The Goodenough Battery Will End the Internal Combustion Automobile

[Rigby5]

Foolish video.

You can have the best battery imaginable, and it would never effect the utility, need, or advantages of the internal combustion engine.
That is because batteries are NOT at all an energy source, and currently are recharged mostly by burning coal.
And it is not appear likely that anything is available to replace coal as the only source of energy, as oil and gas won't last for more than 20 years or so. We have enough coal for over 500 years however.
So unless someone cracks the fusion problem, internal combustion is not going anywhere, because a diesel can run any any oil, like from plants or animals.

did you know an internal combustion engine needs gas to run and is not a power/energy source on its own???

If you read to the end, you would know I pointed out that internal combustion engines can run on bio fuel that not only is renewable, but also removed more carbon from the air than is released when burned later.

 

[Rigby5]

Great information on what is soon to come.

You poor dumbass leftards are so friggin clueless when it comes to anything science math or engineering related it's pathetic. It does not really matter how good the battery is you idiot, the problem is getting the energy to charge the friggin battery in the first place. Everytime you convert enery from one form to another you lose some to conversion loss. Then there's the transmission loss. Get it through your thick skulls that the tooth fairy does not put electricy in the wall socket. And today the vast majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels like the fossil fuel that powers conventional cars.

How is that different to the losses in production of petroleum from oil and its transportation to filling stations?

Drilling, refining, and transporting fuel uses almost no energy at all.
But with electricity, the generation, transmission, storage, dissipation, retrieval, and conversion back to kinetic, all are between 30 and 60% losses.
That means in total there is well over 90% loss.
That is 10 time worse than combustion fuel.

 

[progressive hunter]

Foolish video.

You can have the best battery imaginable, and it would never effect the utility, need, or advantages of the internal combustion engine.
That is because batteries are NOT at all an energy source, and currently are recharged mostly by burning coal.
And it is not appear likely that anything is available to replace coal as the only source of energy, as oil and gas won't last for more than 20 years or so. We have enough coal for over 500 years however.
So unless someone cracks the fusion problem, internal combustion is not going anywhere, because a diesel can run any any oil, like from plants or animals.

did you know an internal combustion engine needs gas to run and is not a power/energy source on its own???

If you read to the end, you would know I pointed out that internal combustion engines can run on bio fuel that not only is renewable, but also removed more carbon from the air than is released when burned later.

my comment still applies,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Great information on what is soon to come.

You poor dumbass leftards are so friggin clueless when it comes to anything science math or engineering related it's pathetic. It does not really matter how good the battery is you idiot, the problem is getting the energy to charge the friggin battery in the first place. Everytime you convert enery from one form to another you lose some to conversion loss. Then there's the transmission loss. Get it through your thick skulls that the tooth fairy does not put electricy in the wall socket. And today the vast majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels like the fossil fuel that powers conventional cars.

How is that different to the losses in production of petroleum from oil and its transportation to filling stations?

Drilling, refining, and transporting fuel uses almost no energy at all.
But with electricity, the generation, transmission, storage, dissipation, retrieval, and conversion back to kinetic, all are between 30 and 60% losses.
That means in total there is well over 90% loss.
That is 10 time worse than combustion fuel.

did you seriously say that out loud???

you need an education in energy and its production,,

 

[Rigby5]

Foolish video.

You can have the best battery imaginable, and it would never effect the utility, need, or advantages of the internal combustion engine.
That is because batteries are NOT at all an energy source, and currently are recharged mostly by burning coal.
And it is not appear likely that anything is available to replace coal as the only source of energy, as oil and gas won't last for more than 20 years or so. We have enough coal for over 500 years however.
So unless someone cracks the fusion problem, internal combustion is not going anywhere, because a diesel can run any any oil, like from plants or animals.

did you know an internal combustion engine needs gas to run and is not a power/energy source on its own???

If you read to the end, you would know I pointed out that internal combustion engines can run on bio fuel that not only is renewable, but also removed more carbon from the air than is released when burned later.

my comment still applies,,,

The point is that a combustion engine can run on bio fuel that is renewable and carbon neutral, while a battery car can not. No matter how efficient a battery can be made, the whole process of making, storing, retrieving and converting electricity back into kinetic energy is far less efficient than combustion of bio fuel directly for kinetic energy.

The title of the threat is that batteries will make combustion engines obsolete, and that is false.
The only thing that could make combustion engines obsolete would be some new non-combustion source of energy, like fusion or something new source of energy like that.

 

[Rigby5]

Great information on what is soon to come.

You poor dumbass leftards are so friggin clueless when it comes to anything science math or engineering related it's pathetic. It does not really matter how good the battery is you idiot, the problem is getting the energy to charge the friggin battery in the first place. Everytime you convert enery from one form to another you lose some to conversion loss. Then there's the transmission loss. Get it through your thick skulls that the tooth fairy does not put electricy in the wall socket. And today the vast majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels like the fossil fuel that powers conventional cars.

How is that different to the losses in production of petroleum from oil and its transportation to filling stations?

Drilling, refining, and transporting fuel uses almost no energy at all.
But with electricity, the generation, transmission, storage, dissipation, retrieval, and conversion back to kinetic, all are between 30 and 60% losses.
That means in total there is well over 90% loss.
That is 10 time worse than combustion fuel.

did you seriously say that out loud???

you need an education in energy and its production,,

If you think it takes a lot of energy to drlll, pump, transport, and refine oil, you are wrong.
The oil wants to gush out of the ground all by itself, from the pressure under ground, and refining oil uses heat that comes from waste products extracted during the refining process.

That is the whole point of fossil fuels that has allowed such prosperity for the last couple hundred years.
They are like buried treasure, in that they are a discovery like buried treasure. You get huge amounts of energy from them for almost nothing. Very little energy is used in reclaiming fossil fuels compared to what you get out of them. The whole world will revert to being very poor after fossil fuels are gone.

 

[progressive hunter]

Foolish video.

You can have the best battery imaginable, and it would never effect the utility, need, or advantages of the internal combustion engine.
That is because batteries are NOT at all an energy source, and currently are recharged mostly by burning coal.
And it is not appear likely that anything is available to replace coal as the only source of energy, as oil and gas won't last for more than 20 years or so. We have enough coal for over 500 years however.
So unless someone cracks the fusion problem, internal combustion is not going anywhere, because a diesel can run any any oil, like from plants or animals.

did you know an internal combustion engine needs gas to run and is not a power/energy source on its own???

If you read to the end, you would know I pointed out that internal combustion engines can run on bio fuel that not only is renewable, but also removed more carbon from the air than is released when burned later.

my comment still applies,,,

The point is that a combustion engine can run on bio fuel that is renewable and carbon neutral, while a battery car can not. No matter how efficient a battery can be made, the whole process of making, storing, retrieving and converting electricity back into kinetic energy is far less efficient than combustion of bio fuel directly for kinetic energy.

The title of the threat is that batteries will make combustion engines obsolete, and that is false.
The only thing that could make combustion engines obsolete would be some new non-combustion source of energy, like fusion or something new source of energy like that.

give it time,,,currently IC fuels are getting more expensive and harder to produce,,there are only so many french fry vats,,

and electricity is getting cheaper and more efficient to produce

and exactly what do you mean by bio fuels,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Great information on what is soon to come.

You poor dumbass leftards are so friggin clueless when it comes to anything science math or engineering related it's pathetic. It does not really matter how good the battery is you idiot, the problem is getting the energy to charge the friggin battery in the first place. Everytime you convert enery from one form to another you lose some to conversion loss. Then there's the transmission loss. Get it through your thick skulls that the tooth fairy does not put electricy in the wall socket. And today the vast majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels like the fossil fuel that powers conventional cars.

How is that different to the losses in production of petroleum from oil and its transportation to filling stations?

Drilling, refining, and transporting fuel uses almost no energy at all.
But with electricity, the generation, transmission, storage, dissipation, retrieval, and conversion back to kinetic, all are between 30 and 60% losses.
That means in total there is well over 90% loss.
That is 10 time worse than combustion fuel.

did you seriously say that out loud???

you need an education in energy and its production,,

If you think it takes a lot of energy to drlll, pump, transport, and refine oil, you are wrong.
The oil wants to gush out of the ground all by itself, from the pressure under ground, and refining oil uses heat that comes from waste products extracted during the refining process.

That is the whole point of fossil fuels that has allowed such prosperity for the last couple hundred years.
They are like buried treasure, in that they are a discovery like buried treasure. You get huge amounts of energy from them for almost nothing. Very little energy is used in reclaiming fossil fuels compared to what you get out of them. The whole world will revert to being very poor after fossil fuels are gone.

50-100 yrs ago it wanted to gush out,,,not so much anymore,,now we have to go to extremes to get it, and most of those methods are very inefficient,,,

and it wasnt discovered until 1875 so whats this hundreds of yrs??

 

[Rigby5]

Foolish video.

You can have the best battery imaginable, and it would never effect the utility, need, or advantages of the internal combustion engine.
That is because batteries are NOT at all an energy source, and currently are recharged mostly by burning coal.
And it is not appear likely that anything is available to replace coal as the only source of energy, as oil and gas won't last for more than 20 years or so. We have enough coal for over 500 years however.
So unless someone cracks the fusion problem, internal combustion is not going anywhere, because a diesel can run any any oil, like from plants or animals.

did you know an internal combustion engine needs gas to run and is not a power/energy source on its own???

If you read to the end, you would know I pointed out that internal combustion engines can run on bio fuel that not only is renewable, but also removed more carbon from the air than is released when burned later.

my comment still applies,,,

The point is that a combustion engine can run on bio fuel that is renewable and carbon neutral, while a battery car can not. No matter how efficient a battery can be made, the whole process of making, storing, retrieving and converting electricity back into kinetic energy is far less efficient than combustion of bio fuel directly for kinetic energy.

The title of the threat is that batteries will make combustion engines obsolete, and that is false.
The only thing that could make combustion engines obsolete would be some new non-combustion source of energy, like fusion or something new source of energy like that.

give it time,,,currently IC fuels are getting more expensive and harder to produce,,there are only so many french fry vats,,

and electricity is getting cheaper and more efficient to produce

and exactly what do you mean by bio fuels,,,

Yes IC fuels are getting more expensive all the time, but more and more palm oil groves are being planted in places like Africa, where oil can just be easily cold pressed. So there is a limit as to how expensive renewable bio fuels will be. They are more than fossil fuels, but not necessarily more expensive than batteries and rechargings.
And there is also the weight issue. For example, there can never be electric planes because batteries always will have to weigh far more than a concentrated IC fuel. Even if electricity become the main source of the energy, like solar or wind, then most likely it will be used to produce some IC fuel like hydrogen, for use in vehicles that do not want the weight and limits of batteries.
French fry vats are cold pressed safflower oil.
There are lots of plants, like algae even, that can be grown and converted into bio IC fuel.
And burning that bio IC fuel is likely going to be the best way to produce electricity as well.
So electricity is not a reduction of dependency on IC fuel.

 

[Rigby5]

You poor dumbass leftards are so friggin clueless when it comes to anything science math or engineering related it's pathetic. It does not really matter how good the battery is you idiot, the problem is getting the energy to charge the friggin battery in the first place. Everytime you convert enery from one form to another you lose some to conversion loss. Then there's the transmission loss. Get it through your thick skulls that the tooth fairy does not put electricy in the wall socket. And today the vast majority of that electricity is generated with fossil fuels like the fossil fuel that powers conventional cars.

How is that different to the losses in production of petroleum from oil and its transportation to filling stations?

Drilling, refining, and transporting fuel uses almost no energy at all.
But with electricity, the generation, transmission, storage, dissipation, retrieval, and conversion back to kinetic, all are between 30 and 60% losses.
That means in total there is well over 90% loss.
That is 10 time worse than combustion fuel.

did you seriously say that out loud???

you need an education in energy and its production,,

If you think it takes a lot of energy to drlll, pump, transport, and refine oil, you are wrong.
The oil wants to gush out of the ground all by itself, from the pressure under ground, and refining oil uses heat that comes from waste products extracted during the refining process.

That is the whole point of fossil fuels that has allowed such prosperity for the last couple hundred years.
They are like buried treasure, in that they are a discovery like buried treasure. You get huge amounts of energy from them for almost nothing. Very little energy is used in reclaiming fossil fuels compared to what you get out of them. The whole world will revert to being very poor after fossil fuels are gone.

50-100 yrs ago it wanted to gush out,,,not so much anymore,,now we have to go to extremes to get it, and most of those methods are very inefficient,,,

and it wasnt discovered until 1875 so whats this hundreds of yrs??

Much of the oil pumped now is from under water, and is under a great deal of pressure.
Probably the most inefficient oil extraction is tar sands, but that seems to still be very profitable.

Oil was discovered way before 1875.
{...
Petroleum, in one form or another, has been used since ancient times, and is now important across society, including in economy, politics and technology. The rise in importance was due to the invention of the internal combustion engine, the rise in commercial aviation, and the importance of petroleum to industrial organic chemistry, particularly the synthesis of plastics, fertilisers, solvents, adhesives and pesticides.

More than 4000 years ago, according to Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus, asphalt was used in the construction of the walls and towers of Babylon; there were oil pits near Ardericca (near Babylon), and a pitch spring on Zacynthus.[10] Great quantities of it were found on the banks of the river Issus, one of the tributaries of the Euphrates. Ancient Persian tablets indicate the medicinal and lighting uses of petroleum in the upper levels of their society.

The use of petroleum in ancient China dates back to more than 2000 years ago. In I Ching, one of the earliest Chinese writings cites that oil in its raw state, without refining, was first discovered, extracted, and used in China in the first century BCE. In addition, the Chinese were the first to record the use of petroleum as fuel as early as the fourth century BCE.[11][12][13] By 347 AD, oil was produced from bamboo-drilled wells in China.[14][15]

Crude oil was often distilled by Persian chemists, with clear descriptions given in Arabic handbooks such as those of Muhammad ibn Zakarīya Rāzi (Rhazes).[16] The streets of Baghdad were paved with tar, derived from petroleum that became accessible from natural fields in the region. In the 9th century, oil fields were exploited in the area around modern Baku, Azerbaijan. These fields were described by the Arab geographer Abu al-Hasan 'Alī al-Mas'ūdī in the 10th century, and by Marco Polo in the 13th century, who described the output of those wells as hundreds of shiploads.[17] Arab and Persian chemists also distilled crude oil in order to produce flammable products for military purposes. Through Islamic Spain, distillation became available in Western Europe by the 12th century.[18] It has also been present in Romania since the 13th century, being recorded as păcură.[19]

Early British explorers to Myanmar documented a flourishing oil extraction industry based in Yenangyaung that, in 1795, had hundreds of hand-dug wells under production.[20]

Pechelbronn (Pitch fountain) is said to be the first European site where petroleum has been explored and used. The still active Erdpechquelle, a spring where petroleum appears mixed with water has been used since 1498, notably for medical purposes. Oil sands have been mined since the 18th century.[21]

In Wietze in lower Saxony, natural asphalt/bitumen has been explored since the 18th century.[22] Both in Pechelbronn as in Wietze, the coal industry dominated the petroleum technologies.
...}
Petroleum - Wikipedia

But I was actually referring to fossil fuels in general, and it was coal that started the steam power of the industrial revolution, around 1800. So that is why I guessed around 200 years as being prosperity based on the burning of the buried treasure of fossil fuels. It is fossil fuels running out that threatens future prosperity, not just oil. We can even make oil out of coal if we have to.

 

[progressive hunter]

did you know an internal combustion engine needs gas to run and is not a power/energy source on its own???

If you read to the end, you would know I pointed out that internal combustion engines can run on bio fuel that not only is renewable, but also removed more carbon from the air than is released when burned later.

my comment still applies,,,

The point is that a combustion engine can run on bio fuel that is renewable and carbon neutral, while a battery car can not. No matter how efficient a battery can be made, the whole process of making, storing, retrieving and converting electricity back into kinetic energy is far less efficient than combustion of bio fuel directly for kinetic energy.

The title of the threat is that batteries will make combustion engines obsolete, and that is false.
The only thing that could make combustion engines obsolete would be some new non-combustion source of energy, like fusion or something new source of energy like that.

give it time,,,currently IC fuels are getting more expensive and harder to produce,,there are only so many french fry vats,,

and electricity is getting cheaper and more efficient to produce

and exactly what do you mean by bio fuels,,,

Yes IC fuels are getting more expensive all the time, but more and more palm oil groves are being planted in places like Africa, where oil can just be easily cold pressed. So there is a limit as to how expensive renewable bio fuels will be. They are more than fossil fuels, but not necessarily more expensive than batteries and rechargings.
And there is also the weight issue. For example, there can never be electric planes because batteries always will have to weigh far more than a concentrated IC fuel. Even if electricity become the main source of the energy, like solar or wind, then most likely it will be used to produce some IC fuel like hydrogen, for use in vehicles that do not want the weight and limits of batteries.
French fry vats are cold pressed safflower oil.
There are lots of plants, like algae even, that can be grown and converted into bio IC fuel.
And burning that bio IC fuel is likely going to be the best way to produce electricity as well.
So electricity is not a reduction of dependency on IC fuel.

I would agree we are far from replacing the IC engine regardless of the type of fuel,, but if things like this new battery work out electricity supported items will replace a lot of IC applications and day to day driving cars is one of them,,

each day FFuel and Bio fuels are getting more expensive to produce and alternative electric is getting cheaper,,

theres a place for both and in proper applications both in their own way rule the industry,,,

 

[dblack]

The Goodenough Battery Will End the Internal Combustion Automobile

It is my humble opinion that this will not happen in my lifetime... Of coarse I don't plan on living a whole lot longer...

I've never revealed myself here. I will now.

I am Highlander.

I am not leaving.

Wait a minute. So am I. And you know what they say ...

 

[Pogo]

The Inventor of the Lithium-Ion Battery Invents an Even Better One

Enjoy buying 20 grand of new batteries every couple years that is if the car does not blow up first

Another asshat who exposes himself as not having watched the presentation, yet thinks he can comment on it without looking like a moron. SMH

 

[Pogo]

Saw the commercial about that today.

Ford the company no longer making cars because they want japs doing it

Ford is focusing on trucks and SUVs -- what AMERICANS want

You mean what Detroit wants us to want.

Member all those public demonstrations around the 1990s where the public demanded the right to buy bulbous inverted bathtubs with absurd centres of gravity that would handle like a drunk walrus?

I don't either. Yet there they came, didn't they.

As for these silly-ass monster trucks capable of towing an asteroid.... sometimes if I'm on an all-day drive I'll count up the pickup trucks I see tallying which ones have any payload in them. In an efficient world such a truck would be loaded all the time, bringing something from point A to point B and then something else from point B back to point A. That's not realistic but we should expect a minimum of 50% of trucks loaded with something, assuming the other 50% are returning from or going to their cargo. Because absent that, what's the point of being a truck?

But in the real world when I actually count the beds that are visible it counts out to 80 to 90% empty. Nothing in there at all.

What they're selling is not "trucks". What they're selling is "illusions".

Always keep in mind what the definition of advertising is ---- Advertising is the process of persuading masses of people to buy shit they don't need. If it's something they do need, then no persuasion is necessary.

 

[progressive hunter]

Saw the commercial about that today.

Ford the company no longer making cars because they want japs doing it

Ford is focusing on trucks and SUVs -- what AMERICANS want

You mean what Detroit wants us to want.

Member all those public demonstrations around the 1990s where the public demanded the right to buy bulbous inverted bathtubs with absurd centres of gravity that would handle like a drunk walrus?

I don't either. Yet there they came, didn't they.

As for these silly-ass monster trucks capable of towing an asteroid.... sometimes if I'm on an all-day drive I'll count up the pickup trucks I see tallying which ones have any payload in them. In an efficient world such a truck would be loaded all the time, bringing something from point A to point B and then something else from point B back to point A. That's not realistic but we should expect a minimum of 50% of trucks loaded with something, assuming the other 50% are returning from or going to their cargo. Because absent that, what's the point of being a truck?

But in the real world when I actually count the beds that are visible it counts out to 80 to 90% empty. Nothing in there at all.

What they're selling is not "trucks". What they're selling is "illusions".

 

[Pogo]

Drilling, refining, and transporting fuel uses almost no energy at all.

That's right, the Oil Fair just waves her wand and clicks her heels together and oil just ------------ appears. And the gas stations don't need delivery trucks or pipelines, they just grow it on oil trees.

Holy fucking SHIT that was a mindless post.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

Saw the commercial about that today.

Ford the company no longer making cars because they want japs doing it

Ford is focusing on trucks and SUVs -- what AMERICANS want

You mean what Detroit wants us to want.

Member all those public demonstrations around the 1990s where the public demanded the right to buy bulbous inverted bathtubs with absurd centres of gravity that would handle like a drunk walrus?

I don't either. Yet there they came, didn't they.

As for these silly-ass monster trucks capable of towing an asteroid.... sometimes if I'm on an all-day drive I'll count up the pickup trucks I see tallying which ones have any payload in them. In an efficient world such a truck would be loaded all the time, bringing something from point A to point B and then something else from point B back to point A. That's not realistic but we should expect a minimum of 50% of trucks loaded with something, assuming the other 50% are returning from or going to their cargo. Because absent that, what's the point of being a truck?

But in the real world when I actually count the beds that are visible it counts out to 80 to 90% empty. Nothing in there at all.

What they're selling is not "trucks". What they're selling is "illusions".

Nope. Americans want TRUCKS and SUVs.

Godvernment wants you driving little 2 seater Euro cars

 

[progressive hunter]

Saw the commercial about that today.

Ford the company no longer making cars because they want japs doing it

Ford is focusing on trucks and SUVs -- what AMERICANS want

You mean what Detroit wants us to want.

Member all those public demonstrations around the 1990s where the public demanded the right to buy bulbous inverted bathtubs with absurd centres of gravity that would handle like a drunk walrus?

I don't either. Yet there they came, didn't they.

As for these silly-ass monster trucks capable of towing an asteroid.... sometimes if I'm on an all-day drive I'll count up the pickup trucks I see tallying which ones have any payload in them. In an efficient world such a truck would be loaded all the time, bringing something from point A to point B and then something else from point B back to point A. That's not realistic but we should expect a minimum of 50% of trucks loaded with something, assuming the other 50% are returning from or going to their cargo. Because absent that, what's the point of being a truck?

But in the real world when I actually count the beds that are visible it counts out to 80 to 90% empty. Nothing in there at all.

What they're selling is not "trucks". What they're selling is "illusions".

Nope. Americans want TRUCKS and SUVs.

Godvernment wants you driving little 2 seater Euro cars

theres a cpl of those eruo 2 seaters I would love to drive

 

[Pogo]

Saw the commercial about that today.

Ford the company no longer making cars because they want japs doing it

Ford is focusing on trucks and SUVs -- what AMERICANS want

You mean what Detroit wants us to want.

Member all those public demonstrations around the 1990s where the public demanded the right to buy bulbous inverted bathtubs with absurd centres of gravity that would handle like a drunk walrus?

I don't either. Yet there they came, didn't they.

As for these silly-ass monster trucks capable of towing an asteroid.... sometimes if I'm on an all-day drive I'll count up the pickup trucks I see tallying which ones have any payload in them. In an efficient world such a truck would be loaded all the time, bringing something from point A to point B and then something else from point B back to point A. That's not realistic but we should expect a minimum of 50% of trucks loaded with something, assuming the other 50% are returning from or going to their cargo. Because absent that, what's the point of being a truck?

But in the real world when I actually count the beds that are visible it counts out to 80 to 90% empty. Nothing in there at all.

What they're selling is not "trucks". What they're selling is "illusions".

Nope. Americans want TRUCKS and SUVs.

Godvernment wants you driving little 2 seater Euro cars

Again --- Detroit plants that seed, not "Americans". They do that because it puts more money in their own pockets. Screw the consumer, screw the fuel efficiency, screw traffic safety, all they want is Profit.

Again, the entire function of advertising is to persuade us to buy shit we don't need. Things we actually DO need, don't have to be persuaded. That's what makes the truck ad necessary. If you actually needed a truck ----- you'd go out and find one, they're not a secret.

Meanwhile that "little 2 seater Euro car" will literally run rings around that Tootall Tonka truck with one piston tied behind its back, and that makes it a FAR safer and funner ride. And it'll sip a ton less fuel doing it.

My daily driver is neither "Euro" nor a 2-seater but I guarantee you if I go start it up right now it will show at least 45 mpg on the current tank. Even my actual Euro car (a MINI) will hand me 38 to 40 driving it hard on a spirited run.

Government doesn't give a shit what you drive. You don't drive the Government around.

 

[progressive hunter]

Ford the company no longer making cars because they want japs doing it

Ford is focusing on trucks and SUVs -- what AMERICANS want

You mean what Detroit wants us to want.

Member all those public demonstrations around the 1990s where the public demanded the right to buy bulbous inverted bathtubs with absurd centres of gravity that would handle like a drunk walrus?

I don't either. Yet there they came, didn't they.

As for these silly-ass monster trucks capable of towing an asteroid.... sometimes if I'm on an all-day drive I'll count up the pickup trucks I see tallying which ones have any payload in them. In an efficient world such a truck would be loaded all the time, bringing something from point A to point B and then something else from point B back to point A. That's not realistic but we should expect a minimum of 50% of trucks loaded with something, assuming the other 50% are returning from or going to their cargo. Because absent that, what's the point of being a truck?

But in the real world when I actually count the beds that are visible it counts out to 80 to 90% empty. Nothing in there at all.

What they're selling is not "trucks". What they're selling is "illusions".

Nope. Americans want TRUCKS and SUVs.

Godvernment wants you driving little 2 seater Euro cars

Again --- Detroit plants that seed, not "Americans". They do that because it puts more money in their own pockets. Screw the consumer, screw the fuel efficiency, screw traffic safety, all they want is Profit.

Again, the entire function of advertising is to persuade us to buy shit we don't need. Things we actually DO need, don't have to be persuaded. That's what makes the truck ad necessary. If you actually needed a truck ----- you'd go out and find one, they're not a secret.

Meanwhile that "little 2 seater Euro car" will literally run rings around that Tootall Tonka truck with one piston tied behind its back, and that makes it a FAR safer and funner ride. And it'll sip a ton less fuel doing it.

My daily driver is neither "Euro" nor a 2-seater but I guarantee you if I go start it up right now it will show at least 45 mpg on the current tank. Even my actual Euro car (a MINI) will hand me 38 to 40 driving it hard on a spirited run.

Government doesn't give a shit what you drive. You don't drive the Government around.

not much safer than a 1 ton truck,,,