High school students create 1700mpg car

That's a ridiculous notion... our friendly oil companies couldn't make as much money that way. ;)

Looking at those cars I think I'd prefer one I could actually ride in, those didn't look large enough for a human passenger, were they RC?

That's a ridiculous notion... our friendly oil companies couldn't make as much money that way. ;)

there is a LOT more to a car and making it production worthy than mpg... there are safety ratings and many other things - then when you get to what the consumer will actually buy you've got to take into account things like practicality and size. Will this car fit a family of 5? Will this car impress someone (stupid, but people buy cars for that reason alone)? Will this car be affordable to repair?

lots of things...

not only couldnt a human fit in them, they only travel about 15 miles per hour.
Basically this high school kids are learning about energy and what you can do with it or as well all know... lighter and slower (and dont use the brake)= best gas mileage.

there is a LOT more to a car and making it production worthy than mpg

But the point is that even a high school student can figure out how to get 500 times better mileage than the average American passenger car.

Or, for that matter, the French and the Indians are going to manufacture cars that deliver 97 percent reduction in fuel consumption based on compressed air power.

The question isn't technology, or even smarts or experience or money.

The question is will.

And Detroit won't.

But the point is that even a high school student can figure out how to get 500 times better mileage than the average American passenger car.

I thought the point was the kids weren't making cars they were making drifting motors so the fuel consumption comparison is no longer logical. Detroit makes cars that are 5000X+ more fuel efficient than the space shuttle but...so what they don't do the same thing.

Government regulation on cars in every stage of the way in so many forms represses innovation and that is expected and depending on who you are talking to desired even. We have very high universal safety standards, each state has emission standards (that are illogical as already demonstrated by electrics), back on the production side we have government sponsored manufacturing requirements as in who where and what can be made. All together it means making a real change for the automakers is very very expensive and difficult not because of technology, smarts but rather politicians.

The question is will.

And Detroit won't.

then the answer should be "dont"... dont buy a car that you dont believe in. If we stop buying new cars every 2 years for looks and speed, and start buying compact and economy cars they'll have to listen or they'll take the compacts and economies off the market while they watch Americans buy foreign vehicles...

elegant and simple. . .cause and effect. . .

I built a new transportation vehicle and sent my plans to detroit earlier today.

The insides are very comfortable and accommodating, have a 7 speaker audio system, very low maintenance, top notch mpg, very high safety rating and affordable to 95% of the country

no rims, no dice, pal

Government regulation on cars in every stage of the way in so many forms represses innovation and that is expected and depending on who you are talking to desired even. We have very high universal safety standards, each state has emission standards (that are illogical as already demonstrated by electrics), back on the production side we have government sponsored manufacturing requirements as in who where and what can be made

Dang. If we could just make products that pollute and kill the way that we feel like doing life would be so much easier.

Comparing cars to space shuttles? It seems as if personal transportation on the ground has little to do with space shuttles. You're searching for bogus comparisons to alleviate the auto industry of responsibility.

All together it means making a real change for the automakers is very very expensive and difficult not because of technology, smarts but rather politicians.

Oh, bull. We'd still have cars spewing out tons of toxic waste if the government hadn't stood up to the automakers. And it never stopped Japan from making popular efficient cars. And it won't stop India from making popular and efficient cars. It's time for automakers to stop being crybabies and to start investing in our future.

Hey I said some people like less innovation because they would rather have whatever benefits they believe they are getting from government oversight/regulation. It's obvious which you feel is more important that's fine but then complaining about lack of innovation is rather silly.

Well this whole thing started with a false comparison which was my point, I don't think cars and shuttles have anything in common but why do you think drifting RC cars have something in common with cars? To turn that into an attack like you prefer lets throw in are you just trying to pump up bogus charges in order to give power to your political cronies?

Would we? Where was that hypothesis tested? Cause and effect require a bit more study than it was done thus it was good. I'm sure it had an impact, the cars we have today are a result of that of course. What would it look like otherwise? Maybe take India it has far less of the type of regulation and it's become one of your choices in good things. Japan was selling to a market not already saturated and their cost base was lower by avoiding unions, now that they have lost the union avoidance they are on the same path only 50 years behind. Maybe we just need to swap out companies every 50 years when unions topple them.

Hey I said some people like less innovation because they would rather have whatever benefits they believe they are getting from government oversight/regulation.

Regulations for pollution control simply create requirements for products. They don't say, "Thou shalt not innovate when making products." Nobody stopped Detroit from investing in zero-emissions vehicle on their own. There have been massive innovations in response to government safety and environmental requirements. In fact, until foreign manufacturers started delivering far higher horsepower with lower emissions to U.S. markets there was not much innnovation by U.S. manufacturers in improving the performance of U.S. cars. The chassis of U.S. cars were typically very primitive compared to foreign cars until very recently - trying to squeeze profits out of outdated technology in the hopes that consumers wouldn't know the difference.

The truth is that companies that want to be innovative will find ways to be innovative, no matter the conditions. Blaming the government is a sour-grapes excuse. Nobody's "cronies" win because cars are required to have side-impact protection, low emissions and reasonable gas mileage. Who wins is average citizens. That's kind of what our government is supposed to do for us.

Well this whole thing started with a false comparison which was my point, I don't think cars and shuttles have anything in common but why do you think drifting RC cars have something in common with cars?

Your implication is that these cars were little toy RC cars: that's not the case. They were all passenger vehicles - highly experimental, obviously, but not little toys. These are the kinds of competitions that Detroit should be backing wholeheartedly. We need U.S. kids to be excited about innovations that can be turned into competitive products delivered from our own manufacturing base.

Japan was selling to a market not already saturated

What are you talking about? U.S. automakers had put more cars than people on the road. Japan took major market share in a saturated market by producing superior products.

and their cost base was lower by avoiding unions, now that they have lost the union avoidance they are on the same path only 50 years behind. Maybe we just need to swap out companies every 50 years when unions topple them.

While the unions were living in a dream world in thinking that a manufacturer could support benefits conventions that had been weaned out of the global marketplace, it was Detroit's decision to avoid confronting this issue for decades and instead to foist inferior products on the marketplace in the U.S. - while manufacturing perfectly competitive products abroad. In other words, they took a giant sh*t on the American consumer, assuming that they'd go for inferior products indefinitely, rather than to address domestic labor issues head on. Given the amount of offshore parts sourcing for U.S. autos the U.S. labor component has become an ever-dwindling contribution to U.S. autos anyway.

Every market has its own conventions. Nobody is stopping GM from investing in manufacturing for Indian markets. GM is manufacturing for Chinese markets, which is going to have far stricter emissions and mileage standards. You don't hear any complaints there - just the sound of hard work figuring out how to win at the Chinese game.

It's hard to have respect for an industry that blames everyone but themselves for not being able to compete with others. It's well past time for Detroit to suck it up and to stop trying to tip politicians to keep them from having to make changes to their way of doing business. The real problem with regulation is major auto manufacturers trying to regulate Washington through excessive lobbying efforts that keep them from facing changes to their fat cat way of life. If you want open and fair markets in capitalism, then don't whine every time that Washington doesn't tip the playing field your own way.

My own feeling is that Detroit's real downfall may be entrepreneurial U.S. manufacturers who decide to take on the world at its own game. Silicon Valley knows how to play by global standards and knows how to develop consumer products that people really like very rapidly. I think that the intellectual lethargy of the red state mentality is about to get a swift boot in the butt from the blue states where most of America's innovation and GDP comes from anyway.

You are kidding me right about regulation not hindering innovation. Which has more potential you can get from A to B however you like or you can get there as long as you complete this check list of events? It takes a hell of a statist to believe you can regulate innovation, here is your list of things to invent this year chop chop.

Those cars weren't little RC cars, they were big RC cars they nearly even made it to a child's knee obviously one short step removed from everyday use. They were small engines on wheels gliding around a closed track. I'm not saying the exercise wasn't great just that using it to make claims against car manufacturers is a pathetically cheap shot.

Japan made progress by making different product something not easily done with the union contracts. Have you ever read those things, this many of this type car will be made by this plant in this many hours for this many years. Those things are crazy and no wonder they are so slow to adapt they have to wait out a 10 year contract to put in a new model.

I don't have much respect for the large US automakers they played a political game with groups that are much better than they at it and got owned for it. Going to Washington to try and lobby benefits because other people lobbied disruptive regulation is just plain foolish and getting buried for it is well karmic. However it's also karmic for those that pushed so hard for the free ride to fall off the coaster. Unfortunately as in most politics it was an elite that set it up that way and the general worker than gets to take the fall. It's one of several reasons I would quit and move rather than allow some yahoo to claim to represent me into his/her riches on top of the other yahoos with guns that do that already.

Nice little unsubstantiated jab there at the end I thought for a sec you would break your insult tradition and simply debate.

Japan made progress by making different product something not easily done with the union contracts. Have you ever read those things, this many of this type car will be made by this plant in this many hours for this many years. Those things are crazy and no wonder they are so slow to adapt they have to wait out a 10 year contract to put in a new model.

Of course, it has nothing to do with the lack of will to do so. Much easier to make profits off of fat, dumb SUVs.

I don't think that you really addressed the core issue: namely that there are other ways to build autos in the U.S. by U.S. companies and that we shouldn't have to wait on General Motors, Ford and Chrysler to be our saviors. You can wring your hands at the unions all you want but the greater truth is that the Big Three just didn't want to accept that their products weren't competitive - and they were perfectly glad to work out deals with the unions in a "one hand washes the other" mode for decades rather than to address core competitiveness issues. Perhaps it's time for a new U.S. auto company to come to the fore, kind of an iCar thing if you will.

I'm not saying the exercise wasn't great just that using it to make claims against car manufacturers is a pathetically cheap shot.

Well, so was trying to compare their efforts to the space shuttle. Try harder - these kids want to enter innovative industries. Will U.S. automakers be there for them, or will they go work for Toyota or in some other industry? That's the real issue. The younger generation is pumped on innovation, and what's left our manufacturing base tells them that they're a pain in the butt for thinking green thoughts. That's not good.

Nice little unsubstantiated jab there at the end I thought for a sec you would break your insult tradition and simply debate.

I guess I'll have to bear that in mind the next time that someone calls me a "statist."

What's to debate? U.S. industries would like to have Americans enslaved like migrant lettuce pickers with no regulations as their solution to global competitiveness. Frankly, I'm not in the mood to turn the U.S. into Tienanmen West. Other developed nations have rational approaches to regulations and turn out highly competitive products. Japan has much tougher emissions and mileage regulations than the U.S. - doesn't seem to have slowed them down much. American businesses should stop moaning about regulations and just play by the rules and get on with more innovative approaches to their markets. Regulations done right will help to create competitors, eliminate monopolies, ensure safety for the public and standards that will help us to be competitive internationally. I don't have blinders on as to how regulations can strangle industries, but it's only fair to recognize that unregulated capitalism tends to become monopolistic and uncompetitive - not good for our economy in the long run. U.S. corporations are dominated by a generation of MBA know-nothings who focus on making the books look good before they head off to the Bahamas for a few rounds of golf. We need people in business who actually care about the business of making things and about the average American.

A statist is only an insult if you do not believe in a powerful state, considering your usual debate position I didn't believe you would be insulted so. It's a descriptive word unlike saying all the important people live in 'blue' areas that is just an insult.

It doesn't take much of a deep look to see why SUVs became the big car player in the US during the 90s. Cheap gas combined with unbalanced regulatory environment. An SUV is a light truck not a car, that puts it in a more permissive regulatory class. Japanese car makers didn't compete because the US automakers were all using that same strategy and they couldn't compete. Note how later after they gained some share they started making...SUVs for the same reasons.

We need a government interested in allowing people to be in business, then the rest will flow. As long as the government tells business how to run we will have problems like lackluster innovations. The US automakers have done fairly well in many overseas markets (that they are not simply banned from), they are losing here. The reasons for both are very similar.

I don't doubt that unions and the automakers worked together to create the mess, what choice did the automakers have? The same choice I have when it comes around tax time, do it or feel the government's displeasure.

I would very much like a new car company to arise from the mess, shake off the union molasses, and create an affordable new style car. Given the huge tax breaks and other forms of government intervention that pair with the regulation that is about as likely as Ron Paul winning this election. Possible and with big promise but I wouldn't be betting on it.

An SUV is a light truck not a car, that puts it in a more permissive regulatory class.

That's quite correct, Clinton tipped the tables on the regulations to make this possible. It was a favor for a domestic industry that gave them a temporary advantage so that they wouldn't have to address their real competitive issues - or address energy consumption issues that would eventually hobble our economy and our environment. Instead of acting in the people's best interests Clinton was simply an enabler for an industry that refused to get its act together. A good example of regulations that were designed to be industry-friendly that didn't pay off for America. Today the Japanese and the Europeans are highly competitive in the SUV and light truck marketplace and the American manufacturers are struggling to get competitive in passenger cars. The primary reason that American auto makers failed is that they took advantage of protectionism to prolong the manufacturing of profitable SUVs while they lost market share on less profitable and inferior passenger cars.

We need a government interested in allowing people to be in business, then the rest will flow.

Well, our government IS interested in people being in business - that is, the type of big businesses that can lobby well in Washington. They don't give a hoot about small business owners and entrepreneurs. Other than crony capitalists the Republican Party is one of the most anti-business parties in history. Look at your typical commercial strip in America - all corporate restaurants, corporate stores, corporate services, corporate banks. The little business guy was run out of town years ago. We've been carpetbagged by global corporations - all in the name of "pro-business" policies. Money goes out of local economies, but it rarely goes back in from these companies. We're just a colony now for global corporate profits, little better than before the War of Independence.

What we need in this country are REAL pro-business policies - policies that promote new domestic industries and competitors to challenge traditional suppliers more aggressively, policies that prevent relentless mergers and acquisitions from weeding out otherwise healthy sources of competition, policies that enable small and medium businesses to form capital more easily and fairly, policies that provide sensible regulations which ensure that the greed of the few doesn't overcome the need of the many, policies which weed out corruption from labor organizations to ensure that fair labor practices are paramount and "piece of the action" deals minimized...oops, there's my stump speech.

We don't need less government - we need more good government. A country without good government is just a hangout for pirates and thugs.

BTW, ask the widows and orphans left behind from the recent spate of mining disasters - all traceable to more "business-friendly regulators" - whether good government isn't in the interests of average Americans.

I agree with most of what you say vis a vie big versus small business however I see big business as the result of government not in spite of government. Regulations increase costs of business, that requires larger pools to compete which in turn drives out small business from the market. Then on the flip side government gives tax breaks to employers over over X employees to 'encourage growth' making it even more one-sided. I don't see any policies on the table that would do anything but continue that trend with more regulation cost and more subsidy handout leading to ever larger corporations.

There is a tiny part of the IRS code I learned this year that gives a break to anybody who runs a business...and has at least one employee. Doh oh well I guess it isn't really a business unless you have hired help. That kind of nonsense government intervention is exactly why we have a mess. Does that subsidy really encourage employment? I don't think I'll be hiring somebody to get 3% off on my taxes I'll just quit the hobby business. That isn't by far the worst offense, probably doesn't make the top 10,000 just one that shows how government is very ill suited to this type of thing.

Regulations increase costs of business, that requires larger pools to compete which in turn drives out small business from the market. Then on the flip side government gives tax breaks to employers over over X employees to 'encourage growth' making it even more one-sided.

Well, the first part is tricky. Without regulations on large businesses, small businesses get driven out of business fairly regularly. I hear you on the cost of regulations, but not all regulations are created equal. Many are designed to level the playing field - at least traditionally. I agree that some regulations do make it harder for small businesses to grow. For example, because Enron, a huge political crony of both Bush and Clinton, decided to get way funny with their bookkeeping and robbed both their shareholders and their employees in the process we're stuck with Sarbanes-Oxley and a host of other compliance regulations - which could have been avoided if there had been stricter controls on accounting houses' relationships with businesses and stricter control over shelters designed to conceal corporate debt. Mind you, let's remember that these were passed with a Republican House and only titular control of the Senate by Democrats.

Because of SOXA and other compliance regulations it's much more discouraging for companies to try to issue publicly held stock. The good news is that more privately held corporations are growing with private backing more willing to take on short-term risk for long-term gain, but the average investor is shut out from such opportunities largely. So it's harder for people to grow their savings, etc.

So I am not sure that regulation per se is the issue but rather what kinds of regulations are employed for what kinds of companies. As you point out the larger corprorations, which have the lobbyists to shape regulations in their favor and to discourage competition. So the RIGHT regulations can help sometimes. Zero regulations means zero protection for small businesses and zero protection for workers. Not good for the average American.

As a small business owner myself I can understand some of your concerns, some of the regulations don't seem to really help real small businesses the way that you'd like them to. But the first step is to get legislators in place that will keep as much big corporate money out of politics as possible. IMHO.