6 ms·

I'm not sure whether the eco in econonsense refers to economy or ecology but in both possible meanings I would like to hear your math behind the "nonsense". *

by jlg23 10y ago

I'm not sure whether the eco in econonsense refers to economy or ecology but in both possible meanings I would like to hear your math behind the "nonsense". * gravity costs less than a fuel pump and it rarely breaks so does not need replacement * recycled material usually costs less than new material, esp. when you consider garbage disposal costs * less moving parts and parts than can be repaired by amateurs mean less parts overall which means less costs and waste I don't doubt that they would fail modern crash tests but even that is relative: If everyone is driving a slow "deathtrap" your chances of getting into a high speed crash with a fast moving tank are pretty low.

justin66 10y ago
Do you know how a modern ICE works? If so, consider how not having a fuel pump effects the engineering of everything that comes after it.
- Roboprog 10y ago
  2 stroke. Don't need it. (dirty as sin, though) The engine is just a scaled up version of the motorcycles my brothers and I drove as kids in the late 70s / early 80s. Of course, 500cc is a little bigger than 250, 100 or 80 cc :-)
  - justin66 10y ago
    Well, right, the engine arrangement is pretty much out of the question for a variety of reasons. I was just trying to go with the parent comment. I don't discount the elegance of the solution in its own context. The comment If not for the antiquated 2-stroke engine and lack of exhaust filters, it could still be an example for very good, cost efficient and environment friendly engineering. is quite mad, however.
emp_zealoth 10y ago
Your chances of being maimed in that cardboard box even in a minor city crash are high, it literally is a deathtrap. You literally seem to have no idea how any of this works Those cars are constantly broken. They leak everything everywhere. Serviceability by amateurs goes directly against low emissions. You can't make a clean, 4-stroke engine without high fuel pressure. Modern engines require unimaginable tolerances. Recycled material is almost always more expensive than non-recycled one, why do you think recycling needs to be forced by law? Eastern Germany had shortages of materials so they literally used anything they could. Do you really think it was inert and harmless? For e.g. soviet bloc used heavily carcinogenic cleaning agent in preschools, hospitals etc. Sure, you can drop bells and whistles like electric windshields, infotaiment and the like.
- maxerickson 10y ago
  My local recycling center doesn't accept glass (because it isn't worth anything). There's a couple of places in town that will buy metal. Or is scrap metal somehow not recycling?
- jlg23 10y ago
  I'm not sure whether you are trolling so this is my last attempt at having a meaningful conversation with you: > Your chances of being maimed in that cardboard box even in a minor city crash are high, it literally is a deathtrap. I would still argue, when on a bicycle, your survival chances when crashing into a bicycle are higher than when crashing into a car. Same goes for Trabant vs Trabant. Do you have some concrete evidence that Trabant does worse here (i.e. design issues that prevented people from getting out or that turn some parts into lethal weapons when involved in a "minor city crash")? > Those cars are constantly broken. They leak everything everywhere. At least not my family's Trabant or those of our friends. Do you have any actual numbers on failure rates? > Serviceability by amateurs goes directly against low emissions. You can't make a clean, 4-stroke engine without high fuel pressure. Modern engines require unimaginable tolerances. That is a very bold statement only backed by a comparison that does not even apply (a modern 4-stroke engine design vs the used 2-stroke engine). But since 2-stroke engines benefit greatly from direct injection I'll let that pass and just notice that I was not talking about the engine specifically but the overall design and that I even pointed out that the engine they used was "antiquated". > Recycled material is almost always more expensive than non-recycled one Do you have any numbers to back that up? And here I'd like to have a breakdown to see where the costs are coming from. In a planned economy it is much easier and cheaper to source recycled or scrapped material (i.e: You know you need 10ton of cotton wool to make X goods in a factory and you also know that you have to scrap 0.5tons. Therefore you just plan on having 0.5tons for further use and collect that with a truck once a month.) > Eastern Germany had shortages of materials so they literally used anything they could. Do you really think it was inert and harmless? For e.g. soviet bloc used heavily carcinogenic cleaning agent in preschools, hospitals etc. You won. I'm completely traumatized by ~"carcinogens in preschools and hospitals". Well, maybe not, because that was not the topic at all (but I can give you many more great examples of what was utterly wrong if you need them for further "arguments" - after all, I grew up there). I don't care why we use resources as efficient as possible as long as we do it. Now people carry proper fabric shopping bags "because of the environment1!!!1!". Before there was this joke in Western Germany: "How do you spot someone from Eastern Germany? He is carrying a fabric shopping bag!". > why do you think recycling needs to be forced by law? Because the elected representatives think that the majority wants to protect the environment. Or in other words: Because we have arrived at a point where people think it is important to use resources as efficiently as possible. I don't see the importance of why people want to save resources as long as they do it.

by jlg23 10y ago

justin66 10y ago

Do you know how a modern ICE works? If so, consider how not having a fuel pump effects the engineering of everything that comes after it.

Roboprog 10y ago
2 stroke. Don't need it. (dirty as sin, though) The engine is just a scaled up version of the motorcycles my brothers and I drove as kids in the late 70s / early 80s. Of course, 500cc is a little bigger than 250, 100 or 80 cc :-)
- justin66 10y ago
  Well, right, the engine arrangement is pretty much out of the question for a variety of reasons. I was just trying to go with the parent comment. I don't discount the elegance of the solution in its own context. The comment If not for the antiquated 2-stroke engine and lack of exhaust filters, it could still be an example for very good, cost efficient and environment friendly engineering. is quite mad, however.

emp_zealoth 10y ago

Your chances of being maimed in that cardboard box even in a minor city crash are high, it literally is a deathtrap. You literally seem to have no idea how any of this works Those cars are constantly broken. They leak everything everywhere. Serviceability by amateurs goes directly against low emissions. You can't make a clean, 4-stroke engine without high fuel pressure. Modern engines require unimaginable tolerances. Recycled material is almost always more expensive than non-recycled one, why do you think recycling needs to be forced by law? Eastern Germany had shortages of materials so they literally used anything they could. Do you really think it was inert and harmless? For e.g. soviet bloc used heavily carcinogenic cleaning agent in preschools, hospitals etc. Sure, you can drop bells and whistles like electric windshields, infotaiment and the like.

maxerickson 10y ago
My local recycling center doesn't accept glass (because it isn't worth anything). There's a couple of places in town that will buy metal. Or is scrap metal somehow not recycling?
jlg23 10y ago
I'm not sure whether you are trolling so this is my last attempt at having a meaningful conversation with you: > Your chances of being maimed in that cardboard box even in a minor city crash are high, it literally is a deathtrap. I would still argue, when on a bicycle, your survival chances when crashing into a bicycle are higher than when crashing into a car. Same goes for Trabant vs Trabant. Do you have some concrete evidence that Trabant does worse here (i.e. design issues that prevented people from getting out or that turn some parts into lethal weapons when involved in a "minor city crash")? > Those cars are constantly broken. They leak everything everywhere. At least not my family's Trabant or those of our friends. Do you have any actual numbers on failure rates? > Serviceability by amateurs goes directly against low emissions. You can't make a clean, 4-stroke engine without high fuel pressure. Modern engines require unimaginable tolerances. That is a very bold statement only backed by a comparison that does not even apply (a modern 4-stroke engine design vs the used 2-stroke engine). But since 2-stroke engines benefit greatly from direct injection I'll let that pass and just notice that I was not talking about the engine specifically but the overall design and that I even pointed out that the engine they used was "antiquated". > Recycled material is almost always more expensive than non-recycled one Do you have any numbers to back that up? And here I'd like to have a breakdown to see where the costs are coming from. In a planned economy it is much easier and cheaper to source recycled or scrapped material (i.e: You know you need 10ton of cotton wool to make X goods in a factory and you also know that you have to scrap 0.5tons. Therefore you just plan on having 0.5tons for further use and collect that with a truck once a month.) > Eastern Germany had shortages of materials so they literally used anything they could. Do you really think it was inert and harmless? For e.g. soviet bloc used heavily carcinogenic cleaning agent in preschools, hospitals etc. You won. I'm completely traumatized by ~"carcinogens in preschools and hospitals". Well, maybe not, because that was not the topic at all (but I can give you many more great examples of what was utterly wrong if you need them for further "arguments" - after all, I grew up there). I don't care why we use resources as efficient as possible as long as we do it. Now people carry proper fabric shopping bags "because of the environment1!!!1!". Before there was this joke in Western Germany: "How do you spot someone from Eastern Germany? He is carrying a fabric shopping bag!". > why do you think recycling needs to be forced by law? Because the elected representatives think that the majority wants to protect the environment. Or in other words: Because we have arrived at a point where people think it is important to use resources as efficiently as possible. I don't see the importance of why people want to save resources as long as they do it.