The SUV bubble has officially burst
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
It's happening, exactly as predicted. The Priustoric times will be a memory in just a few years. Yeah!
The dinosaurs that once ruled the land didn't possess the ability to cope with the changing environment like the mammals did. Their specialization of diet allowed them to grow to enormous size. But then when that food supply began to diminish, so did their numbers.
The very same thing is happening to the monster-size SUVs, now that gas is becoming too expensive for them maintain a steady diet of.
Their reign is ending. The age of hybrids is beginning. Size & Power won't be the only factor of appeal anymore. Much better balance with other factors, like Emissions & Efficiency, will finally be a reality.
The dinosaurs that once ruled the land didn't possess the ability to cope with the changing environment like the mammals did. Their specialization of diet allowed them to grow to enormous size. But then when that food supply began to diminish, so did their numbers.
The very same thing is happening to the monster-size SUVs, now that gas is becoming too expensive for them maintain a steady diet of.
Their reign is ending. The age of hybrids is beginning. Size & Power won't be the only factor of appeal anymore. Much better balance with other factors, like Emissions & Efficiency, will finally be a reality.
Joined
·
35 Posts
Or, to put it in a more bubble-headed analogy, it's kind of like music. The SUVs are bubble gum pop, and the hybrids are rap metal, neo-punk, or Norah Jones (all three of which seemed to replace pop in a random three musketeers sort of way). SUVs are over and hybrids are in.john1701a said:
With apologies for taking your beautiful analogy too literally:john1701a said:
One dinosaur did indeed have the ability to adapt. Archyopterix. The dinosaurs, who once ruled the earth, now rule the skies. Bats and bugs are up there too, but the albatross, the eagle, the barn swallow and their kin, direct descendants of the dinosaurs, are the kings of the air.
Um, no.Daniel said:
Birds and dinosaurs share a common reptilian ancestor, but birds are not the direct descendents of dinosaurs. Archaeopteryx is a primitive winged reptile currentlt believed to be an extinct sideline and also not a direct ancestor of modern birds.
Just so ya know.
As a group, reptiles are still very successful. For example turtles and crocodiles are older than the dinosaurs and still going strong.
So maybe trilobites are a better analogy. But they were small and aquatic, but thoroughly extinct. Hmm.
I do not know if this is true, but if it is, then they will continue to rule the skies long after our oil is gone. Unless somebody can quell my fears by showing me some great new technology. Oh yeah, gliders and experimental ultralights are nice, but they don't count, unless we think we can carry people and cargo in quantity.Daniel said:
Although I spelled it wrong, and there is controversy, I believe that archaeopteryx is generally considered to be a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds, displaying features of both, although it has more in common with dinosaurs than with birds.Saruman said:
Joined
·
35 Posts
So the archaeopteryx is a hybrid? Dammit, that would have been a great name for my car.Daniel said:
Eh eh eh , evolution
....it's simply evolution i think.
Here in europe , and in italy especially , we are living the suv bubble right now.
All manufacters are still presenting their new suvs. Volkswaggen , Audi with the A6 all road series , Volvo , all Japs....now we are waiting for Alfa Romeo Kamal suv and Maserati Kubang Suv.
Porsche have her Cayenne , Jaguar has presentated her suv last week , ok , the bubble goes on.......since the Hybrid revolution begins....next year the LX 400 H will be on sell and we can see the resoults of the first Hybrid Suv .....
....it's simply evolution i think.
Here in europe , and in italy especially , we are living the suv bubble right now.
All manufacters are still presenting their new suvs. Volkswaggen , Audi with the A6 all road series , Volvo , all Japs....now we are waiting for Alfa Romeo Kamal suv and Maserati Kubang Suv.
Porsche have her Cayenne , Jaguar has presentated her suv last week , ok , the bubble goes on.......since the Hybrid revolution begins....next year the LX 400 H will be on sell and we can see the resoults of the first Hybrid Suv .....
I agree that it would be a great name for a car, but there is a big difference between a hybrid (which combines two things) and a transitional form, which is a stage in the evolution of one thing into another.hedwigtheprius said:
Having said that, I think the Prius, though a hybrid, is indeed a transitional form. One day we'll look back and laugh at this funny little car that made the first tentative step away from the gas-guzzling dinosaurs and began to soar (or saur?) into the conservation age. The car that was part dinosaur and part bird. We'll laugh at its meager 55 mpg, too small to pay in gas savings for the price difference compared to an econo-box, like feathers not yet able to fly, and wonder how it ever survived long enough to finally take to the air.
And a few of us (not me, I'm too old, but youngsters like John) will sit on their porch and tell their kids that way back in '04 there were people who just didn't want to keep dumping filth in their own air and water, and that a 50% improvement in mileage, along with a 90% reduction in emissions, was enough to give this little archaeopteryx of a car the advantage it needed to survive and keep evolving into whatever it is they'll be driving then.
Yep. Toyota should have named this car the Archaeopteryx.
Today a colleague of mine confessed that he was glad the price of petrol was rising because it would influence _some_ Americans to make wiser decisions about how they consumed fossil fuels. I wasn't convinced it was as simple as that but I agreed that it would be nice.
I don't think an incremental gas price increase will affect the driving habits of people noticable. Cars are statements and provide other utility.
I think other optional uses of disposable income woudl be adjusted first. Also, car salespeople and marketing executives are no doubt trained professionals and they can more often than not field the objections and have someone high of the prestigue or whatever works that will have them cruising around in much more that is needed anyhow. Just look around you now and see for yourself!
I think other optional uses of disposable income woudl be adjusted first. Also, car salespeople and marketing executives are no doubt trained professionals and they can more often than not field the objections and have someone high of the prestigue or whatever works that will have them cruising around in much more that is needed anyhow. Just look around you now and see for yourself!
Joined
·
27 Posts
What about free market forces? I think if the Gov't aritficially raises the price of gas, why would a company spend millions of dollars to develope new technologies? Knowing that the Gov't can then decide to remove the artificial price increase, thus removing the forced incentive to by the technology in the first place. The free market is working, the Prius is a perfect example. Even without the Gov't forcing an artifical rise in the price of gas, automotive companies are racing to Hybrid technology and beyond.
Yup, the free market IS working, and the Prius IS a perfect example.ToyotaMike said:
In fact, I agree with everything you said, except that last part about automotive companies racing to build hybrid technology. GM and Ford are still dragging their feet (in my opinion), as is Daimler/Chrysler. BMW is researching hydrogen hybrids, or some sort of spacey technology, but I haven't the sense that they're serious about producing an actual SALEABLE product. Yeah, they all talk a good game, but I don't think they really mean it.
Not yet. But it WILL happen.
Nope, Bush INC. is seeing that SUVs are alive 7 well.
See, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5068594/
"The Bush administration is considering removing environmental requirements for a multitude of gasoline blends as one way to increase supplies of gasoline and fight soaring prices, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said in an interview with The Associated Press. ---"
Rolling back pollution standards, worked for the coal industry why not big brother oil!
PS Summer is finally here!
See, http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5068594/
"The Bush administration is considering removing environmental requirements for a multitude of gasoline blends as one way to increase supplies of gasoline and fight soaring prices, Commerce Secretary Donald Evans said in an interview with The Associated Press. ---"
Rolling back pollution standards, worked for the coal industry why not big brother oil!
PS Summer is finally here!
Joined
·
27 Posts
Bush Bashing is not the asnswer. It is a much more complicated problem, that has been growing since the early 80's. This county has over 40 differenct blends of gasoline yet the environmental groups have put up road blocks on EVERY new refinery proposed. How can the oil and gas companies keep up supply when we have the exact same number of refineries we did in the 70's. Again, the gov't has put a unfair burden on private industry requiring special blends yet not allowing the companies to expand to meet the new requirements. I know it is an easy answer to spout "Bush Inc" but a deeper look into the problem will find that the Bush administration did not cause this problem. Instead, I have faith in our free market society. The market forces will direct industy. Overall, we live in the greatest country on earth with some of the most responsible people to be found (regardless of what the media and others would have you think). The majority of the people want a better planet for their children and those forces will move industry, not Bush or Kerry in the Whitehouse. Well my soapbox has had enough use for today.
Sorry to get a bit off topic.
1) Amen, brother! Bush bashing is not the answer. Neither is "big oil bashing" or calls for increased gas taxes or regulations or laws forcing people to drive certain cars, or prohibiting the use of certain other types of cars. The American people (I cannot speak for people in other countries; I just don't know you well enough) are smart enough to figure things out on their own. I'm sorry if it just takes a little bit longer for some than it does for others, but that's just the way it is. It's insulting to try to ram laws or regulations down our throats, and it will only make us resentful and angry.ToyotaMike said:
You're right, the whole issue IS FAR MORE COMPLICATED than most people are willing to realize or admit. Although I think many of you are pretty smart, I doubt we'll solve it here on this forum.
2) Another thing: We have had consolidation in the oil refining industry. There are FEWER refineries than there were in the 70's.
3) And no, you weren't off topic at all.
Bush did not cause the problem. But he's got his foot firmly on the gas (pun intended!) to make it as much worse as possible, as fast as possible, in the name of obscene, short-term corporate profits, of which he receives a small slice. No president since Carter has dared to speak the truth about our wasteful and short-sighted energy policy. Thus Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and The Shrub share the blame equally.
The question is, if we must be ruled by a succession of megalomaniacal criminals, are we better off, or worse off, with a moron? Once upon a time I'd have said a stupid criminal is better than a smart one. But when I saw the outpouring of sympathy and solidarity that the entire world showered upon us after 9/11 (Fidel Castro denounced the terrorism in the strongest possible terms and offered to send two plane-loads of doctors to our aid -- and Cuba's doctors are among the best in the world) and then I see how Bush squandered that sympathy and transformed it into hatred and contempt in two short years, I think we are definitely worse off with a moron.
We need a president who will lead us in the direction of sustainable energy. Unfortunately, I don't believe Kerry is that man. So we get to choose between a criminal moron, and a criminal who's not a moron. Kinda gives democracy a bad name.
The question is, if we must be ruled by a succession of megalomaniacal criminals, are we better off, or worse off, with a moron? Once upon a time I'd have said a stupid criminal is better than a smart one. But when I saw the outpouring of sympathy and solidarity that the entire world showered upon us after 9/11 (Fidel Castro denounced the terrorism in the strongest possible terms and offered to send two plane-loads of doctors to our aid -- and Cuba's doctors are among the best in the world) and then I see how Bush squandered that sympathy and transformed it into hatred and contempt in two short years, I think we are definitely worse off with a moron.
We need a president who will lead us in the direction of sustainable energy. Unfortunately, I don't believe Kerry is that man. So we get to choose between a criminal moron, and a criminal who's not a moron. Kinda gives democracy a bad name.
1 - 20 of 48 Posts
Join the discussion
