All too often, we find ourselves in a place where no amount of evidence will persuade someone of a point, no matter how obvious. Perhaps we ought to consider who is the one being unwilling to consider evidence, and make sure that as we present our positions, we know what kind of evidence would undermine or overturn ours.
For example, if it were revealed that hybrid car owners were going to be paid thousands of dollars when their batteries were recycled, it would change my view that hybrid cars are a waste of money for all but inner city taxi drivers and couriers. So would a rise in the price of gasoline to $10 or so.
Know Your Lifts: The Romanian Deadlift (RDL)
-
In the Know Your Lifts series, we’ve covered the high-bar back squat, the
low-bar squat, the power jerk and split jerk, and the overhead press. It’s
been...
16 hours ago
4 comments:
Hey! Good example!
While most cars depreciate to a losing position immediately after pulling off of the lot, my Dad "totalled" his Honda hybrid and got more $s out of the settlement than he owed on it -- because of the batteries.
But, then again, when you're on the road and the little engine has to pull you uphill (happens often in Colorado) because you are out of battery, you have to drop down a couple of gears and hit the high RPMs -- there goes your fuel economy!!
Your dad certainly did do well--and I'd suggest that the reasons are (1) he bought it used and didn't take that initial hit and (2) there is about a ton of aluminium in an Insight--that's about $4k at today's prices just for starters. It probably also didn't hurt that the initial purchase price was subsidized by tax breaks.
Now change to a mostly steel Prius, and compare its cost of ownership with that of a Corolla, Civic, or other efficient small car. Subtract the subsidies and buy new.
The economics changes quite a bit, doesn't it? But it doesn't stop the environmentalists.
There was a really funny (unintentionally) article in our local paper about how people are beating the rising cost of gas. The poster child of the article was a guy who bought a 2001 Prius, then traded up in 2004 and 2006, specifically in order to maintain maximum fuel economy.
Um....he might be doing lovely things for the environment, but he was NOT beating the cost of gas, he was spending a lot MORE money elsewhere. In the guy's favor, he was never quoted as claiming that he was saving money as well as fuel, but the whole setup of the article was about gas prices, not environmental impact.
Post a Comment