And your point is ... ?

I think what he, in fact, many of us want to know is if you could make your point in less than 10,000 words and 3 consecutive posts? just askin

tw's bringing you a 1000 points of light.

LOFL!

A post without numerous supporting facts is nothing but wild speculation.

I don't post sound bytes. However those posts are only a sound byte - an abridged version - of what I learned before obtaining those conclusions.

I don't know how to know something without numerous supporting facts or examples. Also why I could see through George Jr myths about Saddam's WMDs, mythical undercapitalized electric grid creating electrical blackouts, and the stupidity of Man to Mars.

Still to come from rising oil prices are significant electric rate increases, beef prices increasing maybe to double, and (as suggested by JP Morgan's top man) a 1980s recession. Only way these can be averted is a significant reduction in world oil consumption. Nothing suggests that is possible. Instability in so many major oil producing nations (Nigeria, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela) imply markets may even get worse.

One look at the Detroit Auto show also suggests so. Most all new products are big SUVs, the more inefficient pickups, vehicles based in politically hyped and technically foolish alternative fuels, 300+ Hp V-8 engines, and no significant technological innovations. Nothing implies oil price increases will be averted. Bad new for BrianR and his peers. Be thankful that gasoline prices are so low as so many should have been last year when it was only $2.60 per gallon.

Oh relax Tom, I was just messin with ya. Geez - You certainly didn't need to add another post to reiterate whatever you said in your other three overtly longwinded posts.

A real truckers strike would cripple this country. I am not sure it would actually help lower the price per barrel of oil.

I dunno...I'm almost open to strong-arming the Saudis and Kuwaitis. Of course, it could cause a hell of a ripple effect, but...

Massive trucker strikes would SHUT DOWN the country. Still wouldn't help anything. We did that back in the 70s and nothing came of it. Won't help now either.

TW, I assume that your claim of 345 hp in my truck in the last post was a typo, as it has 435 and THAT is dialed down from it's maximum power setting of 500. Trucks are hardly the fastest vehicles on the road...more trucks are equipped with speed governors than not. I think Japanese sport bikes are the fastest, and they must come with a special permit to ride like a reincarnated kamikaze pilot. On the contrary, most trucks are operated safely and within the speed limit by professional drivers such as myself. Most often, traffic problems involving big trucks are caused by the car drivers around us, not the truckers. 80,000 lbs does not handle like 4000. It takes me 765 feet to whoa Old Paint down to zero mph from 65 mph under good conditions, yet how often do you see that kind of space cushion in front of a rig? Over two football fields? Rarely. Instead, I have motorists cut in front of me regularly within 50 feet!. Should an emergency develop, that motorist will be buried in his tin can of a car when I crush him, and it, flat.

Back to the thread topic, it's not so much the engine power, it's the gearing. That's how I can take only a little more hp than is in the average pick 'em up truck and haul heavy loads long distances that would burn out that motor. And it's a pushrod motor at that.

I have a standing invitation to anyone with a powerful engine/trans setup in their car to hook up to my towbar and try to out-pull me. My friend has a drag car with close to 700 hp and a racing trans and he wouldn't dare take up that gauntlet.

Gear a car to make high torque with even 95 hp and it'll pull. I think all cars should have governors in them that limit their speed to no more than 75 mph. Engines would soon become more efficient under that limitation, which is currently being proposed for trucks, and not for efficiency's sake either.

I'm beginning to ramble again so I'll shut up.

Brian

Each of four posts provided completely new information. If you only see conclusions - ignore supporting facts - then all four posts are same. Repeatedly noted in so many posts. Grasp those supporting facts as if your life depended on it. Without supporting facts, a conclusion is just as good as a Rush Limbaugh lie or posts from people here who so foolishly support "Mission Accomplished". Four posts are same only if one sees conclusions - ignores what is more important.

345 Hp was the horsepower in another trucker's rig. 345 Hp was from a conversation only two days previously. 300 and 500 Hp to move more than 60,000 pounds? But others here foolishly think a car needs 200 Hp. Another example of those who know without first learning numbers. Same lesson were bluntly demonstrated in The Cellar in 2002/2003. Some were so easily manipulated into believing Saddam had WMDs because they ignored long posts with numerous supporting facts, details, and the numbers.

What good would a trucker's strike accomplish? Again, a first and standard question - what is the strategic objective? Long before a strike is considered, first, a solution (what defines a victory) must first be defined. That is the trucker's dilemma. Truckers did not create this problem. Truckers will be victims of others who so hate America as to even buy SUVs and monster pickups. But then we lived this same mistake throughout most of the 1970s.

A comment from Obama is a lesson from 1970s. When suggesting to Detroit executives that they must innovate; must increase gas mileage massively, Obama says the room got silent. Exact same response from 1970 MBAs when Carter asked for same solutions. They refused to innovate - a triumph of management school decisions. Detroit refused to use the 1960 stratified charge engine or the 1972 70 Hp/liter technology even after 1976 when Carter asked them to be patriots.

As a teenager, I built an electronic ignition for my 1960 technology Ford. Then asked why a kid could do what Detroit engineers could not. But then patriots repeatedly ask such questions. Nobody could answer then what everyone should know today. Engineers were quashed, stifled, prevented from innovating by business school graduates. Electronic ignitions did not appear until 1975 when EPA regulations forced (all but required) anti-innovation (MBA) management to innovate.

Want to see what contributes to high gasoline prices? American innovation must first appear ten plus years earlier in foreign products. Some Americans so hate America - so love obsolete technology - as to buy SUVs and pickups that weight too much for their little size, promote low performance engines, believe outright lies about 200 Hp engines, and ignore the trophy for obsolete American products - the V-8 engine.

Again, classicman, many new facts. For example, did you know why the only innovation in 1970s American cars always required EPA regulation? Literally every innovation that appeared in American 1970s cars was stifled until required by government regulation. Did you know that? Deja vue.

An old fact repeated. 1994 GM was given US government money to build a hybrid. Where is it? Deja vue 1970s GM. Demonstrated are examples - common to the many reasons for high oil prices. But again, how would a trucker's strike solve any of this? Another reason: American dollar is dropping like a rock due to corrupt American economic policies of six and more years. A trucker's strike cannot solve what extremist anti-Americans (ie people who voted for George Jr) have done to America. Time to pay for our sins (including "Mission Accomplished").

Will you remember these lessons 30 years from now when another generation promotes a political agenda rather than innovation? But more important, do you learn ten or thirty reasons that discuss why. Or do your eyes glaze over for all but sound byte posts?

IOW adapting to changing loads. How do automakers solve that problem with obsolete technology engines? Bean counters makes engines bigger to burn more gas - the V-8 engine. Why? Innovation harms profits; an MBA principle when profits (not the product) are more important.

What makes the hybrid a potential solution? Same reason why 1930 diesel electric locomotives obsolete the steam engine. Technology was that well understood for that long. Adapt a smaller engine smarter to changing loads means more energy in each gallon of gas, instead, does productive work.

Fools want to solve this problem by inventing mythical fuels (hydrogen), or price controls, or taxing the oil companies. But the concept - a solution - is demonstrated by even in trucks.

Again who do we blame for high diesel prices? From the NY Times of 14 May 2008:

So the refineries are manipulating output to increase the profit margin and oil at $126 a barrel has nothing to do with it? please.

That is what TheMercenary believes. Not what was posted or reported. Reality - prices are clearly not set by oil companies. Many oil companies are making less profits due to high oil prices. It was not difficult to read. But it was not 'sound byte' logic. It only required TheMercenary to even read the report.

Where was that? My recollection from the news was that they are making record profits. Cite please.