I just cannot wait!

wyadvd · March 2012

Just cannot wait (pi$$ing myself with anticipation in fact) at the prospect of proper fuel shortages for a week or two. Just watched the news where they interviewed some fat cow sitting on her ar$e in her car compaining she's worried she won't be able to get to work (ah diddums, sure they won't miss you love), and then some spokesman for 'fairness in fuel' literally looking like a coronary waiting to happen, ranting on about the price of fuel.

Initialised · March 2012

Shame it was all a Tory stunt to give the economy a shot in the arm to make sure the figures don't scream DOUBLE DIP TOLD YOU SO. Sadly the mouth breathing, petrol headed tabloid reading masses fell for it hook line and sinker. I hope more of them set them selves on fire.

Cameron's relationship with the press is clearly fine.

asprilla · March 2012

TBH my parents live 285 miles away and would really like to see their granddaughter over Easter.

wyadvd · March 2012

Asprilla wrote:

TBH my parents live 285 miles away and would really like to see their granddaughter over Easter.

Fair point, well made.

I just think the hysteria about fuel prices being "out of control" just get me when I see all these fairly young, able bodied people in fairly large cars driving alone maybe 5 or 10 miles to work.

petrol prices have to be twenty times higher for petrol to be the same as food on a per calorie basis. then it will be fair in my book.

merkin · March 2012

Not everyone is the same
as you though are they?

spen666 · March 2012

wyadvd wrote:

.....

petrol prices have to be twenty times higher for petrol to be the same as food on a per calorie basis. then it will be fair in my book.

Think you misunderstand what petrol is for.

Never seen a notice on the pumps giving details of the number of calories in it

veronese68 · March 2012

I do laugh about the people the think they need petrol when in reality there are alternative means of covering a short distance.
For people like Asprilla it's just a royal pain in the aris. A mate of mine has to drive to his mother in law's funeral in the Highlands tomorrow. Driving is the only real option as there are four of them and a dog. The last thing his wife needs at what is obviously a very upsetting time is to worry about petrol.
On balance, it would be best if it hadn't happened.

wyadvd · March 2012

spen666 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

.....

petrol prices have to be twenty times higher for petrol to be the same as food on a per calorie basis. then it will be fair in my book.

Think you misunderstand what petrol is for.

Never seen a notice on the pumps giving details of the number of calories in it

there are in fact 33000 calories in a gallon of petrol

That means that a car doing 40 miles to the gallon consumes 825 calories per mile travelled. I consume 50 calories per mile travelled on my bike. trouble is that my fuel for my day's journey is the 1000 calorie lunch of chips I have every day which costs me £1-50. That same £1-50 would buy me 1 litre of diesel and contain 7300 calories (or about the number I will consume on my bike going 100miles tomorrow in the downlands sportive having spent an absolute fortune on SIS drinks and the like).

For use as a fuel either food is far too expensive, or diesel is ridiculously under priced and/or cars are ridiculously inefficient. That was my point. people complain about diesel being expensive, but for cyclists, actually food is pretty poor value per calorie when compared to diesel, so when diesel costs a hundred quid a litre then diesel will be about the same value as a fuel as food is to a cyclist in terms of cost per calorie.

When you think about it in some ways there is absolutely no reason why motor fuel should not be priced commensurately with food on this basis (or vice versa) and very unfair that it isn't. Especially when you consider biofuels using up land that should be used to feed cyclists!

mar_k · March 2012

Asprilla wrote:

TBH my parents live 285 miles away and would really like to see their granddaughter over Easter.

Similar situation myself, I want to take the mrs and kids to my dads the week after next so I hope it will settle down.
I will cycle to work next week to safe the fuel I have

wyadvd · March 2012

mar_k wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

TBH my parents live 285 miles away and would really like to see their granddaughter over Easter.

Similar situation myself, I want to take the mrs and kids to my dads the week after next so I hope it will settle down.
I will cycle to work next week to safe the fuel I have

yeah me too , going to lego land over easter in the car. wife has told me if i mention cycling once, she's dumping me on the m4 without stopping the car!

EKE_38BPM · March 2012

wyadvd wrote:

spen666 wrote:

wyadvd wrote:

.....

petrol prices have to be twenty times higher for petrol to be the same as food on a per calorie basis. then it will be fair in my book.

Think you misunderstand what petrol is for.

Never seen a notice on the pumps giving details of the number of calories in it

there are in fact 33000 calories in a gallon of petrol

That means that a car doing 40 miles to the gallon consumes 825 calories per mile travelled. I consume 50 calories per mile travelled on my bike. trouble is that my fuel for my day's journey is the 1000 calorie lunch of chips I have every day which costs me £1-50. That same £1-50 would buy me 1 litre of diesel and contain 7300 calories (or about the number I will consume on my bike going 100miles tomorrow in the downlands sportive having spent an absolute fortune on SIS drinks and the like).

For use as a fuel either food is far too expensive, or diesel is ridiculously under priced and/or cars are ridiculously inefficient. That was my point. people complain about diesel being expensive, but for cyclists, actually food is pretty poor value per calorie when compared to diesel, so when diesel costs a hundred quid a litre then diesel will be about the same value as a fuel as food is to a cyclist in terms of cost per calorie.

When you think about it in some ways there is absolutely no reason why motor fuel should not be priced commensurately with food on this basis (or vice versa) and very unfair that it isn't. Especially when you consider biofuels using up land that should be used to feed cyclists!

jds_1981 · March 2012

Initialised wrote:

Shame it was all a Tory stunt to give the economy a shot in the arm to make sure the figures don't scream DOUBLE DIP TOLD YOU SO. Sadly the mouth breathing, petrol headed tabloid reading masses fell for it hook line and sinker. I hope more of them set them selves on fire.

Cameron's relationship with the press is clearly fine.

Blimey, the torys are in cahoots with the unions?

rick_chasey · March 2012

Puts car behaviour on roads into a bit of context.

Seems people lose all perspective and clear thought when it comes to cars generally - not just the driving of them.

Twostage · April 2012

I think the diesal/food calorie efficiency anomaly is down to the weight of the car versus the weight of a bike. One of the reasons I downsized cars was I realised what a small percentage of fuel was required to move me compared with the car. I often wonder why scooters/motorbikes aren't hugely more efficient than cars when you consider the weight difference.

jds_1981 · April 2012

It's not even really the weight as long as you don't have to break/accelerate too often. It's the air resistence that sucks up all your fuel.

EKE_38BPM · April 2012

Twostage wrote:

I think the diesal/food calorie efficiency anomaly is down to the weight of the car versus the weight of a bike. One of the reasons I downsized cars was I realised what a small percentage of fuel was required to move me compared with the car. I often wonder why scooters/motorbikes aren't hugely more efficient than cars when you consider the weight difference.

I'm pretty sure motorbikes are way ahead of cars in MPG terms, but the exhaust fumes are much dirtier. I think I'm right in saying that fuel efficiency/emission legislation has pretty much ignored scooters/motorbikes so the manufacturers have had no reason to improve things. Now that cars have improved so much the focus is going to shift to them. I don't think motorbikes have to comply with any emission laws at the moment (just noise regulations), but that is going to change. It could well be the end of two stroke engined motorbikes.

Twostage · April 2012

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Twostage wrote:

I think the diesal/food calorie efficiency anomaly is down to the weight of the car versus the weight of a bike. One of the reasons I downsized cars was I realised what a small percentage of fuel was required to move me compared with the car. I often wonder why scooters/motorbikes aren't hugely more efficient than cars when you consider the weight difference.

I'm pretty sure motorbikes are way ahead of cars in MPG terms, but the exhaust fumes are much dirtier. I think I'm right in saying that fuel efficiency/emission legislation has pretty much ignored scooters/motorbikes so the manufacturers have had no reason to improve things. Now that cars have improved so much the focus is going to shift to them. I don't think motorbikes have to comply with any emission laws at the moment (just noise regulations), but that is going to change. It could well be the end of two stroke engined motorbikes.

Not very scientific but went to the Kawasaki site and chose one of their new bikes at random (versys 1000). They didn't quote mpg on their sites so googled a user forum and they are quoting around 40 mpg. My micra diesal does over 60.

merkin · April 2012

Your micra would be more accurately compared to a small scooter. I see your point though.

PedalPedant · April 2012

wyadvd wrote:

That same £1-50 would buy me 1 litre of diesel and contain 7300 calories

Or that £1-50 could buy you a kilo and half of sugar containing just under 6000 calories or four packets of lard (1 kilo) containing 9000 calories.

You're just eating the wrong things

PP

Runoutofgears · April 2012

I read somewhere that a petrol station fuel pump is the most powerful thing that most of us will frequently hold in our hand, taking calorific value x typical fuel delivery rate gives about 28 Mega Watts.

wyadvd · April 2012

Runoutofgears wrote:

I read somewhere that a petrol station fuel pump is the most powerful thing that most of us will frequently hold in our hand, taking calorific value x typical fuel delivery rate gives about 28 Mega Watts.

now that is a fascinatin fact! all this only really got me thinking when I looked into making my own biofuel last year (from old chip fat). it turned out the market in old chip fat was pretty much wrapped up. btw to charge a small electric car from off grid PV For a 30 mile round trip daily commute requires an investment of around ten grand! my cycling probably costs me about 100 a month extra in food bills so go commute, I mean compute!

EKE_38BPM · April 2012

A teacher told me that a king size Mars bar contains the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite, but the dynamite releases its energy instantly.

Don't know how this helps/hinders the argument.

Jay dubbleU · April 2012

EKE_38BPM wrote:

A teacher told me that a king size Mars bar contains the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite, but the dynamite releases its energy instantly.

Don't know how this helps/hinders the argument.

Depends if the Mars bar is deep fried

Did notice one woman on the BBC wingeing about have to walk her daughter half a mile to school :roll:

Kieran_Burns · April 2012

Runoutofgears wrote:

I read somewhere that a petrol station fuel pump is the most powerful thing that most of us will frequently hold in our hand, taking calorific value x typical fuel delivery rate gives about 28 Mega Watts.

Really? Are you TRYING to have us explode with double-entendres?

Give a kid the keys to the sweet shop why-don't-you?

DonDaddyD · April 2012

Asprilla wrote:

TBH my parents live 285 miles away and would really like to see their granddaughter over Easter.

Same boat. I need to get to a wedding this week. 256 miles away. 256 miles back.

rick_chasey · April 2012

EKE_38BPM wrote:

A teacher told me that a king size Mars bar contains the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite, but the dynamite releases its energy instantly.

Don't know how this helps/hinders the argument.

Pretty sure if you split all the atoms in said mars bar it'd release a fair bit more energy than dynamite.

notsoblue · April 2012

Stuff like this just shows how much we take non-essential car travel for granted really.

Kieran_Burns · April 2012

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

A teacher told me that a king size Mars bar contains the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite, but the dynamite releases its energy instantly.

Don't know how this helps/hinders the argument.

Pretty sure if you split all the atoms in said mars bar it'd release a fair bit more energy than dynamite.

Well yes, but then if you had an atomic explosion rather than a chemical one with the atoms in a stick of dynamite there may be a slightly bigger boom.

SimonAH · April 2012

A party trick for showing people just how many calories are in food is to stick a needle into a roasted peanut and set fire to it with a lighter. You'd be staggered at how well, long and hot a peanut burns for.

rjsterry · April 2012

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

A teacher told me that a king size Mars bar contains the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite, but the dynamite releases its energy instantly.

Don't know how this helps/hinders the argument.

Pretty sure if you split all the atoms in said mars bar it'd release a fair bit more energy than dynamite.

Yes, but... you'd have to bombard the Mars bar with neutrons, as they don't (or at least shouldn't) contain the heavy isotopes needed for radioactive decay (or spontaneous fission). Not only that, but you wouldn't get a chain reaction started.

You've clearly not thought your confectionary fission theory through :roll:

SimonAH · April 2012

rjsterry wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

A teacher told me that a king size Mars bar contains the same amount of energy as a stick of dynamite, but the dynamite releases its energy instantly.

Don't know how this helps/hinders the argument.

Pretty sure if you split all the atoms in said mars bar it'd release a fair bit more energy than dynamite.

Yes, but... you'd have to bombard the Mars bar with neutrons, as they don't (or at least shouldn't) contain the heavy isotopes needed for radioactive decay (or spontaneous fission). Not only that, but you wouldn't get a chain reaction started.

You've clearly not thought your confectionary fission theory through :roll:

What if you squished the mars bar up really hard to aim for fusion instead? Far more environmentally sound.

How's that Mercian coming along BTW - I keep hoping to see the 'work in progress' tag removed and photos up

I just cannot wait!

Comments

Categories