Ride an SUB not an SUV

Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those little
trips.

The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
pretty silly.

OK, scratch the damned SUV. If you commute 90 miles a day in an SUV
that's 450 miles a week at low mileage. I have commuted to Sacramento at
normal hours and at 4 in the morning and all the commuters seem to be
single passenger in an SUV or big pickup with very few economy cars.
That doesn't add up to me.
Bill Baka

Curtis L. Russell wrote:
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 01:17:47 GMT, Bill Baka wrote:

That's exactly my point. AC allowed the development of California
and Arkansas and then people pitch about the energy usage an
pollution.
Quite true. But now that people are here, and Arizona (my sister), and
New Mexico, Texas. etc., they aren't going to move just for the energy
savings.

Give me a break - I lived in Texas, Arkansas, and Kansas when the only
places air conditioned were the banks, the movie houses and the 5 and
dimes. And the autos weren't air conditioned either.

People got along fine with far less energy draining house fans (as in,
really big exhaust fans that pulled air throughout the house, slamming
doors in the process) and the fans that pulled air over water. And the
houses were regional designs focused on cooling. People spent time on
porches with shade. They lived, they thrived, they did fine.

No, Little Rock, Fort Worth, Dallas, and Southern California did not
spring up in the 1960s. What was big just got bigger.

Air conditioning allowed people to spend all day inside with their
windows shut. That isn't the only way you can live.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

Now that you've made a statement that says you are even older than me,
so what, when I was a kid in Illinois we didn't have A/C either, house
or car.
When I first moved to California the house and 4-plex my parents bought
didn't have A/C either (1963) and nobody complained. Around 1972 my
mother gave me her 1956 Cadillac with super A/C and I got spoiled by the
sudden luxury. Of course San Jose never really got that hot, but when I
moved to the Sacramento area I found 100+ to be the norm during the
summer and both house and cars needed A/C.
Arizona and New Mexico would not have grown so much in the last 30 years
without A/C, regardless of the new interstate 40 going through them.
Progress, like it or not, happens.
Bill Baka

Daryl Hunt wrote:
"Bill Baka" wrote in message
.. .
Pat wrote:
If you like electric blankets, you'll LOVE the electric matress pads.
They're wonderful. The heat comes up from the bottom. Not too
expensive, but absolutely wonderful.
Hah,
A reason to shop for something new. I could be a sandwich between two
electric blankets and just set the heater to 48, not 58.
Getting up to take a leak might be a bummer though.
Bill Baka

I can think of two better blankets to be in the middle of. One would be
Heather Locklear and the other would be countless other Starlets that are
out there. But, hey, I can dream, right?

You're stealing my dream.
Bill Baka

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
t...
In article ,
Baxter wrote:

"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
et...
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

The difference is more than made up for when living in town. Spend
more
on the house and less (maybe nothing) on new cars, gas, insurance,
etc.

Nope. Provided you stick to decent neighborhoods and similar square
footage, you can't make up the difference. The money you save on
those things is of a smaller order of magnitude than the extra money
you spend on the house. Add in the extra property and other taxes
you'll pay in the city and things get even worse.

You're wrong. Until recently, the issue is that banks would loan money
on
suburban houses but not on city houses.

Now that's a load of horsecrap.

Being able to eliminate one car
saves a family $6,000 per year - which adds up quickly.

On my TWO cars last year, I spent less than that. Considerably less.


Baxter always posts the same lie. Even with mass transit to go to work, you
have to have a car for all the other times. Even in Europe they use cars to
go shopping and for inter-city travel.

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
t...
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article 6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no,
nash wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and the
gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
little
trips.
The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
pretty silly.
half a point each.
X plus gas = X minus gas + Y

Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.

Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
Bill Baka

It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
still are free to do that.

"di" wrote in message
...

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
t...
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article 6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no,
nash wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
the
gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
little
trips.
The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
pretty silly.
half a point each.
X plus gas = X minus gas + Y

Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.

Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
Bill Baka

It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
still are free to do that.
You can be the first to try out the nuclear cars that are coming because of
it.

"Curtis L. Russell" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 09 Mar 2007 22:34:50 GMT, "George Conklin"
wrote:

You can't use evaporative cooling systems in most of the USA. I have
ceiling fans in every room in NC but they are only useful in saving a
little
AC.

They were talking about Texas and Arkansas, and besides, this is
simply a variant on normal fan cooling, not air conditioining in the
current sense. It very much DOES work in Kansas, it DOES work in
Texas, it DOES work in Arkansas. It may not work as well in Southern
California or Houston-Corpus Christi, but it will work better than a
normal fan system in making a house more comfortable and livable even
there.

Rule of thumb when working with an Evaporative Cooler. It will cool aprx 20
degrees from the real temp. Not the outside temp but what the temp inside
without it would be. That means that a metal building or Trailer House, it
will not work as well as a well insulated wooden structure building. In
fact, it the outside temp hits over 100, the inside of the building would be
115 degress, it's only going to lower the temp to around 95 degrees. The
same goes if the inside temp would have been 95, it can lower the temp to
75. And when the air saturates with moisture then the EC becomes worthless
and the temp will be much higher.

I am changing to AC for this summer because it might hit 107 and I don't
care to live at 97.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 4649 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Try SPAMfighter for free now!

"nash" wrote in message
news:a33Jh.12415$DN.2432@pd7urf2no...

"di" wrote in message
...


It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately
we still are free to do that.

You can be the first to try out the nuclear cars that are coming because
of it.
I don't know what you're even talking about but assume you're trying to
someway say when we run out of oil the only thing left will be nuclear.
Nice try, but get out of the fantasy world until when or if it might become
reality.

"di" wrote in message
...

"Bill Baka" wrote in message
t...
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article 6PiIh.19510$Ym.2155@pd7urf1no,
nash wrote:
"Matthew T. Russotto" wrote in message
news In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:

Well, at least someone gets my point. If you can afford an SUV and
the
gas it sucks then you can damn well afford an econo-box for those
little
trips.
The idea that if you can afford X, you can also afford X + Y, is
pretty silly.
half a point each.
X plus gas = X minus gas + Y

Unfortunately, the difference in the cost of gas for driving the SUV
short trips as opposed to driving the econobox small trips is very
small, much less than Y, so again, it doesn't work.

Maybe, but my original point was aimed at the people who drive an SUV 45
miles each way, 5 days a week, single occupant. The road is full of them
from 4 to 9 in the morning and 3 to 6 (at least) in the afternoon.
Who needs to put 450 miles a week on an SUV for commuting?
When you factor in the the wife also has to work and drives her own SUV
where is the savings from living 45 miles from work?
Bill Baka

It's very simple, they are probably driving what they want, fortunately we
still are free to do that.



Well, that freedom may not last into the future if government has its way.

On Mar 7, 11:32 pm, "Baxter" wrote:
-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bill Baka" wrote in message

. ..



Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
In article ,
Bill Baka wrote:
Gas is going to have to hit $3 a gallon and stay there for the soccer
mom crowd to realize they need a little Geo-Metro 3 banger just to run
to the store for a pack of smokes, or some **** paper or other silly
little errand. People are slow learners.

Your soccer mom (and husband or perhaps ex-) is paying a mortgage on a
$500,000+ McMansion, has two or more car payments, is paying
for private tutoring or private school for some number of her
offspring, probably private soccer lessons as well, and possibly
college for the older ones. $3 gas is lost in the noise.

Yeah,
And a lot of them that bought those $350,000 mini mansions 40 miles from
work are now bankrupt and foreclosed since their property value fell
through the floor over the last year. How much equity in their house?
About negative $100K.

Strange how the anti-urbanists in this forum just can't understand that the
reason the McMansions 30 miles from town are so cheap is that people really
would rather have something in town - but can't afford it.

Where I live it's cheaper to live in town than out of town, most
because the homes are older in town. I mean, the median sale price
here is edging up and starting to hurt some of the people who've lived
their lives here. No everyone can afford to spend $70,000 or $80,000
on a house, but fortunately some of the smaller, older, worse homes
can still be found in the $40,000 range. But when you go out of town,
the price goes through the roof and you can't find anything under
$100,000 or so with lots of houses in the $200,000 range -- esp. if
they are with 10 acres or more.

I think most younger people here would much prefer to be out of the
city, but they just can't afford it at those prices.