On Sun, 02 May 2004 19:12:26 GMT, G.T. wrote: > "Doki" <d...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote: >> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
> Depends. 5 out of 6 times I ride because there are rides that I can reach > riding. When I get bored with those I throw the bike on top of the Jeep.
Same here. I end up riding the same few trails quite a bit, just because they're convenient. My Subaru gets pretty good gas mileage, so driving isn't too bad either - its just the time that keeps me from doing it.
-- -BB- To reply to me, drop the attitude (from my e-mail address, at least)
>Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
97% ride. I don't care for driving after a couple hours riding - seems like I'm a little spaced out when I drive in that condition. Sometimes I wonder if that how Abibe Bakeba got his - supposedly he and Malmo Walde crashed their Land Rover coming back from a training session. -- PeteCresswell
Doki wrote: > Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
I drive my H2 now matter how close I am to the trails. I'll drive through the car wash while getting fuel (lots and lots of fuel!) weather it needs it or not. All the chrome can never be too shiny - I've got people to impress!
> Doki wrote: > > Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
> I drive my H2 now matter how close I am to the trails. I'll drive through > the car wash while getting fuel (lots and lots of fuel!) weather it needs it > or not. All the chrome can never be too shiny - I've got people to impress!
> Matt
For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail. I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
MattB wrote: > Doki wrote: >> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
Argh. Should be "there" of course.
> I drive my H2 now matter how close I am to the trails. I'll drive > through the car wash while getting fuel (lots and lots of fuel!) > weather it needs it or not. All the chrome can never be too shiny - > I've got people to impress!
"Doki" <d...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote in news:1083523943.6031.0 @eunomia.uk.clara.net:
> Do you ride out their or stick your bike on the back of the car?
Drive to friend's house, unload bike, ride trail. Most of the time we leave a car at the bottom. 8 miles of downhill sucks if you have to pedal home...
> For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet > Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail. > I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than > I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
> Dan V
Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"? The pollution is only not as immediately noticeable e.g. car exhaust you can see compared to a remote plant miles away from built up areas. (b) Turbines used for electricity generation is at the very best about 30% efficient. Since most plants rely on burning fossil fuels - including oil, you are still indirectly feeding the oil complanies. Ok, there are plants that suppliment their output using renewable fuel sources e.g. wind and of course hydroplants but in the main fossil fuels are the bread and butter. Oh, not forgetting radioactive sources but that's another matter.
> > For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet > > Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail. > > I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the > > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> > I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than > > I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
> > Dan V
> Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do > people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from > generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"? The pollution is only not > as immediately noticeable e.g. car exhaust you can see compared to a > remote plant miles away from built up areas. > (b) Turbines used for electricity generation is at the very best about > 30% efficient. Since most plants rely on burning fossil fuels - > including oil, you are still indirectly feeding the oil complanies. > Ok, there are plants that suppliment their output using renewable fuel > sources e.g. wind and of course hydroplants but in the main fossil > fuels are the bread and butter. Oh, not forgetting radioactive sources > but that's another matter.
Well, in the case of the Insight, the electric is charged by braking and coasting--the car charges itself. And all ratings of it showed it polluted much less than the normal car. As to electrical plants, looking at the Florida Power and Light plant in Rivera Beach, Fl ( which powers much of South Florida) it leaves belches out black soot daily, which falls like pollen all around it for many miles. Dan V
> > For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet > > Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail. > > I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the > > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> > I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than > > I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
> > Dan V
> Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do > people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from > generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"?
The "Insight" is not a plug in car. It generates its own electricty, and as a hybrid gets ~60-65 mpg.
> > For my local S Florida rides, I have to drive either 30 minutes for Quiet > > Waters, or one hour for the Fort Pierce trail. > > I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the > > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> > I don't want to give the stinking Arab Oil consortiums one penney more than > > I have to ( that goes for our own as well ;-)
> > Dan V
> Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do > people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from > generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"? The pollution is only not > as immediately noticeable e.g. car exhaust you can see compared to a > remote plant miles away from built up areas. > (b) Turbines used for electricity generation is at the very best about > 30% efficient. Since most plants rely on burning fossil fuels - > including oil, you are still indirectly feeding the oil complanies. > Ok, there are plants that suppliment their output using renewable fuel > sources e.g. wind and of course hydroplants but in the main fossil > fuels are the bread and butter. Oh, not forgetting radioactive sources > but that's another matter.
But...the by-product of some power plants are tomatoes!
"Dan Volker" <dvol...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:lSvlc.64724$oN1.50809 @bignews5.bellsouth.net:
> I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
I've got one of those as well. It's a great little car, but the bike shops keeps telling me it's a no-fit bike rack wise. When I want to haul a bike I have put it in the back. Do you do the same, or have you found another solution?
Joel Crum wrote: > "Dan Volker" <dvol...@bellsouth.net> wrote in > news:lSvlc.64724$oN1.50809 @bignews5.bellsouth.net:
>> I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with >> the bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> I've got one of those as well. It's a great little car, but the bike > shops keeps telling me it's a no-fit bike rack wise. When I want to > haul a bike I have put it in the back. Do you do the same, or have > you found another solution?
Seems like a big oversight on Honda's part if that's really the case. I bet the likelyhood of someone into eco-friendly cars having a bike (that may need to be driven somewhere sometime) is pretty high!
> "Dan Volker" <dvol...@bellsouth.net> wrote in news:lSvlc.64724$oN1.50809 > @bignews5.bellsouth.net:
> > I use my Honda Insight ( gas /electric hybrid) and get 50 mpg, with the > > bonus of not polluting nearly as much as normal cars.
> I've got one of those as well. It's a great little car, but the bike shops > keeps telling me it's a no-fit bike rack wise. When I want to haul a bike > I have put it in the back. Do you do the same, or have you found another > solution?
> -- > - Joel C.
Joel, I have the Saris Bones rack, which works well. The only mod you need is the attachment points at the top of the window/hatchback, need to be changed to the round rubber kind you use for glass. These are available at most bike stores.
However, with 2 bikes on the back ( 2 Trek Liquid 25's) the drag interferes badly with fuel economy and top speed. I can average 50 mpg with one bike inside, going around 70mph--this drops to about 42 mpg when I'm averaging 80 mph. If I have the 2 bikes on the rack, 70 mph fuel economy drops to about 35 mpg, and 80 mph drops it to about 25 to 28 mpg. Similarly, it won't go much over 90 like this, whereas with one bike inside my Insight will do about 115 mph ( its a CVT , not the manual).
If I put the 4 wheels inside, and just the frames on the rack, it make only a small difference in fuel economy, but this is kind of a pain ;-)
If you come up with any better ideas, let me know !
> Joel, > I have the Saris Bones rack, which works well. The only mod you need > is the attachment points at the top of the window/hatchback, need to > be changed to the round rubber kind you use for glass. These are > available at most bike stores.
Ah - cool.
> However, with 2 bikes on the back ( 2 Trek Liquid 25's) the drag > interferes badly with fuel economy and top speed. I can average 50 mpg > with one bike inside, going around 70mph--this drops to about 42 mpg > when I'm averaging 80 mph. If I have the 2 bikes on the rack, 70 mph > fuel economy drops to about 35 mpg, and 80 mph drops it to about 25 to > 28 mpg. Similarly, it won't go much over 90 like this, whereas with > one bike inside my Insight will do about 115 mph ( its a CVT , not the > manual).
> If I put the 4 wheels inside, and just the frames on the rack, it make > only a small difference in fuel economy, but this is kind of a pain > ;-)
The manual has a similar performance. I get from 57 to 66 mpg (winter vs. summer), and I was worried about what a rack would do to fuel economy. It's good to know just the rack wouldn't be a big deal.
> If you come up with any better ideas, let me know !
Someone needs to start making us a hybrid truck. I wish I could mate a 4 cylinder Ranger with an Insight and drive the offspring. I'd love it even if it looked like an El Camino.
-- - Joel C.
"I'm glad everybody is sorry. I'm sorry, too; it was a sorry incident." FCC chief Michael Powell
> "Doki" <d...@spamtroNspidar.com> wrote in message > news:1083523943.6031.0@eunomia.uk.clara.net... > Many times it's much more fun to drive to the trails than it is to drive to > them.
periplaneta <periplan...@hotmail.com> wrote: > Just an observation, no flames or any nasty mana intended, but why do > people think that (a) just because you can't see the pollution from > generator plants, electricity is "cleaner"? The pollution is only not > as immediately noticeable e.g. car exhaust you can see compared to a > remote plant miles away from built up areas. > (b) Turbines used for electricity generation is at the very best about > 30% efficient. Since most plants rely on burning fossil fuels - > including oil, you are still indirectly feeding the oil complanies. > Ok, there are plants that suppliment their output using renewable fuel > sources e.g. wind and of course hydroplants but in the main fossil > fuels are the bread and butter. Oh, not forgetting radioactive sources > but that's another matter.
Automobile internal combustion engines are only about 25% efficient. I think your number for turbines is low - it can be over 40%, e.g. http://www.cogeneration.net/CombinedCyclePowerPlant.htm Another factoid is that a power plant can have a much bigger and more effective emissions control system than a car can tote around. Power plants can be run off natural gas which is somewhat cleaner and less politically dicey than oil.
|
