligation to substantiate your assertion. Otherwise, your assertion carries no more weight than my assertion that unicorn farts power my Trans Am.

                      But of course, you do not grok that.

                      As regards employees: You are not forced to work at a restaurant (and so on) where there is smoke… or am I mistaken?

                    • OK Eric we can solve this. I believe and have read that small amounts of second had smoke are dangerous to you. I really could care less if you say it is one whiff or whatever. That was your statement. I really doubt if I was eating at a restaurant and someone at the next table started smoking that I would only receive one whiff before I got out the door. I actually was in a revolving door the other day and happened to be in a section an outdoor smoker used when reentering the building. I got more than one whiff before I exited the revolving door. You and Brent act like 6 year olds with your one whiff type statements. I take it back that I said it was dangerous even though it is. Now you can go back to saying that small amounts of something dangerous is OK for you to give to others. Clover

                      So if unemployment is high and the place where I have worked for 10 years is bought out and the new owner says it is OK to smoke. Yes Eric I have the option if I want to work there. I can either work in a harmful place or have my family starve. Brilliant Eric. What if Donald trump comes in and buys all the business in the surrounding 100 mile radius and says you can now smoke. Tell me what the options are Eric? I guess I could do what you do and open up a web site to tell lies and beg for donations.

                    • Yes, Clover, we can solve this.

                      Without violence. Imagine!

                      Don’t like smoke? Don’t enter privately owned property where you know it’s possible there may be smoking. Take your business elsewhere. Let the free market decide.

                      If you’re right and “most people” prefer a non-smoking environment, then it is in their rational self-interest for bar and restaurant owners to tout a smoke-free environment. No coercion necessary.

                      But why can’t you tolerate the probably small handful of bars and restaurants that would (if they could) cater to people who like to smoke – and those who don’t mind if others do? Why are you such a control freak? Such a fishwife absolutist who cannot abide anyone doing things – even in their own private places – that you dislike?

                      I despise rap music; especially very loud rap music (which if exposed to for extended periods of time probably could harm one’s ears). Guess what I do, Clover? I avoid going to clubs and so on where loud rap is played. Or – as at my gym – I ask them to change the station. Or, I wear earphones. If I could not tolerate it, I’d leave, find another gym. It would never occur to me to try to use organized force (the government) to compel the gym to cater to my tastes.

                      You seem to believe that you have an ownership stake in other people’s private property.

                    • Clover, an occupational hazard is something that could cause a problem with repeated occupational exposure.

                      But since you’re arguing that second hand smoke causes harm can I punch the next smoker who comes near me polluting the air I’m breathing? Is that acceptable? After all if the second hand smoke causes harm to me, then it is an _assault_ on me. That allows me to defend myself.

                      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
                      An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

                      Given your arguments a smoker is committing assault.

                    • Brent I agree with you that you could say that secondhand smoke could be argued to be an assault on others. The problem is that there are enough people like Eric that say it is not big deal and is their right to cause minor harm to others that they would argue that any violence given to someone who has the right to fill the room with clean and pure tobacco smoke is overboard. Clover
                      No big deal right? So what if it has thousands of harmful chemicals in it.

                    • Clover,

                      You fascinate me… in the way a scientist is fascinated by a new bacillus.

                      It’s as though facts don’t register.

                      Is it not a fact that no one is compelled to enter or remain in a privately-owned establishment? That a person is free to come – or not – as they prefer? Thus vitiating any concern about “health risks” – since all you have to do to avoid such is not go in… or leave?

                      Is it really that hard to grok?

                    • Brent,
                      You said above (before the verbal diarrhea of Clover):

                      But since you’re arguing that second hand smoke causes harm can I punch the next smoker who comes near me polluting the air I’m breathing? Is that acceptable? After all if the second hand smoke causes harm to me, then it is an _assault_ on me. That allows me to defend myself.

                      http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/assault
                      An assault is carried out by a threat of bodily harm coupled with an apparent, present ability to cause the harm.

                      Given your arguments a smoker is committing assault.

                      Based on that definition, aren’t ALL cops following the same definition?
                      You kiss their @$$ or else, basically.

                      Which, I know, is a logical conclusion most of us share, but I point it out in plain terms again so others might see when they come by..
                      IE, cops carry a gun for use of force. That’s the only purpose. And the use of force (for any reason) is something they want to deny the rest of us.

                      Why must one deny another the use of force, for ANY reason, unless one wishes to assert OWNERSHIP over another individual?

                    • Damn Clover you are dense and dishonest. I did not say secondhand smoke was assault, I wrote that your argument classifies it as assault. You also did not answer the question posed. Your argument classifies second hand smoke as assault so is self defense warranted?

                      I don’t accept an answer from you, I expect you to continue to dodge the question.

                    • Jean, cops have a target on their back that no one else has but I can understand that libertarians are not smart enough to see that. If cops try to stop a robber or other bad person, most of them do not just climb into the back of the cop car voluntarily when asked. Most of them pull a gun or try to beat up the cop. I have not had a gun pulled on me by a cop and no one that I know has had a gun pulled on them by a cop. Have you? If so then that tells us what kind of person you are. Your arguments are stupid and lack any kind of facts.Clover

                  • Actually, Clover, those statistics were one of the first real examples of “cooked” science.
                    The tests were redefined until they returned the desired results.

                    Similar to many drug trials today, if you don’t have the desired result (E.G., you get a heart attack on the trial drug? You’re removed from the trial and all data is discarded. So there’s NEVER a risk, see…? )

                    If you’re going to worship Authority, at least make sure it’s honest authority – not a liar who’ll tell you it’s raining while pissing down your back.

                    • But Jean, we don’t own our own homes. If we did, we would not have to pay endless taxes on them and they would not be subject to zoning restrictions.

                    • I know, PtB… I know…. 😉

                      Serves as a good example of how things ALREADY are rigged – and incrementally getting worse.

                      Judge Dredd comes to mind (Both versions, BTW).

                    • Hi Jean,

                      You are correct. As usual, Clover is not. I’ll post again what I wrote above, as it seems to have been lost in the shuffle.

                      “Not a single valid study has been able to show a statistically significant link between exposure to SHS and increased morbidity. The “SHS kills” lie began because the anti-smoking zealots were not making as much headway as they hoped.

                      Newsflash Clover, authoritarian control freaks lie, shamelessly and often. They claim to be concerned with the welfare of others but their true goal is to impose their preferences, by force, on everyone. The “SHS kills” campaign is a textbook case of the intentional corruption of science in pursuit of a political agenda. For a detailed analysis of this intentional misrepresentation of science, go here:

                      http://www.davehitt.com/facts/

                      I doubt you will, as you seem unwilling to ever question whether the “facts”, as you see them, are actually true.

                      The assertion that “SHS kills is based largely on two sources: the 1993 EPA study, and an intentional misrepresentation of the first W.H.O. study. The EPA report was a meta-analysis of the currently existing 33 studies on the topic. The EPA eventually threw out all but 11 studies to reach the preordained conclusion that SHS kills. Problem was, even after discarding 2/3 of the available studies, they still couldn’t establish a statistically significant link between SHS exposure and increased morbidity. So, they did what all control freaks do, they cheated; abandoning valid scientific practice by lowering the confidence level of the study. The errors, fraud and misrepresentation of this study were so egregious that it was ruled invalid by a Federal judge in 1998. Of course, control freaks continue to use this study to “justify” their actions.

                      The original W.H.O study is even more interesting. It was a rigorous, well planned and controlled observational study. Problem is, when the results came in, they showed no statistically significant link between SHS exposure and increased morbidity. W.H.O. responded by burying the study. They were eventually forced, by court order, to release the study. Then, they simply lied about what it said, knowing that very few people would bother to check the actual study.

                      Since then, the lies have gotten more extreme and hyperbolic, and Clovers like you thoughtlessly lap it up.

                      Finally, even if the absurd claims of the anti-smoking fascists were true (they are not), that would still not justify using force to dictate to a property owner whether or not they may allow smoking on their property. When Santa Fe passed a comprehensive ban on smoking, over 80% of the restaurants and quite a few of the bars had already adopted smoke free policies. You see, this is the civilized, voluntary approach. Business owners responded to the desires of most of their customers and accommodated them. The business/property owner is the only person morally entitled to set these polices.

                      Particularly ironic is the fact that the “problem” had already been solved, peacefully and non-coercively, by the market. Of course this fact didn’t matter to the control freaks. They had to make sure that smokers were punished. It was unacceptable to them that smokers could go anywhere and be left in peace.”

                      More thoughts:

                      Clover repeatedly asserts that if businesses are permitted to allow smoking on their premises (which is their right) then they will. Again, Clover is wrong. Many, businesses adopted non-smoking policies before bans were put in place. As fewer people smoked, and more people objected to being around smoke, business owners instituted their own polices to address the concerns of the customer. As stated above, this approach is peaceful, voluntary and respects the rights of all involved. This, of course, is poison to Clover and his ilk because it reveals that the machinations of the control freaks are unnecessary and unjustifiable. That is why, governments always resorts to force (bans, fines, etc…) after the market (peaceful cooperation) has already begun to “solve” the problem. Then the government claims that said problem was solved only because of government involvement.

                      Morons like Clover buy it and sincerely believe that slavery would still exist, blacks would be banned from hotels and restaurants, women couldn’t work, gays could not rent homes or get jobs, etc… Problem is, all of the movements to address these problems began in the voluntary sector. The government response is to initially resist the movement and then co-opt it and claim any success as its’ own.

                      But, when government gets involved to “solve” a problem (that is already being solved), it does so by force and the violation of rights. This causes division, resentment and hostility among people with different values and beliefs. Most people are content to leave others be as long as those others leave them be as well. Government involvement makes this impossible as it pits people against each other through the use of force. Whoever has the power, has the “rights”. This is why conservative christians and gay activists are both obsessed with gaining political power.

                      It should be noted that rights, properly understood, cannot conflict. If they do, then one, or both, is not a right. State granted privileges always conflict with someone’s rights, or with other State granted privileges. Thus, government involvement always creates conflict.

                      Finally, to PTB, Eric and others who are properly skeptical of the “science” that supposedly supports the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory (CAGW), I would suggest that the “science” that supports the “SHS” kills” theory is even worse.

                      Jeremy

                    • Jeremy you are correct and there is one thing I would like to add. The market served blacks so the control freaks used government to put an end to that where possible. The market wanted desegregation in businesses but the government was used to stop that. Statists often claim that government solved some horrible social ill of the past when usually that social ill was caused by control freaks using government to impose their bigotry and so forth on others.

                    • Brent,
                      Thanks, I’m glad you added that.

                      If the market were so implacably hostile to serving the needs of “undesirables” then why was it necessary for the control freaks to use government to prevent them from doing so?

                      Sadly, understanding this observation is above the ability of Clover.

                      In a related vein, minimum wage laws were originally designed to exclude “undesirables” from the labor market. The proponents were open about the racist intent of the laws. “For example, Rep. Clayton Allgood, arguing in support of the Davis-Bacon act (which required the payment of “prevailing wages” for work on federally funded or federally assisted construction projects), complained of “cheap colored labor” that “is in competition with white labor throughout the country.” “*

                      Despite the obvious racial motivation for minimum wage laws, modern proponents believe that their “good intent” will somehow magically alter the effect of the laws. For many decades, young blacks’, especially males, ability to access the legal labor market has been systematically hampered due to minimum wage laws and welfare policies. Add the drug war to this and it is not surprising that we are where we are.

                      According to Walter Williams, black families, in the 1940’s, were more intact than white families. Black divorce rates were lower than whites, and black employment levels were equal to whites. As he says,”it took the government to do what slavery couldn’t: destroy the black family.

                      Government is not your friend.

                      Jeremy

                      *Charles W. Baird

                    • Jeremy it seems to me that in the 1940s there was little divorce period. Jeremy it wasn’t until the blacks started following libertarian ideals that was the downfall. The right to do drugs. The right to shoot other people. The right fight with cops or whoever they feel like. Jeremy I have had close working relationships with blacks and they were fine but they were not into the mug others for fun. Blacks can do just fine if they stay away from crime and drugs.Clover

                • Why don’t you just light-up a cigarette and start blowing it in everyone’s faces? It’s pretty clear you hate your fellow human beings (and this is why the Libertarian Party continues to get 1% in national elections… voters don’t like the arrogant, hateful members of the LP).

                  As for your car, eventually the state will add emissions inspection to the already-existing mechanical inspection. Your car may be an old 70s model, but it still has to meet the clean-air requirements of the period. If you disabled the emissions equipment, and are spewing lung-destroying soot into the air, eventually you will get caught.

                  “No man has the right to harm another……” – Thomas Jefferson

                  .

                  • Dave Head Case – no, it’s not libertarians who hate their fellow human beings. It’s those like you who strip us of our (few remaining) freedoms.
                    Don’t judge the libertarian ‘movement’ by the (big L) Libertarian Party. The LP is made up of compromisers who are more concerned with winning elections than with making positive change.
                    I don’t know who you have run into, but I have never met a ‘hateful’ libertarian. We actually care about others, and are not so arrogant as to think we can make better decisions for them than they can for themselves.
                    Of course, even if we could, it is still not our right to do so.

                    • Do you remember the Smog problem before the 1970s clean air requirements? It wasn’t too bad in the rest of the USA, but along the northeast I-95 corridor and most of the California coast, the air was visible.

                      You’re not supposed to see air. That’s not the planet we were given (or have a right to). Furthermore the smog was killing people: The elderly and sick were literally suffocating.

                      – People have an Inalienable Right to be able to breathe.

                      Clean air laws applied to cars have eliminated most of the smog & protected that right. Yes we still have “ozone action days” of code yellow or red, but at least people are not dying.

                      I have zero interest in repealing those laws

                      Or returning to 1970-style blue exhaust cars.

                      Or diesels that burp clouds of black smoke.

                      Pass.

                  • Hi Dave,

                    I don’t think anyone here is arguing for the right to blow smoke in anyone’s face. They are arguing in support of property rights.

                    The issue isn’t whether it’s obnoxious to smoke in the presence of others who may not like it or who may be adversely affected by it. The issue is whether the owner of a private establishment has the right to permit smoking within his privately owned establishment, if he wishes.

                    Put another way, you have the right to forbid smoking in your privately owned establishment – and you have the right to not enter (or remain in) a privately owned establishment that does allow it.

                    But you have no right to force the owner of a privately owned establishment to forbid (or allow) smoking. It’s not your property. It’s his.

                    Consider the case of a store that sells incense, patchouli and such like. Many people (me among them) find those smells obnoxious. even nauseating.

                    But I simply avoid such stores. I don’t try to force them to accommodate my demands.. because it’s not my store and I am free to not go in there or go somewhere else.

                    Do you see?

                    • According to the law there are three levels: Private, public, and public facility. Stores and restaurants fall under the last category, and that’s why they must protect both consumers & employees rights to clean indoor air, refunds for products that don’t work, machines that protect workers’ arms from being chopped off, and so on. It is rather silly to pretend the 3rd category does not exist, when it is very well-defined under current law.

                      Also: Let’s rewind to my original statement. I didn’t make it clear, but I was referring to a restaurant that had *posted* no smoking signs but were allowing patrons to smoke anyway. I asked the manager & she confirmed smoking is not allowed. —– If the sign says no smoking, and the manager says no smoking, then I *expect* to be able to eat without gagging on visible smoke drifting across my food & into my mouth.

                      As for laws that forbid smoking in businesses, I agree with you they should not exist, but as long as they do, then I expect them to be enforced, just as I expect the ridiculous 65mph limit be enforced. As Lincoln observed,

                      “The fastest way to repeal onerous laws is to enforce them strictly.” The citizens will get fed-up and demand their repeal.

                    • Hi Dave,

                      I’m not interested in what “the law” is. I’m interested in what’s right.

                      A privately owned restaurant is private property. The owner has the right to decide whether to allow smoking – or not.

                      And it’s wrong to force him to cater to the preferences of people who are not forced to enter his premises, nor to remain there.

                      It’s a perversion of language to characterize a privately owned business as a “public facility.” The public does not own such, nor pay the taxes. The owner does. If you don’t like the smell of smoke, then don’t go in there. Are you being forced? No. You are arguing that the owner should be forced to accommodate the person who dislikes smoke. In his place, at his expense. That’s precisely the sort of Cloverific claptrap I built this site to combat.

                      PS: Equating momentary exposure to a puff of second-hand smoke with chopping off someone’s hand is ridiculous, demented, neurotic and hysteric. Remember: No one is forced to go in or stay in.

                      If you don’t like the smell of smoke, then don’t go where people smoke.

                      Go somewhere that meets your criteria.

                      But stop trying to force your criteria on others.

                    • So Eric if a very large business in an area has been smoke free forever with thousands of employees then what happens when the new owner says it is OK to smoke? So you say the employees need to live with the danger, more colds, breathing problems and the dozens of other bad things that come with second hand smoke or move out of town or starve? What option are you recommending?Clover

                    • Clover,

                      It’s noteworthy that your type invariably resorts to hysterical, exaggerated, “what if?” scenarios to justify your authoritarian ideas. For example, if there were no arbitrary speed limits, then “we” would have people driving 90 MPH through suburban neighborhoods.

                      And your nonsense about smoking.

                      If the “very large business” wants to remain in business, it will cater to the wants of customers as well as employees.

                      That is, if most people dislike smoking, it is very likely the owner would conform his policies to their desires – no coercion required.

                      But, regardless, the point remains that the owner of a business has the moral right to allow smoking within his premises, if he wishes – and you have the right to not go in there (or work there) and to leave at any time.

                    • So Eric you said that an owner has the right to allow smoking. Second hand smoke is proven to be a hazard to your health. So can an owner allow employees to punch each other out since it is only another hazard of working there? Tell me where it should end Eric? Can the owner allow rape? The fact is that working at this business may be the only option for the employee to be enjoyed. So are you saying the employee needs to take whatever the dictator hands out?Clover

                      What are the limits of the owner or are there no limits?

                    • Clover is also an Alzheimer’s patient. He cannot remember previous conversations; expects me to go over and over and over the same things again and again and again.

                      Look, imbecile:

                      Momentary exposure to a whiff of second-hand cigarette smoke is not assault. That you’d try to equate that with punching someone out – physically striking them – is beyond vacuous.

                      Yes, there are carcinogens in smoke. But a whiff of second-hand smoke is brief and diffuse. What you are trying to claim is akin to claiming that a spritz of water is a drowning threat.

                    • OK Eric I get you now. So you are saying that hitting someone is bad but the removal of an air filtration system to save money which cleans up harmful and dangerous air in the workplace is the owners right? What about if the owner knows there is dangerous chemicals in the drinking water at his business. Is it fine for him to ignore it and save money by not cleaning it up? So you are saying the owner can do anything to the employees as long as they will not keel over while they are at work? Eric your arguments are lame.Clover

                    • Lying imbecile.

                      Please link to/copy paste any statement of mine defending “the removal of an air filtration system to save money which cleans up harmful and dangerous air in the workplace.”

                      You won’t – because you can’t. You simply confected that. Made up another thing I didn’t say – and then criticize me for “saying” it.

                      Amazing.

                    • Eric you just got done telling us that owners can do whatever the hell they feel like. They have the right to allow harmful smoking in the workplace. If that is true then tell me why they can not allow other harmful things in the air that employees breath daily or harmful water that the employees drink just to save themselves a buck. Tell me exactly what the difference is? The owners have the right to endanger others you said.Clover

                    • No, lying imbecile.

                      I have never said ” owners can do whatever the hell they feel like.” That is your confabulation.

                      I have said they may do whatever they wish on their private property that does not entail aggression against another person.

                      It is not aggression to permit smoking within private property that you are not forced to enter, and which you may leave at any time.

                      It is aggression to use force to compel the owner of private property to accommodate you against his wishes and at his expense.

                      Get it?

                      Of course not.

                      If you don’t like smoke, don’t go into a bar or restaurant where there is smoking. No one is holding a gun to your head. You don’t have a “right” to enter someone else’s private property and dictate terms to them.

                      There are bars and restaurants and workplaces that cater to people who prefer a smoke-free environment. Go there. Work there.

                      Your issue, Clover, is that you cannot abide others doing what they freely wish to do – even on their own private property. You and yours have a fetish to control others, rather than just mind your own got-damned business.

                      You’d be pitiable except for the fact that there are millions of cockroaches out there just like you. Stamping them out will be a challenge.

                    • Again Eric you fail to answer questions. You say that smoking in the workplace is fine and harms others. Tell me how that is different than an employer knowing that smoke created in the workplace is harmful but decides to save money by not fixing air handling that cleans up the toxic air in the workplace. It is his choice to allow a harmful workplace.
                      Clover
                      How about ignition problems in cars shutting off when jostled. Why not make it up to buyers to determine if they should buy the possibly dangerous cars or not?

                    • Clover,

                      Where – when? – have I ever said or written that “smoking in the workplace is fine”?

                      You really are illiterate, aren’t you?

                      An imbecile.

                      I’ve written and said (pay attention now) that the owner of a bar or restaurant or other private establishment has the right to allow people to smoke within, if that is his wish.

                      If it is your wish to not be exposed to cigarette smoke, then you have every right to not enter the premises – or to leave at any time. To take your person and your business elsewhere.

                      But you have no right to impose your preference on other people within private property that is not your private property.

                      Arschloch.

                    • Clover, if an employer reverts to allowing smoking in the workplace again odds are they would lose numerous employees. In a bar or other such business they would lose employees and customers if the atmosphere becomes unpleasant to people. This is why the old smoke filled establishments are gone for good.

                      The problem is not with the idea the problem is that the convincing was done at gunpoint. It’s the idea that all the problems of the world can be fixed with just the right amount force, the right amount violence and threats there of.

                      Furthermore smoking being allowed in establishments was dying of its own accord before the laws. So it was simply another place where government stepped in to take credit. Why? because non-smokers were becoming the majority of customers and they were staying away more and spending less when they didn’t.

                    • Brent bars did not want to stop the smoking by themselves because 1/3 to 1/2 of the customers would go to the next bar which allowed it. Business is all about making money for many owners no matter if it hurts employees or customers or not. It wasn’t until people realized how nice it was without smoke and after learning the hazards of second hand smoke that most would not go back to it. In fact now there would be protests if a company went back to allowing smoking.
                      I saw the progression of getting rid of smoking by some major employers. It started with restaurants having smoking areas and that did not do any good. Then employers started by having designated smoking rooms and found that did not work because smoke still filled the rest of the building and then they went to smoking areas outside.Clover
                      What it comes down to is that smokers do not have the right to harm others no matter what employers say.

                      And Eric, property rights do not give you the right to harm others. The libertarian saying would be that owners can do whatever the hell they feel like as long as they do not hurt or harm others.

                    • Clover,

                      Logician that you are, perhaps you can explain why a bar or restaurant – which must please its customers in order to remain economically viable – would do anything that annoyed/alienated a large percentage of its customers?

                    • Yes Clover, profit seeking businesses offend 1/2 to 2/3rds of their customer base to keep the others. Makes perfect sense in bizzaro world.

                      It’s also clear you admit that smoking was being confined and disallowed before government force was deployed.

                      It’s always the lazy option for folks like you. Point a gun and get it done.

          • Dave Head

            “If I’m sitting in a restaurant & I smell smoke, I’ll ask them to leave. I’m not obligated to sit and have my lungs poisoned & right-to-life infringed.”

            I remember when NYC subway started their smoking ban.

            Some old women with the same philosophy above demanded a smoker obey the law.

            That women was tossed right in front of a moving train.

            More smokers like that would be a good start.

            You know Dave, smokers who don’t want their right to life infringed.

            • A lot of smokers are just inconsiderate a–holes. I would find a place without smokers so one has to come into the clear area and smoke. They would decide to stand next to me and then hang their cigarette so I got all the smoke. Irritating behaviors. And because people can’t be decent without laws and threats these days well… smoking bans.

  12. Eight ,I have to agree,the “Humane” shot is the one I favor also.Body armor is better then nothing as long as it doesnt instill undue confidence.I guess as long as the general populace is disarmed,body armor will help a lot.

    • Wow Eight,someone shares my sentiments,a local owner(who was purported to put a large amount of His profits up His nose) Not so long ago,had (it looked like a 66 Model(DM or R on the road) and said we could supply all the stone you need for a road job,yeah right,the old pugmill(you had to back up to) wheezed and rocked like something alive) anyway,enough of the Junk!
      Most of the Centipede Guys now use Paccars(handsome trucks,that will move down the road safely,in relative comfort{they also have a front axle that will support the overload on the wide floaters}Last time(before the Bigshot boss terminated Me for being a free spirit) we were working at a site called Ingalls field(terrible place in cold weather) the Boss had resurrected some old Junkyard deserter Macks and was trying to use them to haul muck and rock,frozen crap and whatever at least ,the Heaters were restored to a semblence of function,so they tried to use these never dying things along with the with the older style(joke 25 ton Cat haulers) the road wasnt maintained properly and after the first day,I was almost paralyzed from the jolts from the CAT TRUCK, so the next morning I told the Boss about the seat not functioning properly(He kinda said under His voice”always griping,just stay home,if you dont like it”or something to that effect,so I saluted the Guys who were scared for their jobs and walked out the door,one thing I do not tolerate now is disrespect after years of slaving for these cats(26 years) they had no more respect for me then that,they could keep their miserable job.I Had suffered for years with a broken L5 and after getting down down after clearing a slope for 9 hrs,the other boss told Me to go home ,He would get somebody able to do the job(after I had suggested I could drive my personal vehicle to the Job,so I could leave if it got too bad)so you can understand way I love these Folks,they never paid a living wage and kept you out around 14 hrs a day and still you had to put up with the “ration”.While they took hunting trips,buying hundreds of acres of land and every toy they wanted and lived in huge very nice houses,I was never able to afford a basic 4wd,till I married my current wife,I guess if the Tech dont cripple you,the Inconsiderate people will

    • Tor,that was good and you pointed out a very pertinent risk(but I’m notpicking on Bikers-I think they ought to run on bike paths,some peoples lives will be ruined forever because of a moments inattention) anyway” Science,a body of organized knowledge,with methods of modifying and adding to the body of knowledge” not feelings,not fudged results,statistics are like “photoshop” you can keep editing and clicking,till you get the desired result.
      Clover by His persistence,has ruined any credibility He had with Me,He is simply defending the indefensible,if He did the research,He would find many,many more people made sick unto death,from being downwind from industrial plants,then from secondhand smoke(a major cannot fail business near here takes their air quality samples about a hundred miles away) risk is relative,a lot is what you are willing to tolerate,the risk of mandates,can be insufferable.

      • Street parallel bike paths are not safe faster than a walking pace IMO. Drivers do not expect traffic moving at speed off to the side. They do not watch for it. They do not see it. I had far too many near misses on these things and I refuse to ride them. Sure I was in the right but that doesn’t matter when some driver turns into me or comes out of a blind driveway.

  13. You know what is fascinating? A 2015 Honda Accord weighs about 3200 pounds and has little usable interior space out of a 109 inch wheelbase. This cramped crackerbox gets 33 mpg Highway using a final overall ratio of 2.19:1 from a 6 speed transmission, all while using a drive train that is very potentially expensive to repair, laden with electronics and computers that they don’t want you to touch.
    Meanwhile, a 1941 Nash 600 weighs around 2550 pounds, has a 112 inch wheelbase and can seat 6 large people. This car could get 30 mpg in the days before 4 lane highways, using a final overall ratio of 4:1 from a 3 speed transmission. The drive train was very inexpensive to maintain or repair, utilizing an inline six that Nash advertised has ” having 500 fewer parts that all the other sixes then in existence.” Oh yes, the engine was equipped with a carburetor and points and condenser ignition, and it was basically a water -cooled 6 cylinder lawn mower engine.
    If that Nash had been equipped with an overdrive transmission having a 30% reduction ratio, that could result in about a 43 mpg consumption.
    I really don’t think we’re having that much progress 74 years later.

    • Dont know about that Coalclinker,you picked a bad one to pick on,my Wifes 08 Accord has plenty of interior space(except for that stupid console and front buckets,quiet,reliable,probaly go 300K without anything but sparkplugs and oil changes a four cylinder engine that will run rings around that Nash,has low emissions,front wheel drive,the list goes on.
      As far as basic transportation the Honda is no better,but believe me its miles ahead of the old Nash,have you driven a car like the Nash on say 50 miles of twisty roads?
      I met an immaculate 50 model Chevy pickup this morning on the road and you no what?It literally stank,the Old Nash is a stinker too,,one reason it had so few moving parts was because it was a flathead engine(a flat head has a lot less valvetrain then an OHV engine) Anyway believe me friend,Auto design has came a long way(it amazes Me that a Nash would get fuel mileage like that,most old ones wouldnt come anywhere close to that,my old pickups ran 15 mpg,6 cyl,13 mpg V8If it wasnt for govt meddling,the Accord you were referring too,would probaly run 40+ mpg now.

      • In terms of gas mileage alone there really has not been all that much progress. Improvements have mainly been in other areas.

        Some of those old Nash models with the Super Flying Scot engine were very economical, particularly something like a Nash Rambler with stick shift and overdrive. Mileage in the area of 25 mpg range was not unusual, which compares favorably to many modern vehicles.

        Foreign jobs were even more economical, here’s a 1948 prototype reported to be good for 67 miles per gallon:

        http://www.banovsky.com/archive/panhard-levassor-dynavia

        If cars had made anywhere near the kind of progress that has been made in computers since, say, the early 1950s they’d probably be producing fuel rather than consuming it. 🙂

        • Jason, put six people in the Nash, get on the interstate in Tx. and find out those not dying of heat prostration would be dying of terror, the terror of doing 80 mph in that thing, sucking gas like crazy and the terror of every other vehicle passing them like they were tied down.

          I live it every day. Old vehicles should avoid that stress.

          Now a friend of mine who is a mechanic with a long time business recently took a ’51 Ford, put a new style front-end under it along with a GM 350 TBI and a 700 R 4 with a Ranger rear-end and that sumbitch, with GM a/c and power everything is an interstate cruiser. He had no intention of rebuilding that old six and 3 on the tree with a ludicrous rear-end and spring and shocks(what a joke). He stuck modern mechanicals in and under an old body and got an old body powered by first class GM…..and he’s a Mopar guy but not a fool. That is a beautiful pickup done in white with all the chrome Ford would put on one back then.

          I like old stuff but it has its limitations. I’d like an old 359 Peterbilt with new style air bag/leaf spring combo, new rear diff’s and an 18 speed Eaton/Fuller tranny with all the new a/c stuff and power steering along with an old 3406 Cat, an air operated fifth wheel. Then I’d be trucking in style and have an old cab to wow everyone with…..and that cab really ain’t that old, 80’s stuff….but truckers would know.

          • Know where you are coming from Eight,like to put a 460(tuned to my specs)in ol’RD685,WITH A FEW UPGRADES AT LEAST AN 8LL,be honest a Granite does nothing for me especially with those finicky engines,anyways seen an old(far from rat rod 36 Ford pickup(no rust came from the midwest,driven very much with the mechanicals from a 3.0 litre Ranger in it, runs great,AC,good gas mileage and good seat,if I’m going old ,I will upgrade.Like to stick a Hemi in the Dakota and find an old 53 4dr Plymouth to drop the V-6 in,Older isnt really better,but a hotrod can be anything you want

            • Kevin, I wouldn’t/couldn’t argue. In Tx., for the most part, we have long hauls (100+miles) as far as construction is concerned. I have months of work coming up with a belly dump and a 270 mile one way trip. I don’t relish it either. I got ruined on Mack’s with Maxidyne’s and have a foul taste in my mouth for them. I’ve seen some quarries run them recently and they’re short runs. Don’t know how they work out but look heavy duty and don’t hear a lot of complaints from drivers……yet. I don’t do the tri-axle thing or the trailers with 3 or 4 or more axles since it’s a big hassle in Tx. But I do run hundreds of miles in a day and I just want the best road tractor I can get and in my opinion, that would be a Peterbilt. Their doors, made with a bulge in the latch area, seem to hang in there much longer than any other brand I can think of. They have stout frames also. You can spec them however you like but carrying legal weights for the most part, I prefer a nice road truck. The quarry is generally my most abusive place to drive and I simply take it easy no matter what truck I might drive. Most of my time will be spent on the road and what time I spend on a location is certainly critical but it’s mostly one of those old “push the trailer” kind of things or drag the tractor out(I don’t care for this much since it’s abusive). Maybe I’m biased against a Mack but it’s only because of driving so many.

              I hope they’re better now than the cheap road tractor they made 30-40 years ago.

              A hot rod can be anything. I have seen lately two of those hot rod pickup things GM made years ago. They look plasticky but probably are decently made. Every one I see looks to have been rarely used and kept inside and clean its whole life. One passed me today on the interstate. it looked new and was probably a lot of fun. I’ll likely never know.

          • Actually since you mention it, in 1954 Nash was the first auto manufacturer to have a complete integrated fresh air heating, air conditioning, and ventilation system, all installed under hood. (Previously their “Weather Eye” was the first fresh air heating system in 1938.)

            By 1955 you could get a V8 in your Nash, though I don’t think I’d want to do 80 mph on the tires of the day even if you could find a suitable road in those pre-interstate days.

            (You would NOT get 25-30 mpg in a V8 Nash with AC, of course!)

          • Hey 8SM,

            I concur with you about older vehicles on Interstates. I have a 1960 BMW R60/2 with Earles forks. I would never even consider riding it on a high-speed highway mixing with vehicles with modern ABS. Alternately, it’s a joy to ride on roads like the Blue Ridge Parkway or the Natchez Trace. As usual, OALA, EHOATAS and YMMV.

  14. One other thing not mentioned robbing gas mileage is engine power / output:

    yes it had to increase to deal with the extra weight, but is there REALLY a need for every mom and pop car to be able to do 0-60 in 8.0 – 8.5s or less?

    In those years Eric mentions, those were well above average times, anything below 10s was considered quick.

    Take the Porsche 928 in it’s S4 version pre-93:
    0-60 in about 6.1-6.3s (if I recall rightly)

    In it’s time one of the super cars on the road (exotics excepted of course), top speed at 160+, but that acceleration in today’s terms is nothing special at all.

    You see this in car reviewers comments that call a car getting 9s or more to 60mph unacceptably slow.
    in the above context, lol.

    not saying this was foisted on us, but it’s still an inflation of the unnecessary sort, if fun, esp. with our speed limits.

    In Germany it’s the opposite: the cars don’t all do <7s 0-100kmh, but there's nary a car on those roads that can't comfortable (if perhaps a bit louder even today) cruise at 100mph.

    Even a 1990 1.6l 72jp Gold did 100mph top, something virtually no one (Eric excepted I bet 🙂 ever hits stateside…

    (yes, those cars in general, did not have A/C, still….)

    • In the last 20 years engine power has doubled and mileage has stayed the same. How many people use even a small part of that power? I live it, drive it, every day. Nobody can seem to stay past a big rig after they pass it. I don’t get it. They have speedo’s don’t they? Cruise control is nearly universal. If they can’t use enough to go say, 71 mph, one mph faster than a truck I drive regularly, what’s the point. Obviously people have no clue as to what they do on the road. I’m not sure what their problem is either. How do you come up on a big rig and need to pass it but need to slow down after doing so. I recall a time when, if you were passed, the passee continued on at the same speed and left you behind. WTF happened to that? My rig maintains, without my foot influence, 70mph uphill and down. When someone passes me I expect it to be a done deal but that’s not true any longer. If they’d only use one single more hp, or less, than they are using they’d be well ahead of me till one of us stopped. Is no one capable of reading a speedo or using a cruise? You can’t convince me all those fancy Tahoe’s that go around and then slow down don’t have cruse control. I have chalked it up to simple idiocy. Who, in their even dimwitted, semi(sic)right mind, would want to go around a truck and then see nothing but a big bumper and radiator with a single word, Peterbilt, behind them? Fairly insane in my view. Of course it gives me something to do like pull into the other lane and pace them a while since they’ll speed up ever so slightly. I can hold that speed for a few miles while traffic is coming up behind us and then pull back in behind them and let the traffic pass. Sometimes the traffic will cause the blocking vehicle to increase speed and move away from me. Sometimes that same gap will eventually be reduced to what it was before. What gives? Why would anybody want 40 tons right on their ass? Why would anyone not want to do the speed limit(75 most places)? Do they not realize they’re going 5 mph slower than the regular traffic? Many questions I ask but get no answers except they’re idiots. But the biggest question is why someone would be going faster than you, pass you and then slow down? Hey Vern, I don’t get it.

      • Hey 8,what kills me are those jokers that tailgate and run like heck down the road,pass and turn off (or make you stop)100 yds down the road.
        One time with a big load of calcium carbonate ona Mack I noticed this school bus(a woman driving it) the ol Mack was powerful(but it was one of those old low speed engines and didnt accelerate with much authority.So I let off way back and started gearing down,I watched the kids get off and safely move away,so the woman sits there and and I dont know what the heck she was thinking about any way I dropped more gears and kept getting closer and closer and closer,finally after a long while I came to a complete stop in front of the Bus after a long time,The Bus Driver was pointing at me and making one of the weirdest facial expressions I had ever seen(by gosh she was driving a schoolbus and she was going to stop me(never mind the kids had been gone 30 or more seconds ago and werent no where to be seen,by the power vested in Her by the state of VA,She could stop Me with Her flashy,flashers and she did(I’ll stop 5tr-10 truck lengths away from buses now)Cloverism at its finest What really gets my Goat is the Joker that will stop you to let a school bus in front of you,so you can follow them for 10 miles stopping every 1/4 mile to let a child off(i would much sooner have that truck in front of Me going on his way,rather then depending on Him being able to stop and not rearend the school bus,because He needs to get the load delivered.Clover keep the trucks in front of the buses!(doesnt mater how cute the bus driver is,one good thing about it due to the woman bus drivers in our area,schools are closed more often now during snowy weather(they dont even have to put on chains now,there is a push button traction enhancing device on the buses .Pity the poor truck driver,not to mention the farce obtaining a CDL lincense in VA has become,these days(strange thing,the Highway dept will can drivers with Diabetes now,while the school board will allow older drivers to keep on hauling kids around.hmm) Its rather strange that people apparently graduate High School,without even an elementary grasp of physics and Newtons laws of motion.
        I watch for the drivers that will pass for no reason now and sometimes will make it hard or impossible for them to pass Me(note,I dont mind the ones that go in down the the road,but despise the ones that pass and immediately drop their speed 5-10 mph and brake for gentle curbs,etc{enough ranting,I cant reach retirement quick enough)

        • Preaching to the choir Kevin. First thing early Friday morning in the dark I had a guy pulling a gooseneck trailer exit his driveway and I’m not 5 seconds away. It was so stupid I left the cruise on. He moved over to the shoulder and then seeing I wasn’t moving over and traffic was coming from the other direction he moved completely on the shoulder. Good thing too since I passed within a foot and a half of him. Those things are so stupid. I sit at an intersection of a major highway on a farm road and I might wait several minutes of even ten minutes for a break I can get on it or across it, depending on where I’m headed. But I am not going to be strung out. I tried it one day when we were in a big hurry and had to stop in the middle. I had the nose of Step Child right at the line on one side and the trailer right at the line on the other side. I sat there kicking myself mentally for being in that predicament and I’ve never considered it again. The guy I was taking the load to was half a mile away and saw it. When I got there he started in on what a bitch that intersection was and how he’d sat there for 15 minutes trying to get a tractor across.

          He doesn’t know how lucky he is. I was grossing nearly 85,000 with that load and there was no hustle getting across, just plain old slow grunt til you can grab 6th and pick up some real speed. I’d like to use the jake brake approaching that intersection but it draws the DOT like rats to an open fridge. Free lunches boys, we got us a heavy one and let’s see how many things we can find wrong.

          A month ago I got stopped in 3 different rigs in an area about 60 miles long and a different occifer each time. I was surprised one of them let me go another 15 miles with a bad air leak I hadn’t had any parts to fix. The book keeper answered the phone as the place was closed I needed parts from. I had no tools and she let me pick out the parts I needed and gave me some tools. I fixed the leak and the occifer arrived back when I was exiting the place. He looked it over, handed me a ticket 3 feet long, 17 citations but let me continue. I said I’d never pull that trailer again so it sat in the yard for a long time half loaded with sand that wouldn’t come out. They started robbing off it last week so I hope to see it going to auction soon. I fixed one air leak after the other on the thing and it should have shed but it’s so screwed up it won’t. They used it for a demolition trailer and that sealed its fate as a belly dump. The occifer also wanted to know why the axles weren’t in line with each other. I told him the truth, because the idiots who worked on it didn’t have the sense to line them up properly. I left that trailer with the axles perfectly aligned on a pad so they could simply weld everything and it would be right but they evidently felt the need to move it around and now it’s a mess.

          I pulled into a truck stop for fuel in the middle of the night with my wife. We’d just changed a trailer tire a ways down the road and were dirty and tired as hell. I’d been up since 3 or 4 am the day before and was approaching 24 hrs straight working. The attendant looked up at me and I was all of 23 or so and looked about 12 and said “Boy, just sitting up there driving, wish I could get a job like that”. I told him it was just the nads, not a thing to do but enjoy life up there. Dumbasses abound…..and you and I have to live with it every hour of the day. I left the house at 5 am Friday and got in a 9:10 pm. For some reason the outside unit had tripped the breaker and it was 93 in the house so I just reset the breaker and the unit came on……luckily. I grabbed a couple beers and went to the front porch with Cholley Jack and a dozen cats. We all sat there and panted and I brought a big bowl of water out so they could all drink with me. Some of them even like Shiner Black and I left them drink out of my mug when I’m not drinking. One big happy family and Cholley Jack protects them as best he can.

          • Eight,sounds to me like you handle it well(gotta love our loved ones too,hate to brag,but when I see a rig in a predicament,I do everything I can to help em’ out(some are too proud to accept help,but thats another story)The people that envy truckers havent a clue as to what they are talking about(They seem to think”Smokey and the Bandit” and things of that ilk are a true representation)All that Kid has to do is get His CDL,I’ll bet He wouldnt last 2 months.Well I have to admit,I smoked the paint on a vigilante,when He was pulling in and I was on the way out(Played chicken with a Jeep Liberty at C’ville one day ,He got message real Quick when His mirror popped off,it was so close the pivot axle for the tarp had a a little dot of plastic on it)anyway,I believe that part of drivers ed should be devoted to protocal,10-18 wheelers vs 4wheelers and other small conveyances(in a chokepoint the loaded truck always has the right of way,unless the other vehicle is an emergency vehicle)

            • (in a chokepoint the loaded truck always has the right of way,unless the other vehicle is an emergency vehicle)

              What exactly do you by this? If you mean: Do not pull in front of a large truck expecting it to top in time not to make me flat as a pancake, then agree with you.

              • No Mirth,people need to get off their I phones and abandon principle,2 tons,stops a lot easier then 30 tons,even at the Quarries the signs remind you loaded equipment ,has the right of way(anyway 8′ +6′ wont fit through a 13′ tunnel) in other words dont crowd a loaded truck,just because you can

          • Eight,cut my teeth on B-Models,(that was enough to make one,want to find something else to do) finally got to drive R-Models(We didnt have no Paccars{old habits die hard} on the site Macks pretty much rule(one Mack could usually cripple 3 drivers)the cabs were so noisy and toasty.
            So the Former employers finally got a 3406 powered KW tractor and really love it but are still jamming their Guys in Granites,sometimes I think its for spite(I no longer work for those Turkeys)Most people around here in the Multi axle set ,now use Paccars,the torturous trucks can stay on site,Anybody that has any qualms about Aluminum bodies ,need only check out all the old unblemished Paccars on the road)My former Bosses were allergic to Horsepower,so they they generally bought low power Macks(to save money they claimed)and one time my former classmate tried to spec all trucks to 65 mph top speed,very frustrating in town and on the ridges,truthfully with the CDL fiasco and other aggrevations,I’m leaving this line of work asap(used to run an old 621 E,the motor shield was missing of course and you could lay your hand on the old horse(when that thing shifted,that 3406 made things happen)-fun days .right.

            • Kevin, I drove countless Mack’s and never liked them. I recall a couple that were so hot I had to put a 2X4 on the loud pedal to protect my foot from the heat. You could and would sweat bullets in that POS. It wasn’t the Mack truck so much since I drove some new ones that weren’t bad but the mindset of those who bought them. Say Jim, these rigs should be good for several million miles with wetback maintenance. Sure Joe, that’s what I had figured. And when one gets wrecked we can use pieces and parts off those that no longer roll. Excellent Idea Joe, we can just keep salvaging these things and even buy what’s left of them from junkyards.

              Yep, I know that Mack set of mind all too well. Motor shield you say? You mean that thing that’s in the way when you jerk an engine from one and stick it in the other? Why, it doesn’t do a thing but sit there.

              I have a friend with an 80’s model 379 Pete with a 3406. He’s rebuilt everything on it and doesn’t pay crap for taxes. It now has a new paint job, bumper, radiator shell and a nice red, oval Peterbilt in the middle of the radiator shell. He even has one of those aftermarket full depth bumpers that wrap back to blend with the front tires. That is a beautiful rig and everything works on it like new. And he uses it to haul rock. So far so good. I have a feeling he wont’ do the pasture busting with it he used to. I love those chrome air cleaners and oil cleaner hanging off the side. Peterbilt found an entire new way of doing it and simply stayed with it. All that heat and noise(the original long nose)is out in front and the cab is quiet and the suspension is smooth. All that construction stuff is for the younger crowd, the only ones who can take the abuse day after day.

        • Kevin, I think calcium carbonate is what Tx. uses on icy roads. I didn’t realize Mack still made those old Maxidyne still trucks but I should have. Rock hauling and hot asphalt hauling are so critical here now that all the rigs have big engines to get the loads hauled as fast as possible. I’d like to have a big, white, bright strobe light on the cab. Now it’s common for trailers and tractors both to be using strobe lights with all sorts of combinations so they never look the same in the dark and you can’t think it’s anything except a truck. I’m pushing for wifi cameras on the trailers as well as strobes. I sometimes have to get a load in between a big tank and a high pressure gas line. You have to jackknife the trailer since you can’t get a straight line on it and it’s hell even with somebody helping. I’ve had a guy telling me to come on back and only looking at one side of the trailer I couldn’t see. I backed over something benign but expensive. I often encounter situations where there are so many pickups and service trucks at a site I just stop, set the brakes and wait. Finally, somebody with an inkling of sense tells everybody to moved their damned trucks. For the life of me I don’t understand what they fail to see. One guy kept parking his crewcab Ford right where I needed to turn around on a site so every time I was there I had to get around it. I got lucky and he was headed for his truck one day so I made a really tight turn with the trailer being pushed backward and the steering tires being pushed sideways and I intentionally missed his pickup by a couple inches. He got the idea and moved that SOB. Too late to help me but soon enough for me to not run over it backing the trailer in.

        • I don’t think most people can compute if-then-else or make observations to understand what comes next. They just can’t. They don’t even understand the school bus is going to stop frequently. They don’t understand how one light is timed into the next. It’s all just random to them. Which is why the whole “conspiracy theory” dismissal works so well, why the BS official stories work. Everything to them is an unconnected random event. Did the government schools do it to them? Are most people just really like this? Has to the be the former. There’s too much to indicate that pattern recognition is what allowed humanity to survive and advance.

          • How do you account for pulling out right in front of 40 tons(or more, much more these days)doing 70-80 mph? Hey Vern, I don’t get it. That’s just stupid. But was Forrest’s mom would say, stupid is as stupid does.

            I had a guy, with a car full of people in a little bitty Ford of some sort go around a Tahoe on a two lane highway this evening. He passed and got into the oncoming lane, me in Step Child. The Tahoe pulled over to the shoulder and he could have cut back in any time but he stayed in my lane and nearly head-on’d me. I wasn’t moving over cause he had plenty room to move back in that lane and his staying in my lane caught me by surprise. What’s not to know? I have yet to hurt anyone and can’t imagine doing so but he made a move at the last split second and avoided certain death for him and his passengers. it scared hell out of me but I really had little time to react or anywhere to go that wouldn’t kill me since I was loaded. My load ticket read 79, 640 lbs. Step Child has a speed limiter so I was only doing 70, probably 10 less than I’d have been doing in that god-awful International Eagle.

    • A little late here, but…
      Driving Route 1 through NJ or Mass shows the problems.
      0-60 in 3.4 seconds would be desirable.
      Top speed only needs to be about 100 MPH, customize horsepower of the engine to match, make it a small block 6 or 8 using smaller pistons.* Smoother ride, not much worry about excessive speeds, and the HP matched to a cruising speed in the 70s to 90s would make sense…

      *: Please, if I’m talking out the wrong orifice, tell me! I’m not a gearhead, so I might be saying something REALLY stupid and I’d never know! 😛
      But if the normal piston were 2″ in diameter, and you could make more cylinders in a 1″ diameter fit in the allotted space, you’d have the smoother engine mechanics of the higher cylinders.
      Can you still generate the torque and the HP using those smaller diameter cylinders? Or are we looking at too much of a power loss?
      Need an engineer to explain this. 😉

  15. Not all your gas money goes to Exxon-Mobil. A lot of the price at the pump is tax. Fed tax, state tax, local tax, sales tax. Government says it wants us to use less gas, but they don’t really mean it. That would cut off their “funding” which is priority number one. Once again, government has a conflict of interest and should NOT be judging matters in which it has a big stake.

    • Tobacco and alcohol are labeled as evil and deadly yet require numerous federal, state and local bureaucrats to ladle them out. The taxes collected from selling these poisons are outrageous.

      • C C, just check in every country in the world and you’ll see out of almost every civilized and uncivilized countries the US will be the only one to make home distillation unlawful. Why, you might miss paying several dollars of tax each year.

        When you consider that George Washington led the unholy attack on farmers that refused to pay that liquor tax it was the beginning of the end of freedom. How was it different from a tea tax? The federal govt. had already developed an appetite for money severely enough to kill for it……..

  16. “The Sole and Only reason” is NOT Government:
    The “luxury” components have added significantly to the weight. Off the top of my head: power seats, AC, blower motors, 4-6 vents for climate control, sun roof(s), in-car-entertainment/gps screen(s), rear view cameras (+wiring and computers for that), exotic upholstery; full size spares (+jacks), power windows/door locks/mirrors, pop the hood; plastic engine covers and various aesthetics, sound deadening panels throughout, 7+ speaker audio; 18+inch alloys, automatic transmissions, you have a 50lb lead battery which can be replaced with a 2lb LiPo. My personal favorite is carpet in the trunk.

    A set (5 w/spare) of alloy wheels vs the hubs from the 80s is an extra 300lbs. 4 of those directly add to the rotating mass and murder economy. Add that to the above you have your 600-800lbs right there. Start weighing: seat motors 20-30lbs, speakers/subs 30-40lbs, window motors 3lbs/ea… the vacuum system to lock the doors is a beast, the carpets probably approaching 100lbs, the plastic engine shrouds. Most of the above is standard equipment now; nothing to do with government safety regulations.

    • Hi Alex,

      I disagree –

      Power windows and electronics add little to the curb weight of a car.

      Hell, I have a ’76 Trans Am (big ol’ muscle car) with a truck-type bolt-on heavy steel subframe, a massive cast iron 7.4 liter V8, massive cast iron rear axle, leaf springs (like a truck), a massive GM Harrison AC compressor (2-3 times as heavy as current AC compressors) and power windows, locks, electric defrost, etc. – and it still only weighs about 890 pounds more than a new Nissan Sentra compact sedan ( (3,750 lbs. vs 2,859 lbs.). Which has all the power options – and a light, aluminum four cylinder (1.8 liter) engine, no rear axle at all, no leaf springs…. etc.

      What accounts for the Nissan’s massive (for a compact sedan) curb weight?

      It’s the steel necessary to make it through the gantlet of crash tests.

      Period.

      • Eric,

        “Tor Libertarian” posted a spreadsheet from someone parting out a Mitsu Eclipse from the 1990s. The weights of everything I have mentioned add up to over 600lbs. This was the 1990s, the BS in cars has increased exponentially since then.

        I’m not seeing additional steel in cars these days. I do wish you would follow up this article by repeating the Mitsu experiment with a 2015 salvage honda/nissan econobox.

        Keep up the fight,
        Alex

    • Alex, a great deal of the electronics are made to save weight since they use no wiring. I like wires myself but copper is expensive and heavy and is another component to install but a wifi from the computer to the throttle is considered standard these days and I’ll pick on Chrysler quality right now and tell you I’ve driven a lot of Dodge pickups that would simply idle no matter what you did with the pedal. I did learn to turn the whole system off and on 5 times to reset it so you could go on. That doesn’t mean it’s not about to do it again, it just gets you going that time. Hit the brakes, make a corner and voila, it’s idle time.

      I can’t wait till some genius thinks you can wifi a trailer plug. Then again, the way a lot of people I work with unhook a trailer but jerk the wire out of the plug left hooked up it might be a good idea. The trailer latched onto the ball and the lights come on via wifi. From what I see every day it would probably be an improvement.

  17. The real problem is road speed limits, which are too high, which means you need heavier cars for survivability. Government did impose the survivability requirement – yeah, stupid bureaucrats (rolleyes). But the dangerous speed limits? That’s the free market at work. Yeah, the free market wants to kill motorists, which is why I don’t drive a car.

    Also, most motorists are incompetent scofflaws. They don’t want to learn how to drive safely and they don’t want to obey laws that are imposed to keep road users safe, which would be fine if everyone using the road were on foot, but it gets homicidal when you throw 2-ton cars capable of driving at 70mph+ into the mix.

    All of this will be solved when oil becomes too expensive to use. I might not see that day, but my daughter most likely will. It might not be a rosy future, but at least it will prevent people driving like idiots.

    • Hi Ian,

      No, the problem is others presuming to make these cost-benefit calculations for you (and me). I’m an adult; and it’s my right to choose a light car that may indeed by less crashworthy but which may never crash.

      Speed, per se, is not “dangerous.”

      Commercial aircraft travel at very high speeds and are for the most part quite safe.

      Driver error and mechanical failure are the chief reason for “accidents,” not speed.

      • “Driver error and mechanical failure are the chief reason for “accidents,” not speed.”
        And both, in most states anyway, are certified – licensed or inspected – by the gunvermin.

    • Ian,
      Perhaps if YOU learned to drive, you’d be qualified to spout off on this…
      Or, you could learn basic PHYSICS, whereby you learn that momentum is energy, and that energy is transferred when Object A hits Object B. Larger objects impart more force.
      Simple example? Bullets won’t penetrate sandbags. Arrows will. Yet arrows move MUCH slower than bullets these days…. But “p=mv” Momentum = Mass * Velocity. With bullets, it’s a few ounces; so we make them go faster, e.g., Magnum load. Arrows weigh more, and take a LOT of work to make faster – E.G., a recurve vs. a compound bow with wood or fiberglass arrows, vs a hand-cranked arbalast using a steel bolt.

      Increase the mass, increase the velocity: Guess which makes a better result? Hint: Arrows and bolts can pierce body armor. Bullets can’t, speaking QUITE generally about handguns (Rifles CAN penetrate body armor, generally.) Bullets have issues penetrating ring mail, too – but while the ring or chain mail will stop the bullet, it stops it inside the body… Kevlar doesn’t, it stops the smaller, deformable mass before it hits the body – but the momentum is still transferred to the body, meaning, the energy of the projectile is still transferred to the person – and you get nice, pretty, bruises, maybe even a broken rib….
      With an arrow, you might get dead… And, it’ll need to be removed from your body…

      It’s not the car going too fast (necessarily). Not the mass, either, despite the above. And we can forgive mechanical issues – that’s an accident, literally. Further, the driver can’t necessarily stop the chain of events if a control rod or axle comes apart.
      But, if you’d actually DRIVE… you’d find that if you obey the limits, you’ll be RUN OFF THE ROAD in MOST places! New Jersey. Pennsylvania (all of it). Delaware. Massachusetts. Connecticut. Maryland. D.C. Virginia! Florida! WASHINGTON STATE… You get the idea? You MIGHT be Ok in Alaska, I’ve never been there… Population density is low.
      This means EVERYONE is driving above the speed limit. MOST people don’t have a death wish. So they’d drive at a “safe” (to them) speed. Which generally means, NOT driving so fast you can’t respond to traffic.
      But since they’re all speeding… and NOT all dying, nor even do we have frequent accidents of note (E.G., multiple car pileups – a necessary premise to prove your assertion) – The only logically consistent conclusion is, the speed limits are intentionally set low.
      This fits with the revenue schemes of towns, where the “speeding” fines fund the budget, almost completely…
      And, it doesn’t address the impact/energy transfer problem above.
      We didn’t even get to the frames of reference (which every good bicyclist should know – it’s why you bicycle in the same direction as traffic, the additive nature of speed… going TOWARDS something is far more damaging than going AWAY from it, because hitting at 30 MPH + 10 MPH > hitting at 30 MPH – 10 MPH. More energy. And going towards, greater moment of impact (longer time to transfer energy = more energy transferred).

      Isn’t physics fun?

      Go back to reading Ranger Rick. Adults are trying to un-fuck the world you children have created.

      • jean, nice. The very reason they’re trying to outlaw plain old ball ammo is a .223 with make mincemeat of anyone behind a “bulletproof’ vest. If you wear one, hope the only round to hit it will be a .25. Too many of the new .22RF rounds will penetrate body armor. I hate to be a spoil sport but I’m a eye and ear kinda guy. I hate to make anything suffer so a good eye shot removes the top of the head along with the brain. No pain, lots of gain. I eat everything I shoot except varmints who eat my cats and those no-gooders who attack me, the two legged kind…..and they’re much easier to hit………

      • Ian’s right in that there is a lot more reaction time at 55-60 mph vs. 75-80 mph you see on most Interstates nowadays.

        Plus, kinetic energy depends on the _square_ of your velocity, 0.5*mass*velocity^2, so again, there’s a whole lot more total energy for a given mass of vehicle(s) at 75-80 mph vs. 55-60 mph.

        Yes, we all think that we are above average drivers, but of course, that’s not true.

        I got to see the above in action coming down I-77 from Ohio back in June on a section with three lanes, speed limit 65 mph.

        I was in the far right lane, going 65, being passed by a guy in the middle probably going 70, when in the far left lane a Civic was overtaking both of us doing around 80.

        That meant when the deer decided to cross the road I and the guy next to me had enough time to avoid it, & the guy in the far left lane almost missed – clipped the deer’s hind leg & sent it flying a** over teakettle.

        Saw his car at the next toll plaza – crushed in front end, big puddle of green underneath.

        Bet he had fun getting a tow on Sunday in the middle of nowhere West Virginia.

        Again, just 5 mph slower & he would almost certainly would have avoided it.

        • Bill in NC,

          Of course, if he were 5mph faster he would have missed the deer as well. ????

          You are correct that reaction time increases at lower speeds. Slower speeds unfortunately do not guarantee avoiding collisions.

        • Hi Bill,

          Maybe – but maybe not (per what Mith wrote).

          In any case, examples such as this are highly individual. The exact factors that applied in this case will probably never repeat exactly.

          The question, as I see it, is whether this falls into the “vice” or “crime” category. Some things some of us may regard as inadvisable – or we just wouldn’t do them ourselves. But because they involve no harm done to others, they’re not actionable.

          So, a driver’s speed, if that’s all it is, is just that – velocity – until and unless he loses control and causes an accident.

          Yes, yes.. I know there will be the inevitable talk of “maniacs doing 90 in school zones” absent speed limits. This is of a piece with the hysterics emanating from the “gun control” quarter.

          In both cases – guns and cars – most people behave responsibly and those who don’t should not become the excuse for constraining (and punishing) those who do.

          Besides – in both cases – “the law” never seems to stop the genuinely reckless and homicidal. Or have I missed something?

  18. As Jean said, people are becoming bigger too, thanks to super sized restaurant meals and being immobile at their desks, then on their couches staring at the idiot box or the phone/tablet. Result is the Honda Civic is now bigger than the 90s Accord, and the CR-V, which used to be a nice compact crossover, is so big that Honda brought out the HR-V for those of us who don’t survive on McDonald’s. Eric has posted several good articles about the poor visibility in modern cars thanks to ‘safety’ requirements, ironically making them less safe to drive.
    Give me a late 90s – early 2000s car any day.

    • Hi Escher,

      This is so (sadly) true.

      The other day, I rolled my Trans-Am out of the garage for a drive. As I backed it out, I looked left at the Nissan Sentra that was parked on the pad.

      It made the TA seem small.

      The Sentra looked slab-sided, massive and tall. I sat as if on a roller skate, looking up at the Sentra. Which is a nominal “compact” sedan.

      In its day, the Trans-Am was considered a huge car for a two-door coupe.

      But the only thing particularly huge about it nowadays is its V8.

    • “staring at … the phone/tablet”

      Is that like the way everyone around me at the office simply “stares” at their computer screen?

    • Escher, I started t buy a new car in 2012 but I couldn’t see out of the side or rear of the car. I felt like I was in a cave. I asked several sales people who reluctantly admitted it was because of safety. Told them what they could do with their safety and their cars and left.
      Bought a 2002 Ford Ranger which, wasn’t the smartest thing I ever did but, at least I can see where I’m going. If I could find a 1998 Nissan 4 door that didn’t cost a fortune I’d trade back a few more years.

  19. Where are your facts the all the extra 800lbs is regulated safety? After all nearly every car built today has power windows, Power Seats, Power mirrors, automatic transmissions, ABS, sunroofs, leather seats, seat heaters, 18inch wheels with giant tires, all the sporty tack on crap, etc. Sure safety stuff added but it’s not a fair comparison. Todays average car has more gadgets then a high end did in 1985.
    After all the new 2016 MX5 weighs either less or the same as the 1989 Miata.

    • Hi Edward,

      Power windows and so on add only slightly to the curb weight. It’s the structural mass necessary to get through government crash tests that accounts for the majority of the weight gain.

      • Power windows weigh less than manual windows. A friend of min had one of teh original Honda Accords back from late 70. It got 46 mpg on the highway. In 2005, last time I checked Accord’s mileage, it was rated by the epa at 23 mpg. It was also much bigger and heavier than the earlier accords. The present accord is twice the size of the first accords, and gets much less mileage.

        I had an 83 Colt that got 51 mpg on the highway. Figures from 1996 to 2015 range from 16 mpg to 33 mpg, far below what my 83 year got.

        Again, it’s physics. The benefits of computerization have wiped out all fuel economy gains from earlier decades. All to prevent the car from being demolished by an a-bomb.

      • Eric,

        You keep going to power windows. It does adds weight to the car; you have the motors, the wiring, the switches, fuses.. now they probably have a computer controlling them.

        Prove me wrong.

        • Hi Alex,

          The weight of power window motors, etc. is minimal in a modern car.

          Now, if we were talking about an old car – like my ’76 Trans Am – it’d be a different story.

          I’ll give you another, related example: AC components.

          My TA has a massive (and very heavy) GM Harrison compressor. Modern versions are a third the size – and probably weigh a third as much!

    • Your data on the MX-5 is incorrect. The new car’s weight is higher. Though it has little relevance because you can change the weight of ANY car year to year by adding aluminum body and structural panels in place of steel at higher cost. The new MX-5 IS lower weight then the 2015 “NC” model it replaces from the previous year, and it’s well known the “NC” was an engineering abortion from day one. The Meg Griffin of the Miata family.

  20. Need to nit-pick, but it serves as a reminder of what we’re up against:

    With all the technology on tap, modern diesels would be able to deliver 60-plus MPG on average, in a car that weighed less than 2,000 pounds like our ’85 Civic example. You’d think – if your thoughts were logical – that government bureaucrats would be “all over” that. They are, after all, here to help… .

    Except they’re not.

    Consciously or not, the desideratum of politicians and bureaucrats is control and direction. If this were not true, then force would not be necessary. They’d rely on reason and persuasion. Surely that would be sufficient. If the object of the exercise weren’t control and direction.

    Added the bold, of course.
    Boobus Americanus (And the rest of Homo Erectus around the world) runs on FEEEELINGS…. No thought, no logic, minimal activity in the frontal cortex.

    This means we (and the would-be masters) cannot rely on thought or logic to keep the masses in line (and sway us, or throw us under the bus) – but on wild, egregiously over-powered RESPONSE to the emotional mewling of the children (in adult bodies).

    These children have no thoughts. They never develop logic. So reason and persuasion are impossible.
    MANDATES backed by FORCE are the only thing Homo Erectus follows, as the only things in its feeble limbic core is the pain/pleasure principle – and that is being enhanced by the modern Opiate, TV… Everyone wants to FEEEEEL great about themselves – damn the reality.
    So she’s a size 24! FAT ACCEPTANCE!
    So I’ve got a 40″ waist? STOP SHAMING ME, I LOVE MY BODY!!! (and eat any crap that can’t run away fast enough…. Which is anything moving, really, that’s why the 40″ waist…)

    So she smoked 285 cocks already, she’s STILL supposed to be YOUR VIRGINAL WIFE….

    Etc. (Yes, I had to throw the last one in, because women have become more notch-obsessed than men. It’s so obvious you can find it not just in the Manosphere, bemoaning the modern slut, but on the “alternative” transgender sites, where those who wish to emulate the best elements of femininity comment on the COMPLETE lack of femininity in modern woman. But again, FEEELINGS trump reality, “Baby Wants,” Baby better GET, RIGHT NOW, OR ELSE! Sounds like the squeaky wheel gets the grease… Maybe we need to start squeaking? About MANY topics… Because right now, it seems only the bureaucrats and the terminally stupid/incompetent are squeaking.)

  21. Eric,

    Although I agree with your overall point, I don’t think all of the weight gain. Of vehicles is driven by regulatory requirements, a lot of the weight gain is also due to consumer demands. People have demanded larger vehicles with more comfort and convenience features, lower NVH, and more space. All of these things add weight to the vehicle. That’s why a compact today is as large as a yesterday’s midsize. And that’s why today’s full size pickup truck is as large as a Kenilworth while today’s “compact” truck is as large as yesterday’s full size pickup.

    • Hi Jeff,

      That’s a part of it, certainly. But the federal government’s crash test requirements are orders of magnitude tougher today than they were in the ’80s and the only (economically viable) way to meet them is by adding mass. This is the main reason for the curb weight of new cars.

      Consider as a case in point very small cars like the Fiat 500. It weighs as much – almost – as mid-sized cars weighed back in the ’80s.

      • That’s a good point. It would be helpful to have more data interns of a car’s weight breakdown to determine where all of the weight is coming from. I found this site, which listed the weight breakdown for average car (World) in 2008. The structure, on average, consisted of 24% of the weight for a car.

        http://www.frost.com/prod/servlet/market-insight-print.pag?docid=166542046

        I don’t know how reliable this information is so take it for what it is worth. Based on this information, For a 2500 lb vehicle, the structure is around 600 lbs. If a vehicle of the same vehicle class were to increase to 3000 lbs, it’s hard to believe that all of the 500 lb weight gain is due to the structure.

        Prior to the release of the C7, Tadge Juechter gave a presentation, which included the weight adders to the vehicle.

        Go to post #15 for a picture of the presentation with the weight adders

        http://www.corvetteforum.com/forums/c7-tech-performance/3585542-stingray-weight-z51-vs-base.html#PhotoSwipe1440080121815

        Of the 211 lbs that the vehicle gained, only 18.5 lbs were due to new structural requirements for safety. Ironically, the car probably gained 30 lbs for fuel economy (AFM engine hardware, AFM valves, steel torque tube due to AFM). These weight adders were unneeded but try probable accounted for no more than 50 lbs of the 211 lbs of weight the car gained.

        • Stupid auto correct.

          “Interns” should be “in terms”

          “but try probable accounted” should be “but probably accounted”

      • The early accords were listed as subcompacts. The later Accords are full size cars. All this weight is due to “safety” standards, like airbags, door beams, more steel, “safety” systems, etc. Weight reductions like plastic bumpers have been neutralized by the extra “safety” systems which has added the saved weight back.

        And the “safety” systems have created their own hazards, such as exploding airbags, poisonous chemicals in the airbag inflators, reduced vision due to overly large pillars, cars coming to a stop on a snowy hill due to activation of ETS, etc……..

    • Utter nonsense! I have been driving full size pick up trucks for over 30 years and are the same size now as they were then.

      • Pickups v. cars = apples v. oranges.
        but take a look at what has happened to ‘full-size’ vans since Daimler brought the Sprinter to our shores.

      • Are you sure about that?
        I have three two door rear wheel drive ford coupes from three different decades and the newest one is larger than the other two.

      • Our 65 Chevy C20 tipped the scale at 4500 lbs and the 1987 F250 weighed almost 5500 lbs when we scrapped them, the not yet scrapable 04 Chevy 2500 is 7500 lbs. Growth over the years in physical size is apparent in all aspects as is the proliferation of body styles, wheel bases, drive trains, option packages and luxurious amenities.

        • My ’82 3/4 T 4WD Chevy isn’t close to the size of a new one. It’s brakes, suspension, axles, drive gears and all the rest are smaller than those of the 90’s(had one of those too) or this century.

  22. It’s even worse than that. 1985? There were cars in 1955 that could get 25-30 mpg or more. That was with carbs and breaker-point ignition, and in some cases flathead engines.

  23. we DO have a choice.
    I simply will not buy a new, needlessly overly complicated vehicle.

    the newest one we have is a 2004 Expedition, that we bought in excellent condition in 2010 at a repo auction , sticker price when new, $49K, repo auction price: $6K

    when it conks out, it will be replaced with a late 80s K-5 Blazer,
    by 88, the K-5 had throttle body fuel injection and overdrive, and was reliable,
    but not overly complicated,

    the power window switches in the 04 Expedition do no connect to the window motor, they tell the computer to lower the window.
    same with the heater fan control switch, it doesnt connect to the actual fan, it tells the computer to adjust the speed.

    instead of having one coil , a distributor , and plug wires, like normal engines used to have, the Expy has EIGHT coils, that fail every few years and cost $75 each.

    and thats in a 10 year old car. who knows what the new ones are like.

    my 17 yr old son drives a 1977 4WD chevy pickup,
    we added throttle body injection from a 1990 model and a 5 speed manual from a
    2006 silverado, soon as we get the A/C fixed it will do anything that a new $50K truck will do , only it cost us $5K and instead of depreciating to 10% of its value in a few years, it will actually go up in value,

    consumers have a choice, they just cant stand to keep an perfectly reliable car if its not a new one.

    the wife has a 99 Beetle turbo diesel that we bought at a auction many years ago for $4500
    it gets 42 mpg, every tank

    • The problem is the road salt. Where I live daily driving a ’77 through winter and it will done for in a few short years. Fighting rust is a full time job. My mazda through an evap code. So I pull off the shield around the filler pipe and there is vent stack pipe. The top of it crumbled when I touched it.

      If it wasn’t for the rust that is every taking out parts and requiring work to either fix it or prevent it the mechanical stuff would be worth doing on older cars. It’s real hunt to find those that have been kept out the slop.

      • Amazing they still use salt. It may be cheaper than the alternative but at what price? They probably get some sort of remuneration from the car companies.

      • This is one of the big reasons why my plan is to eventually move down south, to an area where it doesn’t snow. I can’t own a nice car, or even the type I want, because of the weather/climate/govt.

  24. This are the same people who reinvented the common gas can making it impossible to use without spillage and the simple rotary push lawn mower into a clippings clogging Frankenstein. Dumbing down education to ensure no one else becomes smarter than the stupidest kid in school. Outlawing distracting cell phone usage in cars while a frustratingly cumbersome computer interface replaces the simple switchgear on the dash. Converting our food into substandard fuel while preaching the love of wind generators installed ever so far from their rarified environs. I can guarantee they never personally deal with results their regulatory monstrosities.

    Bureaucrats create regulations they themselves don’t have to live by. Those folks making all these rules are chauffeured around in government owned Suburbans by armed guards while illegals handle their mundane household chores. So they obviously have no idea how their ludicrous proclamations strangle the remaining 99.99% of us.

    It seems rocket science isn’t nearly what it used to be, more explode on the launch pad than launch lately.

    • C C, the first time I was accosted with a self-venting gas can I couldn’t figure it out. After a bit though I realized the entire point was to make fueling as horrible as possible. Most of the gas goes on your legs and feet and hands and anything under it and a bit goes in the tank.

      Right after that episode I went looking for gas cans. Good luck. So I scoured garages and homes(garage sales, etc.)and found what women call old ugly, nasty gas cans their husbands had and would let them go cheap(not all women are like this though). Now I have some great galvanized steel cans you need a funnel to use. Gee, I happen to have a couple dozen of those, pick your size and composition.

        • Mith, to be honest, I have an old plastic gerry can with a vent and cap on the opposite top corner of the filling hole with a long, plastic tube that slides out of the can and seals inside so you can flex it any direction and keep the tube in the receptacle with no leaks. It’s six gallons and is pretty old(probably why it’s still around). I wouldn’t say it will keep gas like steel cans but it dang sure delivers it very well. I had two but somebody wanted one worse than I did I guess. I like to pour my big metal cans fuel into it and use it for dispensing on many things. It holds a slight bit more than my six gallon galvanized cans.

      • Years ago I had a gas can called ‘Explosafe.’ Metal 6 gallon can that held 5 gallons, because the innards were filled with some sort of aluminum mesh that trapped vapors. Carelessly lost that puppy and regretted it ever since.

          • I have several ancient Jerry cans only used for diesel. They seal tight so water never condenses in them, no troublesome rust or leaks or dumping water in fuel tanks. A Jerry can is a unique shape and size, in lieu of colorful but otherwise identical plastic cans that are impossible to distinguish from one another in the dark.

          • The stupidity of gov’t officials never seems to have a limit. Why do amurikans believe their gov’t can do anything right?

        • Those are really expensive cans PtB. It probably had a spring loaded lid too with a lever you had to grab to open it before you poured. I’ve only seen them in labs holding VOC’s and a time or two in the patch.

          • 8 – I’ve seen those, but this had a metal ‘screw-in’ lid, very much like on a steel drum, and then a special spout that attached the same way.

            • For the time being you can get the”water can” replacement spouts from TSC and replace the safety stuff on a lot of the plastics(did mine,works great)

              • Good tip Kevin. I will definitely check that out.
                Due to a ‘gift’ when somebody moved, I have 3 or 4 cans all the same, and would only need 1 spout.

              • Not available for sale in New England and mid Atlantic states or CA. All fuel containers and spouts must be VOC compliant, child proof, adult resistant and worthless for dispensinging fuel.

                It’s the law.

      • Eightsouthman, go to a dirt bike shop and get fuel canisters there. The five gallon type with the clear tube sticking straight up. They work. I will not ever buy any other type.

LEAVE A REPLY