Comments on: Empty Gesture out of Carolina

By: Arcturus

Arcturus — Fri, 24 Apr 2009 17:04:12 +0000

"The cars used in the races burn with 100% efficiency. Let’s see Detroit build a car that can do that."
-Mark Stevens

key phrase there: "cars. . . burn with 100% efficiency".

But seriously, no. Unless NASCAR gets an exemption from the Second Law of Thermodynamics, then no, neither the cars nor the fuel burn with 100% efficiency.

By: Charles

Charles — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 07:16:22 +0000

I have to come clean and give Mark Stevens his due. I was being glib when I called them BOTH fuel efficient and driven at inefficient speeds. I knew better than to think that the NASCAR engineers would give up the competitive advantage of making every drop of gas count.

By: jack fate

jack fate — Thu, 23 Apr 2009 02:26:37 +0000

This couldn’t be less meaningful if the track were built to encircle Al Gore’s mansion.

But then they'd have to call it the Coca-Cola 6000! HAR! HAR! *rimshot crach*

Sorry, I couldn't help it.

By: Mark Stevens

Mark Stevens — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:56:12 +0000

With respect, my point is that NASCAR engineers have been able to come up with a naturally aspirate engine (carburated) that is capable of burning 110 octane fuel with 100% efficiency. No fuel injected engine coming from any of the major car makers can even approach that standard. Fuel economy is a direct result of fuel burning efficiency. They are one in the same in this regard.

By: Mark

Mark — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 16:41:35 +0000

@Mark Stevens — usually when non-geeks refer to "fuel efficiency" they mean fuel economy. I thought it was pretty clear from the context that's what he was talking about here.

By: Bob

Bob — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 13:54:42 +0000

On earth day, no less. Have you no shame?

By: Grandy

Grandy — Wed, 22 Apr 2009 10:57:40 +0000

Charles, why waste a Polar Bear by drowning it? They're so tasty. . .

By: Mark Stevens

Mark Stevens — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:26:19 +0000

Actually, the cars used in NASCAR races are far more fuel efficient than anything being produced by any of the car makers. The cars used in the races burn with 100% efficiency. Let's see Detroit build a car that can do that. Yeah, so they only get 8 miles per gallon, but what do you expect from 800 horsepower? Most pickup trucks don't get much more than that at 1/4 of the horsepower. Perhaps we could learn something from Dale Jr.

By: Charles

Charles — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 23:01:52 +0000

Slow down, man! The caution light is on! My interest in this began an ended with "stupid gesture" and "Al Gore joke." Please don't confuse me with someone concerned about the environment. I'll check in again later but right now I've got to go drown a polar bear.

By: Patrick

Patrick — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 22:46:49 +0000

Planet blowing up blah blah blah.

If you haven't been to Indy or Daytona (I've been to both), you have no business talking about racing from any standpoint other than a complete ban. An individual racing event blows through a lot of carbon in a day, but what of it? It's nothing compared to the structural problems of air and automotive traffic in general.

Agreed that it's a stupid gesture, but complaining about auto racing because of its carbon emissions is like a Roman complaining about chariot racing because of its brutality.

That's the whole point, big engines and loud roars. The day America bans racing except by flimsy wheeled solar gizmos and bicycles will be the day the next revolution starts.