<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_20_1855226</id>
	<title>Students Build 2752 MPG Hypermiling Vehicle</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1266693960000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>MikeChino sends along this awe-inspiring excerpt: <i>"Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive? Try this on for size: a group of mechanical engineering students at Cal Poly have developed a <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2010/02/19/students-build-black-widow-supercar-that-gets-2752-3-mpg/">vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG</a> &mdash; and it doesn't even use batteries. The Cal Poly Supermileage Team's wondercar, dubbed the Black Widow, has been under construction since 2005. The 96 pound car has three wheels, a drag coefficient of 0.12, a top speed of 30 MPH, and a modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine. It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."</i> It's not quite as street-worthy, though, as <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/08/07/05/1224214/VW-Concept-Microcar-Gets-235-MPG">Volkswagen's 235 MPG One-Liter</a> concept. <strong>Updated 20:01 GMT:</strong> The Cal Poly car's earlier incarnation achieved 861 MP<em>G</em>, not MP<em>H</em>; corrected above.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MikeChino sends along this awe-inspiring excerpt : " Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive ?
Try this on for size : a group of mechanical engineering students at Cal Poly have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG    and it does n't even use batteries .
The Cal Poly Supermileage Team 's wondercar , dubbed the Black Widow , has been under construction since 2005 .
The 96 pound car has three wheels , a drag coefficient of 0.12 , a top speed of 30 MPH , and a modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine .
It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today .
" It 's not quite as street-worthy , though , as Volkswagen 's 235 MPG One-Liter concept .
Updated 20 : 01 GMT : The Cal Poly car 's earlier incarnation achieved 861 MPG , not MPH ; corrected above .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MikeChino sends along this awe-inspiring excerpt: "Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?
Try this on for size: a group of mechanical engineering students at Cal Poly have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG — and it doesn't even use batteries.
The Cal Poly Supermileage Team's wondercar, dubbed the Black Widow, has been under construction since 2005.
The 96 pound car has three wheels, a drag coefficient of 0.12, a top speed of 30 MPH, and a modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine.
It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.
" It's not quite as street-worthy, though, as Volkswagen's 235 MPG One-Liter concept.
Updated 20:01 GMT: The Cal Poly car's earlier incarnation achieved 861 MPG, not MPH; corrected above.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217322</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>ColaMan</author>
	<datestamp>1266751140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 km</i></p><p>Just to highlight this little fact, that's just under three shot glasses of fuel. To travel 100km. Not too shabby, even at 30mph.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 kmJust to highlight this little fact , that 's just under three shot glasses of fuel .
To travel 100km .
Not too shabby , even at 30mph .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 kmJust to highlight this little fact, that's just under three shot glasses of fuel.
To travel 100km.
Not too shabby, even at 30mph.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212690</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1266658080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only that, in the linked VW article someone brought up a concept car that did over 3000 MPG so it doesn't even hold the record in that regard. At first I thought this one might be slightly more practical but it seems to be a similarly tiny design.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only that , in the linked VW article someone brought up a concept car that did over 3000 MPG so it does n't even hold the record in that regard .
At first I thought this one might be slightly more practical but it seems to be a similarly tiny design .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only that, in the linked VW article someone brought up a concept car that did over 3000 MPG so it doesn't even hold the record in that regard.
At first I thought this one might be slightly more practical but it seems to be a similarly tiny design.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212124</id>
	<title>A top speed of 30mph</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266697860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...and it just went from cool to useless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...and it just went from cool to useless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...and it just went from cool to useless.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215390</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266679560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a pseudo-fallacy. People use it to pat themselves on the back for switching from an 7mpg pickup to a 15mpg SUV and mock people who switched from a 30mpg car to a 40mpg hybrid... when we should be asking why they didn't switch from the 7mpg pickup directly the 30mpg car or the 40mpg hybrid. It's a similar game as a company bragging about it's incredible 3000\% increase in quarterly profits (when last quarter's profits were $1); the company with a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.1\% gain (over last quarter's $millions profit) is still better than the other one!</p><p>Or in other words, the 15mpg SUV is still wasteful, no matter what your previous vehicle was. Especially if there is a less wasteful vehicle out there that costs about the same and will meet your needs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a pseudo-fallacy .
People use it to pat themselves on the back for switching from an 7mpg pickup to a 15mpg SUV and mock people who switched from a 30mpg car to a 40mpg hybrid... when we should be asking why they did n't switch from the 7mpg pickup directly the 30mpg car or the 40mpg hybrid .
It 's a similar game as a company bragging about it 's incredible 3000 \ % increase in quarterly profits ( when last quarter 's profits were $ 1 ) ; the company with a .1 \ % gain ( over last quarter 's $ millions profit ) is still better than the other one ! Or in other words , the 15mpg SUV is still wasteful , no matter what your previous vehicle was .
Especially if there is a less wasteful vehicle out there that costs about the same and will meet your needs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a pseudo-fallacy.
People use it to pat themselves on the back for switching from an 7mpg pickup to a 15mpg SUV and mock people who switched from a 30mpg car to a 40mpg hybrid... when we should be asking why they didn't switch from the 7mpg pickup directly the 30mpg car or the 40mpg hybrid.
It's a similar game as a company bragging about it's incredible 3000\% increase in quarterly profits (when last quarter's profits were $1); the company with a .1\% gain (over last quarter's $millions profit) is still better than the other one!Or in other words, the 15mpg SUV is still wasteful, no matter what your previous vehicle was.
Especially if there is a less wasteful vehicle out there that costs about the same and will meet your needs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212092</id>
	<title>clocked in at 861 MPH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266697680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Really?</p><p>Pfft.</p><p>Not even proofsniffed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Really ? Pfft.Not even proofsniffed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really?Pfft.Not even proofsniffed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212698</id>
	<title>Electric Vehicles?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?</p></div><p>
The last thing that I am, is impressed, by someone who doesnt know that electric vehicles dont use a liquid fuel of any kind.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive ?
The last thing that I am , is impressed , by someone who doesnt know that electric vehicles dont use a liquid fuel of any kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?
The last thing that I am, is impressed, by someone who doesnt know that electric vehicles dont use a liquid fuel of any kind.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212596</id>
	<title>Can this even hold 1 Gal of fuel?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266657480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Or is it so optimized that they use an eye dropper to feed this thing seven drops of gasoline and extrapolate how far it would have traveled if it really had a gallon of fuel? I mean if you have to stop every mile to refuel, they might easily build a rubber band powered vehicle that gives infinite miles per gallon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Or is it so optimized that they use an eye dropper to feed this thing seven drops of gasoline and extrapolate how far it would have traveled if it really had a gallon of fuel ?
I mean if you have to stop every mile to refuel , they might easily build a rubber band powered vehicle that gives infinite miles per gallon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or is it so optimized that they use an eye dropper to feed this thing seven drops of gasoline and extrapolate how far it would have traveled if it really had a gallon of fuel?
I mean if you have to stop every mile to refuel, they might easily build a rubber band powered vehicle that gives infinite miles per gallon.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215334</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anubis IV</author>
	<datestamp>1266679080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of cities have hotlines you can call to get those corners remedied since they're dangers to the public. Might be worth looking up.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of cities have hotlines you can call to get those corners remedied since they 're dangers to the public .
Might be worth looking up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of cities have hotlines you can call to get those corners remedied since they're dangers to the public.
Might be worth looking up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212550</id>
	<title>yeah but?</title>
	<author>stokessd</author>
	<datestamp>1266657300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Can it haul my giant bass boat?</p><p>Bubba</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can it haul my giant bass boat ? Bubba</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can it haul my giant bass boat?Bubba</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215582</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266682020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're analysis is wrong. Gas is a finite resource and cost $$$. Imagine you have a jug of 10 gallons of gas and each of these three cars. Which one are you gonna drive? You'll drive the most efficient one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're analysis is wrong .
Gas is a finite resource and cost $ $ $ .
Imagine you have a jug of 10 gallons of gas and each of these three cars .
Which one are you gon na drive ?
You 'll drive the most efficient one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're analysis is wrong.
Gas is a finite resource and cost $$$.
Imagine you have a jug of 10 gallons of gas and each of these three cars.
Which one are you gonna drive?
You'll drive the most efficient one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217378</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>CalSolt</author>
	<datestamp>1266752460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This isn't research.  It's just an engineering competition for engineering students.  You know, getting out of the classroom and doing hands-on work and all that good stuff.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is n't research .
It 's just an engineering competition for engineering students .
You know , getting out of the classroom and doing hands-on work and all that good stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This isn't research.
It's just an engineering competition for engineering students.
You know, getting out of the classroom and doing hands-on work and all that good stuff.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212418</id>
	<title>Re:96 pounds</title>
	<author>Sarten-X</author>
	<datestamp>1266699480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...Wow. That was a dumb question. Thanks for the answer, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...Wow .
That was a dumb question .
Thanks for the answer , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...Wow.
That was a dumb question.
Thanks for the answer, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212330</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214442</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>mano.m</author>
	<datestamp>1266671460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Thankfully, the electricity is provided by little fairies running in hamster wheels. That solves that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Thankfully , the electricity is provided by little fairies running in hamster wheels .
That solves that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thankfully, the electricity is provided by little fairies running in hamster wheels.
That solves that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214356</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>jonbryce</author>
	<datestamp>1266670860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Electricity is generated using something.  Depends where you are, but in England it is quite often generated using gas.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Electricity is generated using something .
Depends where you are , but in England it is quite often generated using gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Electricity is generated using something.
Depends where you are, but in England it is quite often generated using gas.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218</id>
	<title>hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266698340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hypermiling is interesting, but totally useless. It's not even that interesting from an engineering standpoint because it's the answer to a question that nobody has asked: "How do I get amazing mileage in a way that is completely and totally infeasible to actually implement?" Now, if they were doing <em>aeronautic</em> hypermiling, that would be interesting, because the vehicles in question need not interfere with other vehicles. But hypermiling techniques involve acceleration and coasting, and every vehicle would need its own road to take advantage of them without screwing up everyone else's mileage and decreasing everyone's safety. Even typical hybrid drivers create a road hazard by paying too much attention to their MPG readout; not due to their inattention to the road, but because they are slowing down excessively while going up hills, causing drivers behind them to have to leave their powerband and downshift to a less-efficient gear ratio to maintain it. Every time I see a Prius I pass it at the earliest opportunity so as not to be stuck behind it and have to suffer their inconsideration, often consuming additional fuel in the process. A hybrid might get better mileage, but as they are typically driven, they <em>cause</em> worse mileage; and they <em>provably</em> consume more energy over the course of their lifetime than a comparable vehicle with a small diesel engine and no batteries which gets the same or even superior mileage.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypermiling is interesting , but totally useless .
It 's not even that interesting from an engineering standpoint because it 's the answer to a question that nobody has asked : " How do I get amazing mileage in a way that is completely and totally infeasible to actually implement ?
" Now , if they were doing aeronautic hypermiling , that would be interesting , because the vehicles in question need not interfere with other vehicles .
But hypermiling techniques involve acceleration and coasting , and every vehicle would need its own road to take advantage of them without screwing up everyone else 's mileage and decreasing everyone 's safety .
Even typical hybrid drivers create a road hazard by paying too much attention to their MPG readout ; not due to their inattention to the road , but because they are slowing down excessively while going up hills , causing drivers behind them to have to leave their powerband and downshift to a less-efficient gear ratio to maintain it .
Every time I see a Prius I pass it at the earliest opportunity so as not to be stuck behind it and have to suffer their inconsideration , often consuming additional fuel in the process .
A hybrid might get better mileage , but as they are typically driven , they cause worse mileage ; and they provably consume more energy over the course of their lifetime than a comparable vehicle with a small diesel engine and no batteries which gets the same or even superior mileage .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypermiling is interesting, but totally useless.
It's not even that interesting from an engineering standpoint because it's the answer to a question that nobody has asked: "How do I get amazing mileage in a way that is completely and totally infeasible to actually implement?
" Now, if they were doing aeronautic hypermiling, that would be interesting, because the vehicles in question need not interfere with other vehicles.
But hypermiling techniques involve acceleration and coasting, and every vehicle would need its own road to take advantage of them without screwing up everyone else's mileage and decreasing everyone's safety.
Even typical hybrid drivers create a road hazard by paying too much attention to their MPG readout; not due to their inattention to the road, but because they are slowing down excessively while going up hills, causing drivers behind them to have to leave their powerband and downshift to a less-efficient gear ratio to maintain it.
Every time I see a Prius I pass it at the earliest opportunity so as not to be stuck behind it and have to suffer their inconsideration, often consuming additional fuel in the process.
A hybrid might get better mileage, but as they are typically driven, they cause worse mileage; and they provably consume more energy over the course of their lifetime than a comparable vehicle with a small diesel engine and no batteries which gets the same or even superior mileage.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213670</id>
	<title>Re:Looks better than I thought.</title>
	<author>mosb1000</author>
	<datestamp>1266664740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Drag increases with the square of speed, so your equation should be:</p><p>2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) * (80 mph / 30 mph) =<b> 77.4 mpg</b> </p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Drag increases with the square of speed , so your equation should be : 2752 mpg / 5 seats / ( 80 mph / 30 mph ) * ( 80 mph / 30 mph ) = 77.4 mpg</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drag increases with the square of speed, so your equation should be:2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) * (80 mph / 30 mph) = 77.4 mpg </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213130</id>
	<title>UC Davis got 3313 mpg in 1992</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1992, UC Davis students working under Professor Andy Frank achieved 3313 mpg with its SideFX and Shamu.  The school later developed some of the first hybrid car technology, among other things.</p><p><a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=OeMDAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=uc+davis+side+fx&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yNnL\_bcwLY&amp;sig=hhexAD2-JnRF\_cp2YeJRXn20AVI&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=DVCAS-GrI4zgswOL7-SHBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=9&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&amp;q=uc\%20davis\%20side\%20fx&amp;f=false" title="google.com">http://books.google.com/books?id=OeMDAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=uc+davis+side+fx&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yNnL\_bcwLY&amp;sig=hhexAD2-JnRF\_cp2YeJRXn20AVI&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=DVCAS-GrI4zgswOL7-SHBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=9&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&amp;q=uc\%20davis\%20side\%20fx&amp;f=false</a> [google.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1992 , UC Davis students working under Professor Andy Frank achieved 3313 mpg with its SideFX and Shamu .
The school later developed some of the first hybrid car technology , among other things.http : //books.google.com/books ? id = OeMDAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg = PA10&amp;lpg = PA10&amp;dq = uc + davis + side + fx&amp;source = bl&amp;ots = yNnL \ _bcwLY&amp;sig = hhexAD2-JnRF \ _cp2YeJRXn20AVI&amp;hl = en&amp;ei = DVCAS-GrI4zgswOL7-SHBA&amp;sa = X&amp;oi = book \ _result&amp;ct = result&amp;resnum = 9&amp;ved = 0CB8Q6AEwCA # v = onepage&amp;q = uc \ % 20davis \ % 20side \ % 20fx&amp;f = false [ google.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1992, UC Davis students working under Professor Andy Frank achieved 3313 mpg with its SideFX and Shamu.
The school later developed some of the first hybrid car technology, among other things.http://books.google.com/books?id=OeMDAAAAMBAJ&amp;pg=PA10&amp;lpg=PA10&amp;dq=uc+davis+side+fx&amp;source=bl&amp;ots=yNnL\_bcwLY&amp;sig=hhexAD2-JnRF\_cp2YeJRXn20AVI&amp;hl=en&amp;ei=DVCAS-GrI4zgswOL7-SHBA&amp;sa=X&amp;oi=book\_result&amp;ct=result&amp;resnum=9&amp;ved=0CB8Q6AEwCA#v=onepage&amp;q=uc\%20davis\%20side\%20fx&amp;f=false [google.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215192</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Skater</author>
	<datestamp>1266678000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine: poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties.  I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all, and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around, but street signs are there for a reason, and blocking drivers' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean.  Stop doing it.</p></div><p>I'll second that.  I deal with that in several local parking lots.  I don't know what these shopping centers are thinking - I guess they expect everyone will be driving SUVs.</p><p>Lately we've had snow piles that effectively do the same thing.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine : poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties .
I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all , and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around , but street signs are there for a reason , and blocking drivers ' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean .
Stop doing it.I 'll second that .
I deal with that in several local parking lots .
I do n't know what these shopping centers are thinking - I guess they expect everyone will be driving SUVs.Lately we 've had snow piles that effectively do the same thing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine: poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties.
I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all, and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around, but street signs are there for a reason, and blocking drivers' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean.
Stop doing it.I'll second that.
I deal with that in several local parking lots.
I don't know what these shopping centers are thinking - I guess they expect everyone will be driving SUVs.Lately we've had snow piles that effectively do the same thing.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212686</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212166</id>
	<title>96 pounds</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266698100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is the 96-pound figure without fuel? I wonder how much it weight fully loaded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is the 96-pound figure without fuel ?
I wonder how much it weight fully loaded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is the 96-pound figure without fuel?
I wonder how much it weight fully loaded.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213206</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266661620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Troll!

</p><p>There's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique.  Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, making sure tires aren't underinflated, and keeping the engined tuned and clean.  Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy.

</p><p>You speak as if hypermiling is totally selfish.  Some of the techniques are rude and dangerous-- drafting leaps to mind.  But many driving techniques can save everyone gas.  Coasting up to a red light definitely saves everyone gas, both for the coaster and those behind.  Going as slow as the speed limit (imagine that!) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over.  Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone users.  Bashing on hypermiling in general because you can't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones.

</p><p>But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain.  Where's your outrage over bad road routing and design? Bad stoplight timing, too many stoplights, too many stop signs, too many intersections?  Terrible urban planning and building location?  I'll give you a few examples.  A southbound street that was the shortest way out of an area with approximately 10000 people used to connect to an east-west highway until the highway was changed into a tollway.  Now that street only connects to the westbound service road, and to go east, people have to drive 1 mile west to a U-turn.  There is no shorter way.  Those tollroad planners screwed a lot of people.  Another is the typical street interchange.  At regular intersections, the lights are set up so 2 opposing left turn lanes (assume driving on the right) can go at the same time.  But at a stoplighted interchange, the opposite directions are separated by a highway, making it impossible to do that neat little left turn trick.  So instead they often make the interchange a 4 cycler, allowing only one direction to go at a time.  Or they double stop the left turners.  Do we have to put up with this?  No!  The interchange could be better designed.  For instance, if the position of the highway and the service roads was swapped, so the fast lane is the right lane and the slow lane with the exits is the left lane, then we could do the double left turn just like at an intersection of 2 streets.  As for suburban sprawl, the typical strip mall and miscellaneous group of independent stores is so hostile to pedestrian travel that people actually drive from store to store within the same strip mall.  Because, you know, who wants to cross 4 or 6 lanes of traffic to get to that coffee shop on the other side of the street even though it's less than 100 feet away?

</p><p>And where's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done?  They haven't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy.  They'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances, such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser.  Sure scoops a lot more air into that giant forward facing steel drag chute known as the engine compartment.  One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter.  20\% hit to fuel economy so you don't have to shift gears.  A top gear that isn't high enough, so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift.  But you know what?  We can have an automatic that doesn't need a torque converter.  Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars don't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through.  We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Troll !
There 's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique .
Aerodynamics , weight reduction , use of lightweight oils , making sure tires are n't underinflated , and keeping the engined tuned and clean .
Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy .
You speak as if hypermiling is totally selfish .
Some of the techniques are rude and dangerous-- drafting leaps to mind .
But many driving techniques can save everyone gas .
Coasting up to a red light definitely saves everyone gas , both for the coaster and those behind .
Going as slow as the speed limit ( imagine that !
) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over .
Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone users .
Bashing on hypermiling in general because you ca n't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones .
But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain .
Where 's your outrage over bad road routing and design ?
Bad stoplight timing , too many stoplights , too many stop signs , too many intersections ?
Terrible urban planning and building location ?
I 'll give you a few examples .
A southbound street that was the shortest way out of an area with approximately 10000 people used to connect to an east-west highway until the highway was changed into a tollway .
Now that street only connects to the westbound service road , and to go east , people have to drive 1 mile west to a U-turn .
There is no shorter way .
Those tollroad planners screwed a lot of people .
Another is the typical street interchange .
At regular intersections , the lights are set up so 2 opposing left turn lanes ( assume driving on the right ) can go at the same time .
But at a stoplighted interchange , the opposite directions are separated by a highway , making it impossible to do that neat little left turn trick .
So instead they often make the interchange a 4 cycler , allowing only one direction to go at a time .
Or they double stop the left turners .
Do we have to put up with this ?
No ! The interchange could be better designed .
For instance , if the position of the highway and the service roads was swapped , so the fast lane is the right lane and the slow lane with the exits is the left lane , then we could do the double left turn just like at an intersection of 2 streets .
As for suburban sprawl , the typical strip mall and miscellaneous group of independent stores is so hostile to pedestrian travel that people actually drive from store to store within the same strip mall .
Because , you know , who wants to cross 4 or 6 lanes of traffic to get to that coffee shop on the other side of the street even though it 's less than 100 feet away ?
And where 's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done ?
They have n't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy .
They 'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances , such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser .
Sure scoops a lot more air into that giant forward facing steel drag chute known as the engine compartment .
One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter .
20 \ % hit to fuel economy so you do n't have to shift gears .
A top gear that is n't high enough , so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift .
But you know what ?
We can have an automatic that does n't need a torque converter .
Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars do n't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through .
We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Troll!
There's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique.
Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, making sure tires aren't underinflated, and keeping the engined tuned and clean.
Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy.
You speak as if hypermiling is totally selfish.
Some of the techniques are rude and dangerous-- drafting leaps to mind.
But many driving techniques can save everyone gas.
Coasting up to a red light definitely saves everyone gas, both for the coaster and those behind.
Going as slow as the speed limit (imagine that!
) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over.
Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone users.
Bashing on hypermiling in general because you can't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones.
But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain.
Where's your outrage over bad road routing and design?
Bad stoplight timing, too many stoplights, too many stop signs, too many intersections?
Terrible urban planning and building location?
I'll give you a few examples.
A southbound street that was the shortest way out of an area with approximately 10000 people used to connect to an east-west highway until the highway was changed into a tollway.
Now that street only connects to the westbound service road, and to go east, people have to drive 1 mile west to a U-turn.
There is no shorter way.
Those tollroad planners screwed a lot of people.
Another is the typical street interchange.
At regular intersections, the lights are set up so 2 opposing left turn lanes (assume driving on the right) can go at the same time.
But at a stoplighted interchange, the opposite directions are separated by a highway, making it impossible to do that neat little left turn trick.
So instead they often make the interchange a 4 cycler, allowing only one direction to go at a time.
Or they double stop the left turners.
Do we have to put up with this?
No!  The interchange could be better designed.
For instance, if the position of the highway and the service roads was swapped, so the fast lane is the right lane and the slow lane with the exits is the left lane, then we could do the double left turn just like at an intersection of 2 streets.
As for suburban sprawl, the typical strip mall and miscellaneous group of independent stores is so hostile to pedestrian travel that people actually drive from store to store within the same strip mall.
Because, you know, who wants to cross 4 or 6 lanes of traffic to get to that coffee shop on the other side of the street even though it's less than 100 feet away?
And where's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done?
They haven't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy.
They'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances, such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser.
Sure scoops a lot more air into that giant forward facing steel drag chute known as the engine compartment.
One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter.
20\% hit to fuel economy so you don't have to shift gears.
A top gear that isn't high enough, so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift.
But you know what?
We can have an automatic that doesn't need a torque converter.
Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars don't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through.
We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31238874</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>bdabautcb</author>
	<datestamp>1266846300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>you are either autistic, retarded, or black.</htmltext>
<tokenext>you are either autistic , retarded , or black .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you are either autistic, retarded, or black.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213042</id>
	<title>Not record-worthy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266660300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In 1986 engineering students at the University of Saskatchewan built a vehicle which went<a href="http://engrwww.usask.ca/affiliation/societies/sae/history.html" title="usask.ca" rel="nofollow"> 4724 MPG</a> [usask.ca].  Amazing how in 24 years we have managed to get 80\% less efficient.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In 1986 engineering students at the University of Saskatchewan built a vehicle which went 4724 MPG [ usask.ca ] .
Amazing how in 24 years we have managed to get 80 \ % less efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In 1986 engineering students at the University of Saskatchewan built a vehicle which went 4724 MPG [usask.ca].
Amazing how in 24 years we have managed to get 80\% less efficient.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212566</id>
	<title>Not impressive</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266657360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm not impressed. My university has a student association called <a href="http://remmi-team.com/content/frontpage/" title="remmi-team.com" rel="nofollow">Remmi-team</a> [remmi-team.com] that does hypermiling . They have been active since 1976.

Their current vehicle <a href="http://remmi-team.com/content/vehicles/r7/" title="remmi-team.com" rel="nofollow">Remmi 7</a> [remmi-team.com] has a record 3306 km/l (~7776 mpg).</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not impressed .
My university has a student association called Remmi-team [ remmi-team.com ] that does hypermiling .
They have been active since 1976 .
Their current vehicle Remmi 7 [ remmi-team.com ] has a record 3306 km/l ( ~ 7776 mpg ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not impressed.
My university has a student association called Remmi-team [remmi-team.com] that does hypermiling .
They have been active since 1976.
Their current vehicle Remmi 7 [remmi-team.com] has a record 3306 km/l (~7776 mpg).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212320</id>
	<title>practical application?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How does this technology scale?</p><p>What would the mileage be if it would be scaled up to a small family car with 100MPH top speed?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How does this technology scale ? What would the mileage be if it would be scaled up to a small family car with 100MPH top speed ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How does this technology scale?What would the mileage be if it would be scaled up to a small family car with 100MPH top speed?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213678</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266664800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If electric cars don't consume gas wouldn't it be 0 miles per gallon?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If electric cars do n't consume gas would n't it be 0 miles per gallon ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If electric cars don't consume gas wouldn't it be 0 miles per gallon?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213968</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>EinarTh</author>
	<datestamp>1266667680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Did I read that correctly?  You burn additional fuel to pass a Prius in order to avoid burning additional fuel later in case you're behind it when/if you go up hill?</p><p>PS. I want to see that proof you speak of, as I've heard it mentioned several times but not produced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Did I read that correctly ?
You burn additional fuel to pass a Prius in order to avoid burning additional fuel later in case you 're behind it when/if you go up hill ? PS .
I want to see that proof you speak of , as I 've heard it mentioned several times but not produced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Did I read that correctly?
You burn additional fuel to pass a Prius in order to avoid burning additional fuel later in case you're behind it when/if you go up hill?PS.
I want to see that proof you speak of, as I've heard it mentioned several times but not produced.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215450</id>
	<title>Re:The supercar version was better</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266680340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, "making it roadworthy" will ruin their numbers.  Let's go into the gory details, shall we?</p><p>First off, take a look at those front wheels.  Notice something?  How about *a lack of ability to make relevant turns*?  Note that it only holds one passenger, and that's being generous.  Not even the slightest bit of comfort or safety features.  It's rolling along on overinflated bicycle tires.  And it gets its performance at speeds where aerodynamic drag is basically zero, with no stops and starts.</p><p>In short, you simply cannot get numbers anything like that in any sort of realistic driving.</p><p>If you want to see what sort of mileage you can get in a semi-normal vehicle, the Aptera 2e is probably as good a case study as you can get.  It's also a case study of a board of directors ruining a company by bringing in a lousy leadership team, but that's neither here nor there.  The idea was to get two people and a reasonable amount of cargo around in a comfortable, affordable vehicle with as little energy as possible and without sacrifice to safety.  To do this, they threw all *normal* conventions of style and what a vehicle should be out the window and let physics optimize it.  The drag coefficient clocked in at 0.15 -- not much more than this vehicle (but with all of the things needed for "normal" vehicles, such as stability and the ability to make sharp turns and the like).  But to hold two people in comfort and carry a reasonable amount of cargo, the cross sectional area has to be *way* bigger.  Not as big as many cars, but still way bigger than this.  Also, the affordability requirement led them to use a fiberglass/VE/foam core structure instead of carbon fiber/epoxy/foam core, which would be a little lighter.  The notably larger size meant notably more total material, and the need for the ability to survive crashes and rollovers increased it still.  Nonetheless, the shell was only a fraction of the 1500 pounds that the vehicle ended up at.  The Aptera team tried to trim weight everywhere possible -- even using an aircraft-style wiring harness.  But all of the subsystems we demand in a vehicle led the weight to grow.  Also, the battery pack (since it's electric) added a couple hundred pounds, although not nearly as much as the pack in most EVs (due to the efficiency).  The gasoline vehicle would be lighter, but not as much as you might expect if you want it to actually be able to have even *remotely* acceptable performance; small ICEs kind of suck in terms of power output (as well as running worse)</p><p>Anyway, all in all, the vehicle ended up being able to do 120 miles at a steady 55mph on ~10kWh.  That's nearly three times as efficient as a Prius.  The plug-in hybrid version was predicted to average 130mpg combined in charge-sustaining mode.</p><p>Since then, under the new management a lot of the streamlining and weight reduction has been thrown out the window, and its energy use keeps creeping up -- although still nothing like a normal car.  And now the company is nearly broke, since the new CEO hasn't raised a dime in the past year and a half (unlike the old team, which raised over $30m).  A tragic end to an amazing vehicle.</p><p>So, when you see these claims of thousands of MPGs, look at the Aptera as an example of what happens when you try to turn such a vehicle into a real car.  What could be improved over the Aptera design?  Not much, but there are some things.  You could use carbon fiber and epoxy, but your costs will be higher.  You could use a tandem two-seater, but not only could you not sit next to each other, but it'd mean giving up most of your storage space.  You could make the passengers lean back further to reduce frontal area, but that will reduce cargo area and make the passengers less comfortable -- same with making the body narrower.  You could have suppliers make ultralight versions of all of the "comfort" hardware (and safety hardware) needed for a real car, but you better have a huge budget for all of that tooling.  There are small tweaks here and there you could make to t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , " making it roadworthy " will ruin their numbers .
Let 's go into the gory details , shall we ? First off , take a look at those front wheels .
Notice something ?
How about * a lack of ability to make relevant turns * ?
Note that it only holds one passenger , and that 's being generous .
Not even the slightest bit of comfort or safety features .
It 's rolling along on overinflated bicycle tires .
And it gets its performance at speeds where aerodynamic drag is basically zero , with no stops and starts.In short , you simply can not get numbers anything like that in any sort of realistic driving.If you want to see what sort of mileage you can get in a semi-normal vehicle , the Aptera 2e is probably as good a case study as you can get .
It 's also a case study of a board of directors ruining a company by bringing in a lousy leadership team , but that 's neither here nor there .
The idea was to get two people and a reasonable amount of cargo around in a comfortable , affordable vehicle with as little energy as possible and without sacrifice to safety .
To do this , they threw all * normal * conventions of style and what a vehicle should be out the window and let physics optimize it .
The drag coefficient clocked in at 0.15 -- not much more than this vehicle ( but with all of the things needed for " normal " vehicles , such as stability and the ability to make sharp turns and the like ) .
But to hold two people in comfort and carry a reasonable amount of cargo , the cross sectional area has to be * way * bigger .
Not as big as many cars , but still way bigger than this .
Also , the affordability requirement led them to use a fiberglass/VE/foam core structure instead of carbon fiber/epoxy/foam core , which would be a little lighter .
The notably larger size meant notably more total material , and the need for the ability to survive crashes and rollovers increased it still .
Nonetheless , the shell was only a fraction of the 1500 pounds that the vehicle ended up at .
The Aptera team tried to trim weight everywhere possible -- even using an aircraft-style wiring harness .
But all of the subsystems we demand in a vehicle led the weight to grow .
Also , the battery pack ( since it 's electric ) added a couple hundred pounds , although not nearly as much as the pack in most EVs ( due to the efficiency ) .
The gasoline vehicle would be lighter , but not as much as you might expect if you want it to actually be able to have even * remotely * acceptable performance ; small ICEs kind of suck in terms of power output ( as well as running worse ) Anyway , all in all , the vehicle ended up being able to do 120 miles at a steady 55mph on ~ 10kWh .
That 's nearly three times as efficient as a Prius .
The plug-in hybrid version was predicted to average 130mpg combined in charge-sustaining mode.Since then , under the new management a lot of the streamlining and weight reduction has been thrown out the window , and its energy use keeps creeping up -- although still nothing like a normal car .
And now the company is nearly broke , since the new CEO has n't raised a dime in the past year and a half ( unlike the old team , which raised over $ 30m ) .
A tragic end to an amazing vehicle.So , when you see these claims of thousands of MPGs , look at the Aptera as an example of what happens when you try to turn such a vehicle into a real car .
What could be improved over the Aptera design ?
Not much , but there are some things .
You could use carbon fiber and epoxy , but your costs will be higher .
You could use a tandem two-seater , but not only could you not sit next to each other , but it 'd mean giving up most of your storage space .
You could make the passengers lean back further to reduce frontal area , but that will reduce cargo area and make the passengers less comfortable -- same with making the body narrower .
You could have suppliers make ultralight versions of all of the " comfort " hardware ( and safety hardware ) needed for a real car , but you better have a huge budget for all of that tooling .
There are small tweaks here and there you could make to t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, "making it roadworthy" will ruin their numbers.
Let's go into the gory details, shall we?First off, take a look at those front wheels.
Notice something?
How about *a lack of ability to make relevant turns*?
Note that it only holds one passenger, and that's being generous.
Not even the slightest bit of comfort or safety features.
It's rolling along on overinflated bicycle tires.
And it gets its performance at speeds where aerodynamic drag is basically zero, with no stops and starts.In short, you simply cannot get numbers anything like that in any sort of realistic driving.If you want to see what sort of mileage you can get in a semi-normal vehicle, the Aptera 2e is probably as good a case study as you can get.
It's also a case study of a board of directors ruining a company by bringing in a lousy leadership team, but that's neither here nor there.
The idea was to get two people and a reasonable amount of cargo around in a comfortable, affordable vehicle with as little energy as possible and without sacrifice to safety.
To do this, they threw all *normal* conventions of style and what a vehicle should be out the window and let physics optimize it.
The drag coefficient clocked in at 0.15 -- not much more than this vehicle (but with all of the things needed for "normal" vehicles, such as stability and the ability to make sharp turns and the like).
But to hold two people in comfort and carry a reasonable amount of cargo, the cross sectional area has to be *way* bigger.
Not as big as many cars, but still way bigger than this.
Also, the affordability requirement led them to use a fiberglass/VE/foam core structure instead of carbon fiber/epoxy/foam core, which would be a little lighter.
The notably larger size meant notably more total material, and the need for the ability to survive crashes and rollovers increased it still.
Nonetheless, the shell was only a fraction of the 1500 pounds that the vehicle ended up at.
The Aptera team tried to trim weight everywhere possible -- even using an aircraft-style wiring harness.
But all of the subsystems we demand in a vehicle led the weight to grow.
Also, the battery pack (since it's electric) added a couple hundred pounds, although not nearly as much as the pack in most EVs (due to the efficiency).
The gasoline vehicle would be lighter, but not as much as you might expect if you want it to actually be able to have even *remotely* acceptable performance; small ICEs kind of suck in terms of power output (as well as running worse)Anyway, all in all, the vehicle ended up being able to do 120 miles at a steady 55mph on ~10kWh.
That's nearly three times as efficient as a Prius.
The plug-in hybrid version was predicted to average 130mpg combined in charge-sustaining mode.Since then, under the new management a lot of the streamlining and weight reduction has been thrown out the window, and its energy use keeps creeping up -- although still nothing like a normal car.
And now the company is nearly broke, since the new CEO hasn't raised a dime in the past year and a half (unlike the old team, which raised over $30m).
A tragic end to an amazing vehicle.So, when you see these claims of thousands of MPGs, look at the Aptera as an example of what happens when you try to turn such a vehicle into a real car.
What could be improved over the Aptera design?
Not much, but there are some things.
You could use carbon fiber and epoxy, but your costs will be higher.
You could use a tandem two-seater, but not only could you not sit next to each other, but it'd mean giving up most of your storage space.
You could make the passengers lean back further to reduce frontal area, but that will reduce cargo area and make the passengers less comfortable -- same with making the body narrower.
You could have suppliers make ultralight versions of all of the "comfort" hardware (and safety hardware) needed for a real car, but you better have a huge budget for all of that tooling.
There are small tweaks here and there you could make to t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213944</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266667260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Most of us don't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place.</p></div><p>Obviously you've never had to merge onto a freeway then.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Most of us do n't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place.Obviously you 've never had to merge onto a freeway then .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Most of us don't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place.Obviously you've never had to merge onto a freeway then.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214046</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266668400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Only if you ignore how the electricity's generated in the first place.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if you ignore how the electricity 's generated in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if you ignore how the electricity's generated in the first place.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215356</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266679200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>MPG is perfectly fine.    So is GPMile...</p><p>At the end of the day, ratios being what they are:   half the MPG = double the GPMile =  you go twice as far with the same gas = you consume half the fuel to drive the same distance as you did before.</p><p>So - if you're an optimist - look at MPG, bigger is better!         If you're a pessimist, then look at your vehicle in Gallons per Mile -  less is more!</p><p>If you want an ass backwards unit:   Liters per 100 km...         THAT one irks me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>MPG is perfectly fine .
So is GPMile...At the end of the day , ratios being what they are : half the MPG = double the GPMile = you go twice as far with the same gas = you consume half the fuel to drive the same distance as you did before.So - if you 're an optimist - look at MPG , bigger is better !
If you 're a pessimist , then look at your vehicle in Gallons per Mile - less is more ! If you want an ass backwards unit : Liters per 100 km... THAT one irks me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPG is perfectly fine.
So is GPMile...At the end of the day, ratios being what they are:   half the MPG = double the GPMile =  you go twice as far with the same gas = you consume half the fuel to drive the same distance as you did before.So - if you're an optimist - look at MPG, bigger is better!
If you're a pessimist, then look at your vehicle in Gallons per Mile -  less is more!If you want an ass backwards unit:   Liters per 100 km...         THAT one irks me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212322</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Sepodati</author>
	<datestamp>1266698940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I can see research like this being useful for autonomous individual-family cars that take the place of trains for cross country trips. You don't have to go that fast if you can continuously move and control traffic... Although faster than 30 mph would be good. Who knows if things like this will ever be built, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I can see research like this being useful for autonomous individual-family cars that take the place of trains for cross country trips .
You do n't have to go that fast if you can continuously move and control traffic... Although faster than 30 mph would be good .
Who knows if things like this will ever be built , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I can see research like this being useful for autonomous individual-family cars that take the place of trains for cross country trips.
You don't have to go that fast if you can continuously move and control traffic... Although faster than 30 mph would be good.
Who knows if things like this will ever be built, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212866</id>
	<title>861 MPH!</title>
	<author>athlon02</author>
	<datestamp>1266659100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think I like the 861 MPH better... "If my calculations are correct, when this baby gets up to 861 MPH, you're going to see some serious stuff"<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... CRASH! KABOOM!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think I like the 861 MPH better... " If my calculations are correct , when this baby gets up to 861 MPH , you 're going to see some serious stuff " ... CRASH ! KABOOM !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think I like the 861 MPH better... "If my calculations are correct, when this baby gets up to 861 MPH, you're going to see some serious stuff" ... CRASH! KABOOM!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212386</id>
	<title>2752 MPG ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266699360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The gas would <i>evaporate from the tank</i> faster than that!  I think someone needs to check their figures.  Unit conversion FTW??</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The gas would evaporate from the tank faster than that !
I think someone needs to check their figures .
Unit conversion FTW ?
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The gas would evaporate from the tank faster than that!
I think someone needs to check their figures.
Unit conversion FTW?
?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</id>
	<title>not getting it here</title>
	<author>khallow</author>
	<datestamp>1266698220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?</p></div><p>How about infinite miles per gallon? Electric cars don't consume gas.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive ? How about infinite miles per gallon ?
Electric cars do n't consume gas .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive?How about infinite miles per gallon?
Electric cars don't consume gas.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31231500</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>AVee</author>
	<datestamp>1266863160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> <b>American</b> SUV = 16 liters/100 km<br>
<b>American</b> sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km<br>
Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km<br>
vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 km</p></div><p>Fixed...<br>
Hell, I own a 11 years old European overpowered turbo-charged estate car, I only drive short stretches and I've got a really, really heavy right foot. But I do average better then 9.4 liters/100 km. The fuel consumption numbers on American cars amaze me every time, here's a hint: Bigger is not always better.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>American SUV = 16 liters/100 km American sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 kmFixed.. . Hell , I own a 11 years old European overpowered turbo-charged estate car , I only drive short stretches and I 've got a really , really heavy right foot .
But I do average better then 9.4 liters/100 km .
The fuel consumption numbers on American cars amaze me every time , here 's a hint : Bigger is not always better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> American SUV = 16 liters/100 km
American sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km
Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km
vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 kmFixed...
Hell, I own a 11 years old European overpowered turbo-charged estate car, I only drive short stretches and I've got a really, really heavy right foot.
But I do average better then 9.4 liters/100 km.
The fuel consumption numbers on American cars amaze me every time, here's a hint: Bigger is not always better.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31221872</id>
	<title>Re:861 MPH!!!!!!!</title>
	<author>fedxone-v86</author>
	<datestamp>1266746820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>RTFA stands for "read the fucking article". The way you use RTFA makes no sense.</htmltext>
<tokenext>RTFA stands for " read the fucking article " .
The way you use RTFA makes no sense .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>RTFA stands for "read the fucking article".
The way you use RTFA makes no sense.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214318</id>
	<title>Are auto makers and oil companies in cahoots?</title>
	<author>markdueck</author>
	<datestamp>1266670500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have heard of several instances where someone bought a brand new vehicle and they got very good mileage.  I full size truck doing around 40 mpg.  The owner gets a call from the manufacturer and they say there's a problem with his truck and he needs to bring it in.  He brings it in, and since then the truck does normal mileage - around 17-19.

Has anyone else heard of this, or experienced it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have heard of several instances where someone bought a brand new vehicle and they got very good mileage .
I full size truck doing around 40 mpg .
The owner gets a call from the manufacturer and they say there 's a problem with his truck and he needs to bring it in .
He brings it in , and since then the truck does normal mileage - around 17-19 .
Has anyone else heard of this , or experienced it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have heard of several instances where someone bought a brand new vehicle and they got very good mileage.
I full size truck doing around 40 mpg.
The owner gets a call from the manufacturer and they say there's a problem with his truck and he needs to bring it in.
He brings it in, and since then the truck does normal mileage - around 17-19.
Has anyone else heard of this, or experienced it?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212660</id>
	<title>But whats it get for</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1266657780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>city driving?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>city driving ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>city driving?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215234</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>arbitraryaardvark</author>
	<datestamp>1266678300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>there's a few billion people who a) dont have cars and b) can't afford what i spend on gas.<br>my car, btw, an 88 volvo, gets up to 2800 mpg. Up to.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>there 's a few billion people who a ) dont have cars and b ) ca n't afford what i spend on gas.my car , btw , an 88 volvo , gets up to 2800 mpg .
Up to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>there's a few billion people who a) dont have cars and b) can't afford what i spend on gas.my car, btw, an 88 volvo, gets up to 2800 mpg.
Up to.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212900</id>
	<title>engineering:  the practical application of science</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266659340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hypermilling is for kids...get a bicycle if you're concerned about your mpg...</p><p>2009 tour de france:<br>2100+ miles, 25 mph average without hypermilling and no fossil/electric fuel source + you get your heart healthy exercise!  WOW!!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hypermilling is for kids...get a bicycle if you 're concerned about your mpg...2009 tour de france : 2100 + miles , 25 mph average without hypermilling and no fossil/electric fuel source + you get your heart healthy exercise !
WOW ! ! !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hypermilling is for kids...get a bicycle if you're concerned about your mpg...2009 tour de france:2100+ miles, 25 mph average without hypermilling and no fossil/electric fuel source + you get your heart healthy exercise!
WOW!!!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212164</id>
	<title>861 mph, eh?</title>
	<author>jimicus</author>
	<datestamp>1266698100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It originally clocked in at 861 MPH</p></div><p>So they're going for the world land speed record as well as the fuel economy record?  Impressive stuff.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It originally clocked in at 861 MPHSo they 're going for the world land speed record as well as the fuel economy record ?
Impressive stuff .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It originally clocked in at 861 MPHSo they're going for the world land speed record as well as the fuel economy record?
Impressive stuff.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216774</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>daver00</author>
	<datestamp>1266783180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think you have the Prius figure a little off, all literature I've read, and accounts from people as well, put it fairly solidy in the 7L/100k range (in realistic terms). To put that into perspective, my 1992 carburettor powered honda civic gets about 7.5L/100k at its peak efficiency.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think you have the Prius figure a little off , all literature I 've read , and accounts from people as well , put it fairly solidy in the 7L/100k range ( in realistic terms ) .
To put that into perspective , my 1992 carburettor powered honda civic gets about 7.5L/100k at its peak efficiency .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think you have the Prius figure a little off, all literature I've read, and accounts from people as well, put it fairly solidy in the 7L/100k range (in realistic terms).
To put that into perspective, my 1992 carburettor powered honda civic gets about 7.5L/100k at its peak efficiency.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502</id>
	<title>Re:The supercar version was better</title>
	<author>commodore64\_love</author>
	<datestamp>1266663420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;&gt;&gt;Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to death</p><p>Well to each his own.  My Honda Insight may be "boring" when I'm driving it only 55 (the Pres. Carter speed limit), but being able to drive to work and back on only $2.00 is a pretty good deal.  (It averages over 90 MPG for me.)  Even if I speed along at 80mph, it still gets a decent 60 MPG, so no complaints either way.</p><p>We need more cars like this, not less, and if I had the opportunity I'd buy this Caltech car (after it's made roadworthy) or the Volkswagen 240 MPG car or the Volkswagen 88 MPG Lupo 3L.  I enjoy saving money, and I don't need a Ford Living Room SUV just to go to hell..... er, I mean work and back.</p><p>BTW where is that Volkswagen 240 MPG car?  They were supposed to make a production model for 2010, but still no sign of it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-|</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; &gt; &gt; Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to deathWell to each his own .
My Honda Insight may be " boring " when I 'm driving it only 55 ( the Pres .
Carter speed limit ) , but being able to drive to work and back on only $ 2.00 is a pretty good deal .
( It averages over 90 MPG for me .
) Even if I speed along at 80mph , it still gets a decent 60 MPG , so no complaints either way.We need more cars like this , not less , and if I had the opportunity I 'd buy this Caltech car ( after it 's made roadworthy ) or the Volkswagen 240 MPG car or the Volkswagen 88 MPG Lupo 3L .
I enjoy saving money , and I do n't need a Ford Living Room SUV just to go to hell..... er , I mean work and back.BTW where is that Volkswagen 240 MPG car ?
They were supposed to make a production model for 2010 , but still no sign of it .
: - |</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;&gt;&gt;Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to deathWell to each his own.
My Honda Insight may be "boring" when I'm driving it only 55 (the Pres.
Carter speed limit), but being able to drive to work and back on only $2.00 is a pretty good deal.
(It averages over 90 MPG for me.
)  Even if I speed along at 80mph, it still gets a decent 60 MPG, so no complaints either way.We need more cars like this, not less, and if I had the opportunity I'd buy this Caltech car (after it's made roadworthy) or the Volkswagen 240 MPG car or the Volkswagen 88 MPG Lupo 3L.
I enjoy saving money, and I don't need a Ford Living Room SUV just to go to hell..... er, I mean work and back.BTW where is that Volkswagen 240 MPG car?
They were supposed to make a production model for 2010, but still no sign of it.
:-|</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108</id>
	<title>The supercar version was better</title>
	<author>jandrese</author>
	<datestamp>1266697800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Daww, I'd be far more interested in a car that can get up to:<blockquote><div><p>...It originally clocked in at 861 MPH<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div></blockquote><p>
Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to death before running out of fuel.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Daww , I 'd be far more interested in a car that can get up to : ...It originally clocked in at 861 MPH .. . Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to death before running out of fuel .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Daww, I'd be far more interested in a car that can get up to:...It originally clocked in at 861 MPH ...
Instead of something that putters around at 30mph and bores its driver to death before running out of fuel.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216548</id>
	<title>bam</title>
	<author>Quiet\_Desperation</author>
	<datestamp>1266693300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And then they sent it to NTSHA crash testing.</p><p>Services for the crash test dummies will be held Friday. It will be closed casket.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And then they sent it to NTSHA crash testing.Services for the crash test dummies will be held Friday .
It will be closed casket .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And then they sent it to NTSHA crash testing.Services for the crash test dummies will be held Friday.
It will be closed casket.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214906</id>
	<title>Yeah, about that...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266675600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Severed heads showed up in Stuttgart shortly after the first public demos.</p><p>There's nothing to see here, move along.</p><p>Say, did you hear about VW's great new minivan?  Based on tested Chrysler platform, grandfather of segment!</p><p>You should shift your attention this direction, please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Severed heads showed up in Stuttgart shortly after the first public demos.There 's nothing to see here , move along.Say , did you hear about VW 's great new minivan ?
Based on tested Chrysler platform , grandfather of segment ! You should shift your attention this direction , please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Severed heads showed up in Stuttgart shortly after the first public demos.There's nothing to see here, move along.Say, did you hear about VW's great new minivan?
Based on tested Chrysler platform, grandfather of segment!You should shift your attention this direction, please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216958</id>
	<title>Re:Can't slashdot be readable outside the little f</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1266743460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They have accomplished in making a wonderfully efficient go-cart that has no hope of meeting crash tests, emission tests, nor lighting or other safety requirements. Once they add that 2,000lbs worth of equipment and the 60 or so hp it needs to make it to minimum speeds allowed on the interstate highways, they'll be down to 20-40mpg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They have accomplished in making a wonderfully efficient go-cart that has no hope of meeting crash tests , emission tests , nor lighting or other safety requirements .
Once they add that 2,000lbs worth of equipment and the 60 or so hp it needs to make it to minimum speeds allowed on the interstate highways , they 'll be down to 20-40mpg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They have accomplished in making a wonderfully efficient go-cart that has no hope of meeting crash tests, emission tests, nor lighting or other safety requirements.
Once they add that 2,000lbs worth of equipment and the 60 or so hp it needs to make it to minimum speeds allowed on the interstate highways, they'll be down to 20-40mpg.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215148</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212430</id>
	<title>Re:clocked in at 861 MPH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266699540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You misunderstand, they started with the Thrust SSC and then stripped it back a bit. Their next project will use the SR-71 as a starting design on the same principle.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You misunderstand , they started with the Thrust SSC and then stripped it back a bit .
Their next project will use the SR-71 as a starting design on the same principle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You misunderstand, they started with the Thrust SSC and then stripped it back a bit.
Their next project will use the SR-71 as a starting design on the same principle.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212248</id>
	<title>Wow!</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1266698520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A top speed of 30mph, yet able to reach 861mph - there's some seriously exotic quantum behaviors they've managed to induce!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A top speed of 30mph , yet able to reach 861mph - there 's some seriously exotic quantum behaviors they 've managed to induce !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A top speed of 30mph, yet able to reach 861mph - there's some seriously exotic quantum behaviors they've managed to induce!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214880</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>cortesoft</author>
	<datestamp>1266675360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am a bit confused by your argument.  Your 'alternative' measure that you seem to think provides more information is the EXACT same measurement; it is simply the inverse of the ratio.  You can simply put a 1 over your MPG if you would prefer to use gallons per mile.  Also, your point about a 10 mpg improvement mattering more to a 25mpg vehicle than a 2000 mpg vehicle is merely pointing out that in RATIO measures (which both MPGs and your alternative 'liters per 100kms' are examples of) it is important to measure the PERCENTAGE change rather than the absolute change.  Your example would have the exact same result using your alternative measure (only in the reverse case); going from 1000 liters/100km to 990 liters/100km is less of a percentage improvement than going from 12liters/100kms to 2liters/100 kms.</p><p>However, this doesn't seem to be the main point you are trying to make. The main point I read is that we should focus on the 'low hanging fruit'; the (correct) notion that we should start by trying to improve the least efficient users of energy first, because each percentage point of improvement in them will save more fuel overall due to their higher initial fuel use age.</p><p>It also may be true that it would be helpful to consumers to show them how much money and fuel they would save with each car choice given their driving habits; however, this is done by using on of our ratio measurements to calculate the actual fuel usage given a fixed distance (either multiplying by your liters/km ratio or dividing by MPG).  I will grant that your ratio might make it more obvious what this calculation will result in (given that you chose a denominator that you hope is close to the actual number of kms driven), but your measure is still just a ratio.</p><p>The last point I would like to make is that MPG is just as good as your liters/100km in determining how much money you will save by switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle.  If you double your gas mileage, you will cut your fuel bill in half... it is that simple.  This is true no matter how many times you double your MPGs..... although it is also true that the absolute dollar amount of those savings gets smaller and smaller as you move up the fuel efficiency chart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am a bit confused by your argument .
Your 'alternative ' measure that you seem to think provides more information is the EXACT same measurement ; it is simply the inverse of the ratio .
You can simply put a 1 over your MPG if you would prefer to use gallons per mile .
Also , your point about a 10 mpg improvement mattering more to a 25mpg vehicle than a 2000 mpg vehicle is merely pointing out that in RATIO measures ( which both MPGs and your alternative 'liters per 100kms ' are examples of ) it is important to measure the PERCENTAGE change rather than the absolute change .
Your example would have the exact same result using your alternative measure ( only in the reverse case ) ; going from 1000 liters/100km to 990 liters/100km is less of a percentage improvement than going from 12liters/100kms to 2liters/100 kms.However , this does n't seem to be the main point you are trying to make .
The main point I read is that we should focus on the 'low hanging fruit ' ; the ( correct ) notion that we should start by trying to improve the least efficient users of energy first , because each percentage point of improvement in them will save more fuel overall due to their higher initial fuel use age.It also may be true that it would be helpful to consumers to show them how much money and fuel they would save with each car choice given their driving habits ; however , this is done by using on of our ratio measurements to calculate the actual fuel usage given a fixed distance ( either multiplying by your liters/km ratio or dividing by MPG ) .
I will grant that your ratio might make it more obvious what this calculation will result in ( given that you chose a denominator that you hope is close to the actual number of kms driven ) , but your measure is still just a ratio.The last point I would like to make is that MPG is just as good as your liters/100km in determining how much money you will save by switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle .
If you double your gas mileage , you will cut your fuel bill in half... it is that simple .
This is true no matter how many times you double your MPGs..... although it is also true that the absolute dollar amount of those savings gets smaller and smaller as you move up the fuel efficiency chart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am a bit confused by your argument.
Your 'alternative' measure that you seem to think provides more information is the EXACT same measurement; it is simply the inverse of the ratio.
You can simply put a 1 over your MPG if you would prefer to use gallons per mile.
Also, your point about a 10 mpg improvement mattering more to a 25mpg vehicle than a 2000 mpg vehicle is merely pointing out that in RATIO measures (which both MPGs and your alternative 'liters per 100kms' are examples of) it is important to measure the PERCENTAGE change rather than the absolute change.
Your example would have the exact same result using your alternative measure (only in the reverse case); going from 1000 liters/100km to 990 liters/100km is less of a percentage improvement than going from 12liters/100kms to 2liters/100 kms.However, this doesn't seem to be the main point you are trying to make.
The main point I read is that we should focus on the 'low hanging fruit'; the (correct) notion that we should start by trying to improve the least efficient users of energy first, because each percentage point of improvement in them will save more fuel overall due to their higher initial fuel use age.It also may be true that it would be helpful to consumers to show them how much money and fuel they would save with each car choice given their driving habits; however, this is done by using on of our ratio measurements to calculate the actual fuel usage given a fixed distance (either multiplying by your liters/km ratio or dividing by MPG).
I will grant that your ratio might make it more obvious what this calculation will result in (given that you chose a denominator that you hope is close to the actual number of kms driven), but your measure is still just a ratio.The last point I would like to make is that MPG is just as good as your liters/100km in determining how much money you will save by switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle.
If you double your gas mileage, you will cut your fuel bill in half... it is that simple.
This is true no matter how many times you double your MPGs..... although it is also true that the absolute dollar amount of those savings gets smaller and smaller as you move up the fuel efficiency chart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212584</id>
	<title>Mail carriers</title>
	<author>carbuck</author>
	<datestamp>1266657420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This might be useful for mail carriers, meter maids, farm vehicles, etc. Might also be useful for someone exploring a remote area where a gas pump might not be readily available</htmltext>
<tokenext>This might be useful for mail carriers , meter maids , farm vehicles , etc .
Might also be useful for someone exploring a remote area where a gas pump might not be readily available</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This might be useful for mail carriers, meter maids, farm vehicles, etc.
Might also be useful for someone exploring a remote area where a gas pump might not be readily available</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214198</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266669720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of things can be done to improve gas mileage \_right now\_. But they won't be for many reasons. I'd love to have a small, turbocharged, manual trans vehicle (rwd ideally), but the north american car culture considers it unpopular. People want either weakling 4cyl automatic hondas, gigantic V6 automatic sedans, or worse, giant SUVs with automatic transmissions and an AWD that doesn't work. Where's the logic in that? Well, it's the majority's logic. People want things that are cheap, convenient, easy to drive, and fell safe. My ideal car, a geek's car, is far from everyone else's ideal car, and probably would cost more than an equivalent in its class...</p><p>And, driving the speed limit? pah! Around 90km/h is the best fuel mileage an ICE can achieve (55mph). Driving around the city at 50km/h I can just feel the gas wasted on my idle RPMs. The speed limits need to be raised. They should not be a revenue stream for local governments...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of things can be done to improve gas mileage \ _right now \ _ .
But they wo n't be for many reasons .
I 'd love to have a small , turbocharged , manual trans vehicle ( rwd ideally ) , but the north american car culture considers it unpopular .
People want either weakling 4cyl automatic hondas , gigantic V6 automatic sedans , or worse , giant SUVs with automatic transmissions and an AWD that does n't work .
Where 's the logic in that ?
Well , it 's the majority 's logic .
People want things that are cheap , convenient , easy to drive , and fell safe .
My ideal car , a geek 's car , is far from everyone else 's ideal car , and probably would cost more than an equivalent in its class...And , driving the speed limit ?
pah ! Around 90km/h is the best fuel mileage an ICE can achieve ( 55mph ) .
Driving around the city at 50km/h I can just feel the gas wasted on my idle RPMs .
The speed limits need to be raised .
They should not be a revenue stream for local governments.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of things can be done to improve gas mileage \_right now\_.
But they won't be for many reasons.
I'd love to have a small, turbocharged, manual trans vehicle (rwd ideally), but the north american car culture considers it unpopular.
People want either weakling 4cyl automatic hondas, gigantic V6 automatic sedans, or worse, giant SUVs with automatic transmissions and an AWD that doesn't work.
Where's the logic in that?
Well, it's the majority's logic.
People want things that are cheap, convenient, easy to drive, and fell safe.
My ideal car, a geek's car, is far from everyone else's ideal car, and probably would cost more than an equivalent in its class...And, driving the speed limit?
pah! Around 90km/h is the best fuel mileage an ICE can achieve (55mph).
Driving around the city at 50km/h I can just feel the gas wasted on my idle RPMs.
The speed limits need to be raised.
They should not be a revenue stream for local governments...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215016</id>
	<title>Not very useful</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266676440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell you what instead of building me a vehicle out of tissue paper and sticks that gets 2k+ miles to the gallon.  What can you build me that can get 50 miles to the gallon and can off-road and haul as well as my little 1998 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 (It's not a monster with it's 4 cylinder, but it can billy goat up trails I can barely walk up and hauls all my gear just fine).</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; I'd be much more interested in that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell you what instead of building me a vehicle out of tissue paper and sticks that gets 2k + miles to the gallon .
What can you build me that can get 50 miles to the gallon and can off-road and haul as well as my little 1998 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 ( It 's not a monster with it 's 4 cylinder , but it can billy goat up trails I can barely walk up and hauls all my gear just fine ) .
    I 'd be much more interested in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell you what instead of building me a vehicle out of tissue paper and sticks that gets 2k+ miles to the gallon.
What can you build me that can get 50 miles to the gallon and can off-road and haul as well as my little 1998 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 (It's not a monster with it's 4 cylinder, but it can billy goat up trails I can barely walk up and hauls all my gear just fine).
    I'd be much more interested in that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214316</id>
	<title>Re:The supercar version was better</title>
	<author>rwa2</author>
	<datestamp>1266670500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've long dreamed about a vehicle like this while walking to school.  Well, except mine was hybrid pedal powered, but nonetheless, the form factor looks roughly the same as what I had envisioned.  I became a mechanical engineer in order to work on stuff like this; however in the DC area the only jobs I've been able to snag were relatively boring defense programming drivel.  Someday... when I move far away and can have a garage and setup a shop...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've long dreamed about a vehicle like this while walking to school .
Well , except mine was hybrid pedal powered , but nonetheless , the form factor looks roughly the same as what I had envisioned .
I became a mechanical engineer in order to work on stuff like this ; however in the DC area the only jobs I 've been able to snag were relatively boring defense programming drivel .
Someday... when I move far away and can have a garage and setup a shop.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've long dreamed about a vehicle like this while walking to school.
Well, except mine was hybrid pedal powered, but nonetheless, the form factor looks roughly the same as what I had envisioned.
I became a mechanical engineer in order to work on stuff like this; however in the DC area the only jobs I've been able to snag were relatively boring defense programming drivel.
Someday... when I move far away and can have a garage and setup a shop...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217164</id>
	<title>Re:The supercar version was better</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266748020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A tragic end to an amazing vehicle.</p></div><p>

Here's an <a href="http://gas2.org/2009/11/20/aptera-troubles-get-the-full-inside-story-here/" title="gas2.org" rel="nofollow">article</a> [gas2.org] (and it's <a href="http://gas2.org/2009/12/21/inside-aptera-troubles-part-ii/" title="gas2.org" rel="nofollow">part II</a> [gas2.org]) on the Aptera management crisis. Basically, a standard issue Wall Street scammer got in a destroyed everything. She previously planned one of the "one of the largest accounting frauds in US history" according to the SEC.<br> <br>

How about the opposite approach? How about a huge all-American SUV filled with literally a ton of batteries. For example, imagine a Hummer H3 filled with 1 ton of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nickel-iron\_battery" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">nickel-iron</a> [wikipedia.org] batteries. It would go about 150 miles on a charge at 65 mph. If we could apply modern techniques to making the battery, we could get it for a very low price. This would bust down the primary obstacles to the adoption of electric vehicles: cost and battery durability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A tragic end to an amazing vehicle .
Here 's an article [ gas2.org ] ( and it 's part II [ gas2.org ] ) on the Aptera management crisis .
Basically , a standard issue Wall Street scammer got in a destroyed everything .
She previously planned one of the " one of the largest accounting frauds in US history " according to the SEC .
How about the opposite approach ?
How about a huge all-American SUV filled with literally a ton of batteries .
For example , imagine a Hummer H3 filled with 1 ton of nickel-iron [ wikipedia.org ] batteries .
It would go about 150 miles on a charge at 65 mph .
If we could apply modern techniques to making the battery , we could get it for a very low price .
This would bust down the primary obstacles to the adoption of electric vehicles : cost and battery durability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A tragic end to an amazing vehicle.
Here's an article [gas2.org] (and it's part II [gas2.org]) on the Aptera management crisis.
Basically, a standard issue Wall Street scammer got in a destroyed everything.
She previously planned one of the "one of the largest accounting frauds in US history" according to the SEC.
How about the opposite approach?
How about a huge all-American SUV filled with literally a ton of batteries.
For example, imagine a Hummer H3 filled with 1 ton of nickel-iron [wikipedia.org] batteries.
It would go about 150 miles on a charge at 65 mph.
If we could apply modern techniques to making the battery, we could get it for a very low price.
This would bust down the primary obstacles to the adoption of electric vehicles: cost and battery durability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215450</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212336</id>
	<title>Miles per useless</title>
	<author>Kenoli</author>
	<datestamp>1266699000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe someone would care if the vehicle had some practical applications.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe someone would care if the vehicle had some practical applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe someone would care if the vehicle had some practical applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215592</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather bicycle.</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1266682140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30. I have better performance than that on my bike (at least when I'm in shape) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well.</p></div></blockquote><p>This has a 3HP engine.  Humans manage about 0.25HP on a bike, with the exceptions of world-class athletes, who can maybe double that.  So...</p><p>*  Stick this engine on a bike, and it'll accelerate 12X faster, and have 12X the top speed you could possibly manage.</p><p>* You're going to be spending a LOT more money on food if you're riding 3,000 miles on a bike.</p><p>* It's rather cold when I go to work, and sometimes raining.  I haven't seen many bikes with enclosed cockpits.</p><p>* If you DO find an enclosed bike, I can guarantee you won't get a fraction the speed of this thing, even in the best shape.</p><p>* This is an extreme example.  Why does everyone complain that some concept car isn't EXACTLY what they would want?  I'm ecstatic to see people working on what is clearly going to be the real future of automobiles, rather than squandering many hundreds of millions of dollars on idiocy like hydrogen/ethanol subsidies.  i.e. Making equivalent-performing cars at half or 1/4th the weight is reasonably achievable, and about the only reasonable way forward in a world of energy shortages.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30 .
I have better performance than that on my bike ( at least when I 'm in shape ) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well.This has a 3HP engine .
Humans manage about 0.25HP on a bike , with the exceptions of world-class athletes , who can maybe double that .
So... * Stick this engine on a bike , and it 'll accelerate 12X faster , and have 12X the top speed you could possibly manage .
* You 're going to be spending a LOT more money on food if you 're riding 3,000 miles on a bike .
* It 's rather cold when I go to work , and sometimes raining .
I have n't seen many bikes with enclosed cockpits .
* If you DO find an enclosed bike , I can guarantee you wo n't get a fraction the speed of this thing , even in the best shape .
* This is an extreme example .
Why does everyone complain that some concept car is n't EXACTLY what they would want ?
I 'm ecstatic to see people working on what is clearly going to be the real future of automobiles , rather than squandering many hundreds of millions of dollars on idiocy like hydrogen/ethanol subsidies .
i.e. Making equivalent-performing cars at half or 1/4th the weight is reasonably achievable , and about the only reasonable way forward in a world of energy shortages .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30.
I have better performance than that on my bike (at least when I'm in shape) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well.This has a 3HP engine.
Humans manage about 0.25HP on a bike, with the exceptions of world-class athletes, who can maybe double that.
So...*  Stick this engine on a bike, and it'll accelerate 12X faster, and have 12X the top speed you could possibly manage.
* You're going to be spending a LOT more money on food if you're riding 3,000 miles on a bike.
* It's rather cold when I go to work, and sometimes raining.
I haven't seen many bikes with enclosed cockpits.
* If you DO find an enclosed bike, I can guarantee you won't get a fraction the speed of this thing, even in the best shape.
* This is an extreme example.
Why does everyone complain that some concept car isn't EXACTLY what they would want?
I'm ecstatic to see people working on what is clearly going to be the real future of automobiles, rather than squandering many hundreds of millions of dollars on idiocy like hydrogen/ethanol subsidies.
i.e. Making equivalent-performing cars at half or 1/4th the weight is reasonably achievable, and about the only reasonable way forward in a world of energy shortages.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212472</id>
	<title>seattle to vegas</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266656640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>So, Seattle to Las Vegas is about 1200 miles. If it can go 861 MPH, that's a little less than 3 hours travel time. All without even using a full gallon of gas! That's pretty damn impressive!</htmltext>
<tokenext>So , Seattle to Las Vegas is about 1200 miles .
If it can go 861 MPH , that 's a little less than 3 hours travel time .
All without even using a full gallon of gas !
That 's pretty damn impressive !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, Seattle to Las Vegas is about 1200 miles.
If it can go 861 MPH, that's a little less than 3 hours travel time.
All without even using a full gallon of gas!
That's pretty damn impressive!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215842</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Especially solarcars, which can do 3000+ km without a single recharge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Especially solarcars , which can do 3000 + km without a single recharge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Especially solarcars, which can do 3000+ km without a single recharge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266656580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever</p></div><p>Most of us don't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate * right now * in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whateverMost of us do n't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whateverMost of us don't pull out in front of a truck or bus in the first place.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212634</id>
	<title>Lost the goal</title>
	<author>javelinco</author>
	<datestamp>1266657720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>The goal is to have a street capable car that people would gladly purchase and drive, not produce a bicycle that gets good gas mileage that bike riders wouldn't use.  Does this proof of concept even get us closer to the real goal?  It doesn't seem like it does.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The goal is to have a street capable car that people would gladly purchase and drive , not produce a bicycle that gets good gas mileage that bike riders would n't use .
Does this proof of concept even get us closer to the real goal ?
It does n't seem like it does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The goal is to have a street capable car that people would gladly purchase and drive, not produce a bicycle that gets good gas mileage that bike riders wouldn't use.
Does this proof of concept even get us closer to the real goal?
It doesn't seem like it does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213710</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Gaffod</author>
	<datestamp>1266665100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hey there partner, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1/x" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">have I</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=1/x" title="wolframalpha.com" rel="nofollow">got a function</a> [wolframalpha.com] <a href="http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Reciprocal.html" title="wolfram.com" rel="nofollow">for you!</a> [wolfram.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hey there partner , have I [ wikipedia.org ] got a function [ wolframalpha.com ] for you !
[ wolfram.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hey there partner, have I [wikipedia.org] got a function [wolframalpha.com] for you!
[wolfram.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217630</id>
	<title>Let me show you in simple term</title>
	<author>aepervius</author>
	<datestamp>1266758220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>MPG only show you in a very abstract way HOW to save money. Going from 70 MPG to 80 MPG  very obviously tell me for the same quantity of fuel I am getting further away. But if you have a fixed distance you travel in average per week (commuter) does it tell you how much you will spare with a simple glance ? No it does not. You either calculate your distance per week you travel and divide by the MPG to get the number of gallon, or you have to do exactly what the GP did or what we have in the EU for along time, you get the consumption for a FIX DISTANCE. Knowing that I am going from 16 liter per 100 to 4 liter per 100 km immediately shows me that NO MATTER the average distance I have per week, I will space 75\% fuel. Knowing my fuel budget is then a simple matter to calculate how much I spare, without EVER knowing how many kilometers I *really* do. <br> <br>In otehr word if my Fuel Budget is X euro(or dollar), and my new vehicule consumption for a FIX distance is -z\% , then my fuel budget in the month will get -z\% in average. On the other hand MPG figure are actually a tad misleading because of the inverse ratio as shown, the biggest number will tend to be grouped together. So going from 25 to 50 MPG (25 difference) is actually much MUCH better than going from 200 to 240 MPG (40 MPG difference). So for the consumer it is MUCH MUCH better toknow how many gallon per 100 miles (how many liter per 100 km) they will consume , rather than how many miles 1 gallon bring them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>MPG only show you in a very abstract way HOW to save money .
Going from 70 MPG to 80 MPG very obviously tell me for the same quantity of fuel I am getting further away .
But if you have a fixed distance you travel in average per week ( commuter ) does it tell you how much you will spare with a simple glance ?
No it does not .
You either calculate your distance per week you travel and divide by the MPG to get the number of gallon , or you have to do exactly what the GP did or what we have in the EU for along time , you get the consumption for a FIX DISTANCE .
Knowing that I am going from 16 liter per 100 to 4 liter per 100 km immediately shows me that NO MATTER the average distance I have per week , I will space 75 \ % fuel .
Knowing my fuel budget is then a simple matter to calculate how much I spare , without EVER knowing how many kilometers I * really * do .
In otehr word if my Fuel Budget is X euro ( or dollar ) , and my new vehicule consumption for a FIX distance is -z \ % , then my fuel budget in the month will get -z \ % in average .
On the other hand MPG figure are actually a tad misleading because of the inverse ratio as shown , the biggest number will tend to be grouped together .
So going from 25 to 50 MPG ( 25 difference ) is actually much MUCH better than going from 200 to 240 MPG ( 40 MPG difference ) .
So for the consumer it is MUCH MUCH better toknow how many gallon per 100 miles ( how many liter per 100 km ) they will consume , rather than how many miles 1 gallon bring them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPG only show you in a very abstract way HOW to save money.
Going from 70 MPG to 80 MPG  very obviously tell me for the same quantity of fuel I am getting further away.
But if you have a fixed distance you travel in average per week (commuter) does it tell you how much you will spare with a simple glance ?
No it does not.
You either calculate your distance per week you travel and divide by the MPG to get the number of gallon, or you have to do exactly what the GP did or what we have in the EU for along time, you get the consumption for a FIX DISTANCE.
Knowing that I am going from 16 liter per 100 to 4 liter per 100 km immediately shows me that NO MATTER the average distance I have per week, I will space 75\% fuel.
Knowing my fuel budget is then a simple matter to calculate how much I spare, without EVER knowing how many kilometers I *really* do.
In otehr word if my Fuel Budget is X euro(or dollar), and my new vehicule consumption for a FIX distance is -z\% , then my fuel budget in the month will get -z\% in average.
On the other hand MPG figure are actually a tad misleading because of the inverse ratio as shown, the biggest number will tend to be grouped together.
So going from 25 to 50 MPG (25 difference) is actually much MUCH better than going from 200 to 240 MPG (40 MPG difference).
So for the consumer it is MUCH MUCH better toknow how many gallon per 100 miles (how many liter per 100 km) they will consume , rather than how many miles 1 gallon bring them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214880</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212746</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>91degrees</author>
	<datestamp>1266658380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are the best aerodynamics?  How can we make a vehicle smaller and lighter?  Assuming we've optimised the aerodynamics and weight, how can we make the engine even more efficient?  We'll get some useful research from this, a lot of which will scale up even to make a truck more fuel efficient.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are the best aerodynamics ?
How can we make a vehicle smaller and lighter ?
Assuming we 've optimised the aerodynamics and weight , how can we make the engine even more efficient ?
We 'll get some useful research from this , a lot of which will scale up even to make a truck more fuel efficient .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are the best aerodynamics?
How can we make a vehicle smaller and lighter?
Assuming we've optimised the aerodynamics and weight, how can we make the engine even more efficient?
We'll get some useful research from this, a lot of which will scale up even to make a truck more fuel efficient.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216034</id>
	<title>Re:The supercar version was better</title>
	<author>countertrolling</author>
	<datestamp>1266687120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>...the Pres. Carter speed limit...</i></p><p>You mean this <a href="http://scrapetv.com/News/News\%20Pages/Politics/images-2/Richard-Nixon-leaving-white-house.jpg" title="scrapetv.com" rel="nofollow">Pres. Carter</a> [scrapetv.com]? *sigh* Just goes to show...  And guess who was president when it was repealed. I mean, not that these little trivialities really make a difference.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...the Pres .
Carter speed limit...You mean this Pres .
Carter [ scrapetv.com ] ?
* sigh * Just goes to show... And guess who was president when it was repealed .
I mean , not that these little trivialities really make a difference .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...the Pres.
Carter speed limit...You mean this Pres.
Carter [scrapetv.com]?
*sigh* Just goes to show...  And guess who was president when it was repealed.
I mean, not that these little trivialities really make a difference.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212306</id>
	<title>They say others did better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266698880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not to steal their thunder (and this mpg result is old news), but <a href="http://cpsmv.blogspot.com/2009/04/live-blogging-2009-ecomarathon-race-day.html" title="blogspot.com">according to their own blog</a> [blogspot.com], Universite Laval got 2757 mpg in that race. And Mater Dei High School <a href="http://www.materdeiwildcats.com/AboutMD/EditNews/tabid/64/ctl/ArticleView/mid/429/articleId/800/SupermileageTeamChampions.aspx" title="materdeiwildcats.com">hold the record with 2,843.4 mpg</a> [materdeiwildcats.com].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not to steal their thunder ( and this mpg result is old news ) , but according to their own blog [ blogspot.com ] , Universite Laval got 2757 mpg in that race .
And Mater Dei High School hold the record with 2,843.4 mpg [ materdeiwildcats.com ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not to steal their thunder (and this mpg result is old news), but according to their own blog [blogspot.com], Universite Laval got 2757 mpg in that race.
And Mater Dei High School hold the record with 2,843.4 mpg [materdeiwildcats.com].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31218252</id>
	<title>Re:Looks better than I thought.</title>
	<author>selven</author>
	<datestamp>1266766020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would 80mph take up 80/30 times as much gas <b>per mile</b>? I understand that air resistance goes up with velocity squared but at these low speeds I would imagine that friction with the ground is the dominant factor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would 80mph take up 80/30 times as much gas per mile ?
I understand that air resistance goes up with velocity squared but at these low speeds I would imagine that friction with the ground is the dominant factor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would 80mph take up 80/30 times as much gas per mile?
I understand that air resistance goes up with velocity squared but at these low speeds I would imagine that friction with the ground is the dominant factor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212190</id>
	<title>That's some amazing speed!</title>
	<author>leroybrown</author>
	<datestamp>1266698220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It originally clocked in at 861 MPH"</p><p>WOW!!!  That's some seriously astonishing speed at 2,752 miles per gallon!  My 30 minute commute just dropped to just under 2 minutes!  Take the top off and I won't even have to bother drying my hair after I get out of the shower.  The constant windburn would probably result in some ointments, but it's probably worth it.  Even if it only holds one gallon of gas, I'd only have to fill up every 2 months!  Take \_that\_ big oil, I'm sold!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It originally clocked in at 861 MPH " WOW ! ! !
That 's some seriously astonishing speed at 2,752 miles per gallon !
My 30 minute commute just dropped to just under 2 minutes !
Take the top off and I wo n't even have to bother drying my hair after I get out of the shower .
The constant windburn would probably result in some ointments , but it 's probably worth it .
Even if it only holds one gallon of gas , I 'd only have to fill up every 2 months !
Take \ _that \ _ big oil , I 'm sold !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It originally clocked in at 861 MPH"WOW!!!
That's some seriously astonishing speed at 2,752 miles per gallon!
My 30 minute commute just dropped to just under 2 minutes!
Take the top off and I won't even have to bother drying my hair after I get out of the shower.
The constant windburn would probably result in some ointments, but it's probably worth it.
Even if it only holds one gallon of gas, I'd only have to fill up every 2 months!
Take \_that\_ big oil, I'm sold!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31219190</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266774600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Would that it were so "cut and dry".  You make a good point about messing with others <em>safety</em>, but you're actually incorrect about the lower gear ratio being more inefficient in all circumstances.  The old economy tip to "drive at the slowest possible cruising speed in the highest possible gear" is correct.  A lot is compressed into that statement.</p><p>Thanks to physics, the amount of energy you use is, to first order, related directly to the <em>square</em> of your speed.  I don't know how to explain this to non-mathematical types, so the best I can do is this:</p><ul> <li>Roughly, increasing your speed from 10mph to 11mph doesn't cost you 1 unit of fuel, it costs you 21 units of fuel.</li><li>Similarly, increasing your speed from 11mph to 12mph doesn't cost you 21 units of fuel, it costs you 23 units of fuel.</li></ul><p>You and I probably both realize the <em>very</em> rough nature of that statement, so I'll continue.  It clearly depends on more than just speed.  For example, there's the number of RPMs of your engine.  Generally, the higher the RPMs, the less efficient.  Generally, and certainly not always for things like speed of rotation of the piston joint vs the speed of fuel explosion in the cylinder: there's an operating range.  Too low and you waste gas, and damage the engine to "laboring."  Or there's your example of the hills.  If you press down on the accelerator and don't speed up, for example, clearly you need to be in a lower gear, or you're just wasting gas, almost literally throwing it out your tail pipe.</p><p>Since we're on the hill example, the best ratio for climbing hills <em>is</em> different for every car, but usually boils down to the old economy driving tip.  Try to hit the cruising RPMs of your <strong>engine</strong>, in the highest possible gear, with your foot the least depressed on the pedal.</p><p>For reasons I'd rather not get into right now, I can't log in, so I won't get much cred for this; I'll try anyway.  Let me try the "trust me" tact, as I'm a PhD student in just this area: In terms of fuel economy, if you're like most Americans, then you <em>are</em> going too fast up hills.  Toyota's on-board computer is surprisingly correct for about 4 out of 5 cars, prius or not.</p><p>-- Kevin</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Would that it were so " cut and dry " .
You make a good point about messing with others safety , but you 're actually incorrect about the lower gear ratio being more inefficient in all circumstances .
The old economy tip to " drive at the slowest possible cruising speed in the highest possible gear " is correct .
A lot is compressed into that statement.Thanks to physics , the amount of energy you use is , to first order , related directly to the square of your speed .
I do n't know how to explain this to non-mathematical types , so the best I can do is this : Roughly , increasing your speed from 10mph to 11mph does n't cost you 1 unit of fuel , it costs you 21 units of fuel.Similarly , increasing your speed from 11mph to 12mph does n't cost you 21 units of fuel , it costs you 23 units of fuel.You and I probably both realize the very rough nature of that statement , so I 'll continue .
It clearly depends on more than just speed .
For example , there 's the number of RPMs of your engine .
Generally , the higher the RPMs , the less efficient .
Generally , and certainly not always for things like speed of rotation of the piston joint vs the speed of fuel explosion in the cylinder : there 's an operating range .
Too low and you waste gas , and damage the engine to " laboring .
" Or there 's your example of the hills .
If you press down on the accelerator and do n't speed up , for example , clearly you need to be in a lower gear , or you 're just wasting gas , almost literally throwing it out your tail pipe.Since we 're on the hill example , the best ratio for climbing hills is different for every car , but usually boils down to the old economy driving tip .
Try to hit the cruising RPMs of your engine , in the highest possible gear , with your foot the least depressed on the pedal.For reasons I 'd rather not get into right now , I ca n't log in , so I wo n't get much cred for this ; I 'll try anyway .
Let me try the " trust me " tact , as I 'm a PhD student in just this area : In terms of fuel economy , if you 're like most Americans , then you are going too fast up hills .
Toyota 's on-board computer is surprisingly correct for about 4 out of 5 cars , prius or not.-- Kevin</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would that it were so "cut and dry".
You make a good point about messing with others safety, but you're actually incorrect about the lower gear ratio being more inefficient in all circumstances.
The old economy tip to "drive at the slowest possible cruising speed in the highest possible gear" is correct.
A lot is compressed into that statement.Thanks to physics, the amount of energy you use is, to first order, related directly to the square of your speed.
I don't know how to explain this to non-mathematical types, so the best I can do is this: Roughly, increasing your speed from 10mph to 11mph doesn't cost you 1 unit of fuel, it costs you 21 units of fuel.Similarly, increasing your speed from 11mph to 12mph doesn't cost you 21 units of fuel, it costs you 23 units of fuel.You and I probably both realize the very rough nature of that statement, so I'll continue.
It clearly depends on more than just speed.
For example, there's the number of RPMs of your engine.
Generally, the higher the RPMs, the less efficient.
Generally, and certainly not always for things like speed of rotation of the piston joint vs the speed of fuel explosion in the cylinder: there's an operating range.
Too low and you waste gas, and damage the engine to "laboring.
"  Or there's your example of the hills.
If you press down on the accelerator and don't speed up, for example, clearly you need to be in a lower gear, or you're just wasting gas, almost literally throwing it out your tail pipe.Since we're on the hill example, the best ratio for climbing hills is different for every car, but usually boils down to the old economy driving tip.
Try to hit the cruising RPMs of your engine, in the highest possible gear, with your foot the least depressed on the pedal.For reasons I'd rather not get into right now, I can't log in, so I won't get much cred for this; I'll try anyway.
Let me try the "trust me" tact, as I'm a PhD student in just this area: In terms of fuel economy, if you're like most Americans, then you are going too fast up hills.
Toyota's on-board computer is surprisingly correct for about 4 out of 5 cars, prius or not.-- Kevin</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</id>
	<title>Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266659100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>MPG is backwards.  It tells you how much further you can go on a single gallon, not how much less fuel it'll take to cover a fixed distance.  In practical terms, the latter is much more relevant to how people drive.  If you buy a car which gets twice the MPG, you do not suddenly start driving twice as far every day.  Your miles driven each day will probably remain fixed, so fuel saved is based on the inverse of MPG.
<br> <br>
A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles.  2752 MPG sounds like a lot.  But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle.  To cover a distance of 50 miles, the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons.  The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon, for a savings of 1 gallon.  The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons, for a savings of 0.982 gallons.  This is <i>less improvement</i> than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG.  Because MPG is inverted, a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves <i>a lot</i> more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle.
<br> <br>
Consequently, the most important thing for reducing overall fuel consumption is to get people out of gas guzzlers and into more fuel efficient vehicles.  Stuff like hypermiling vehicles getting &gt;2000 MPG are interesting from an engineering and design standpoint, but they serve little practical use.  Even if you could develop a real car which got 2000 MPG, getting a single SUV driver to switch to a Prius would save 3.5x as much fuel as getting a single Prius driver to switch to this new ultra-high MPG vehicle.
<br> <br>
This is why most of the rest of the world measures fuel efficiency in liters/100 km.  It makes the amount of fuel your car will use for a typical drive pretty obvious, and makes it dirt simple to compare how much fuel you'll save switching to a different vehicle (just subtract the two numbers):
<br>SUV = 16 liters/100 km
<br>sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km
<br>Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km
<br>vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 km</htmltext>
<tokenext>MPG is backwards .
It tells you how much further you can go on a single gallon , not how much less fuel it 'll take to cover a fixed distance .
In practical terms , the latter is much more relevant to how people drive .
If you buy a car which gets twice the MPG , you do not suddenly start driving twice as far every day .
Your miles driven each day will probably remain fixed , so fuel saved is based on the inverse of MPG .
A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles .
2752 MPG sounds like a lot .
But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle .
To cover a distance of 50 miles , the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons .
The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon , for a savings of 1 gallon .
The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons , for a savings of 0.982 gallons .
This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG .
Because MPG is inverted , a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle .
Consequently , the most important thing for reducing overall fuel consumption is to get people out of gas guzzlers and into more fuel efficient vehicles .
Stuff like hypermiling vehicles getting &gt; 2000 MPG are interesting from an engineering and design standpoint , but they serve little practical use .
Even if you could develop a real car which got 2000 MPG , getting a single SUV driver to switch to a Prius would save 3.5x as much fuel as getting a single Prius driver to switch to this new ultra-high MPG vehicle .
This is why most of the rest of the world measures fuel efficiency in liters/100 km .
It makes the amount of fuel your car will use for a typical drive pretty obvious , and makes it dirt simple to compare how much fuel you 'll save switching to a different vehicle ( just subtract the two numbers ) : SUV = 16 liters/100 km sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 km</tokentext>
<sentencetext>MPG is backwards.
It tells you how much further you can go on a single gallon, not how much less fuel it'll take to cover a fixed distance.
In practical terms, the latter is much more relevant to how people drive.
If you buy a car which gets twice the MPG, you do not suddenly start driving twice as far every day.
Your miles driven each day will probably remain fixed, so fuel saved is based on the inverse of MPG.
A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles.
2752 MPG sounds like a lot.
But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle.
To cover a distance of 50 miles, the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons.
The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon, for a savings of 1 gallon.
The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons, for a savings of 0.982 gallons.
This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG.
Because MPG is inverted, a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle.
Consequently, the most important thing for reducing overall fuel consumption is to get people out of gas guzzlers and into more fuel efficient vehicles.
Stuff like hypermiling vehicles getting &gt;2000 MPG are interesting from an engineering and design standpoint, but they serve little practical use.
Even if you could develop a real car which got 2000 MPG, getting a single SUV driver to switch to a Prius would save 3.5x as much fuel as getting a single Prius driver to switch to this new ultra-high MPG vehicle.
This is why most of the rest of the world measures fuel efficiency in liters/100 km.
It makes the amount of fuel your car will use for a typical drive pretty obvious, and makes it dirt simple to compare how much fuel you'll save switching to a different vehicle (just subtract the two numbers):
SUV = 16 liters/100 km
sedan = 9.4 liters/100 km
Prius = 4.7 liters/100 km
vehicle in article = 0.085 liters/100 km</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422</id>
	<title>Looks better than I thought.</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1266699540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know. Most of those things look really, REALLY uncool. This one, with a bit of work, comes close to a batmobile. Not bad at all.</p><p>Of course, let&rsquo;s see how it does as a 4-person+dog car going at 80 mph in a crash situation.<br>It&rsquo;s always much easier do do all this at low speeds and loads.<br>My guess: 2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) = <strong>206.4 mpg</strong>. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know .
Most of those things look really , REALLY uncool .
This one , with a bit of work , comes close to a batmobile .
Not bad at all.Of course , let    s see how it does as a 4-person + dog car going at 80 mph in a crash situation.It    s always much easier do do all this at low speeds and loads.My guess : 2752 mpg / 5 seats / ( 80 mph / 30 mph ) = 206.4 mpg .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know.
Most of those things look really, REALLY uncool.
This one, with a bit of work, comes close to a batmobile.
Not bad at all.Of course, let’s see how it does as a 4-person+dog car going at 80 mph in a crash situation.It’s always much easier do do all this at low speeds and loads.My guess: 2752 mpg / 5 seats / (80 mph / 30 mph) = 206.4 mpg.
^^</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215874</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266685320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's called a train, but I digress.  A car that traveled even at slow speeds, that hardly ever stopped except for fuel would be amazing for traveling.  Only problem for the passengers to be comfortable enough it would have to be big enough to lay down in or stretch out and walk around in, so pretty much you are talking about something as tall as an RV and as big as a fuel sized conversion van.</p><p>Size wouldn't be an issue if it's speed was kept below 50mph for fuel economy.  You could tuck your kids and yourself into bed and wake up in the morning at Grandma's house.  It would require a whole new road system to keep keep traffic types seperated so that the vehicles could adjust their speeds so that they would arrive about the same time the passengers woke up.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's called a train , but I digress .
A car that traveled even at slow speeds , that hardly ever stopped except for fuel would be amazing for traveling .
Only problem for the passengers to be comfortable enough it would have to be big enough to lay down in or stretch out and walk around in , so pretty much you are talking about something as tall as an RV and as big as a fuel sized conversion van.Size would n't be an issue if it 's speed was kept below 50mph for fuel economy .
You could tuck your kids and yourself into bed and wake up in the morning at Grandma 's house .
It would require a whole new road system to keep keep traffic types seperated so that the vehicles could adjust their speeds so that they would arrive about the same time the passengers woke up .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's called a train, but I digress.
A car that traveled even at slow speeds, that hardly ever stopped except for fuel would be amazing for traveling.
Only problem for the passengers to be comfortable enough it would have to be big enough to lay down in or stretch out and walk around in, so pretty much you are talking about something as tall as an RV and as big as a fuel sized conversion van.Size wouldn't be an issue if it's speed was kept below 50mph for fuel economy.
You could tuck your kids and yourself into bed and wake up in the morning at Grandma's house.
It would require a whole new road system to keep keep traffic types seperated so that the vehicles could adjust their speeds so that they would arrive about the same time the passengers woke up.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213556</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Raptoer</author>
	<datestamp>1266663780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're missing the point though, Cal Poly isn't a research university. This isn't research, and these student's didn't do it for some research grant and probably won't publish a paper about it or anything. They did it for the hell of it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point though , Cal Poly is n't a research university .
This is n't research , and these student 's did n't do it for some research grant and probably wo n't publish a paper about it or anything .
They did it for the hell of it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point though, Cal Poly isn't a research university.
This isn't research, and these student's didn't do it for some research grant and probably won't publish a paper about it or anything.
They did it for the hell of it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212852</id>
	<title>scooter</title>
	<author>Faux\_Pseudo</author>
	<datestamp>1266658980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>3 horse power 50cc honda build with a top speed of about 30 MPH?  That sounds like the engin they use on their scooters. I have 4 of them and they run for ever.  Without any modifications or hypermileing they will get between 70 and 100 mpg.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>3 horse power 50cc honda build with a top speed of about 30 MPH ?
That sounds like the engin they use on their scooters .
I have 4 of them and they run for ever .
Without any modifications or hypermileing they will get between 70 and 100 mpg .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>3 horse power 50cc honda build with a top speed of about 30 MPH?
That sounds like the engin they use on their scooters.
I have 4 of them and they run for ever.
Without any modifications or hypermileing they will get between 70 and 100 mpg.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212534</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Alwin Henseler</author>
	<datestamp>1266657180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>(..) enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.</p></div><p> <em>Mass</em> doesn't protect you in an accident. <em>Material</em> (perferably light-weight) that can be deformed (around a strong inner cage), and converts energy in heat when deformed, does. As do seatbelts, airbags, and windshields that shatter into tiny pieces. More mass OTOH means more energy that must be absorbed, more stress on the brake system, more force that the tires need to transfer to the road, and more damage to the other car (which might just happen to be the one you're in). Less mass improves you power/acceleration ratio, and is easier to bring to a halt. Or, given the same constraints as a heavier vehicle, smaller/lighter breaks, engine, transmission system and tires to archieve the same effect.
</p><p><div class="quote"><p>People want vehicles very much like what they already have. .<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.</p></div><p>Not really... if you look at market developments it appears people want smaller, lighter, more energy-efficient &amp; eco-friendly cars. What would really sell (a cheap, all-electric vehicle that goes to your holiday destination &amp; back on a single charge) is totally <em>unlike</em> what most people have today.



</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( .. ) enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident , enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage , and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate * right now * in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever .
Mass does n't protect you in an accident .
Material ( perferably light-weight ) that can be deformed ( around a strong inner cage ) , and converts energy in heat when deformed , does .
As do seatbelts , airbags , and windshields that shatter into tiny pieces .
More mass OTOH means more energy that must be absorbed , more stress on the brake system , more force that the tires need to transfer to the road , and more damage to the other car ( which might just happen to be the one you 're in ) .
Less mass improves you power/acceleration ratio , and is easier to bring to a halt .
Or , given the same constraints as a heavier vehicle , smaller/lighter breaks , engine , transmission system and tires to archieve the same effect .
People want vehicles very much like what they already have .
. .Not really... if you look at market developments it appears people want smaller , lighter , more energy-efficient &amp; eco-friendly cars .
What would really sell ( a cheap , all-electric vehicle that goes to your holiday destination &amp; back on a single charge ) is totally unlike what most people have today .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(..) enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.
Mass doesn't protect you in an accident.
Material (perferably light-weight) that can be deformed (around a strong inner cage), and converts energy in heat when deformed, does.
As do seatbelts, airbags, and windshields that shatter into tiny pieces.
More mass OTOH means more energy that must be absorbed, more stress on the brake system, more force that the tires need to transfer to the road, and more damage to the other car (which might just happen to be the one you're in).
Less mass improves you power/acceleration ratio, and is easier to bring to a halt.
Or, given the same constraints as a heavier vehicle, smaller/lighter breaks, engine, transmission system and tires to archieve the same effect.
People want vehicles very much like what they already have.
. .Not really... if you look at market developments it appears people want smaller, lighter, more energy-efficient &amp; eco-friendly cars.
What would really sell (a cheap, all-electric vehicle that goes to your holiday destination &amp; back on a single charge) is totally unlike what most people have today.




	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215682</id>
	<title>Re:A top speed of 30mph</title>
	<author>OrangeCatholic</author>
	<datestamp>1266683160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&gt;A top speed of 30mph...and it just went from cool to useless.
<br> <br>
Hardly.  I average 20-30mph to work each day.  That's getting up to 60mph and then stopping at a light every couple of minutes.  Considering I'm getting 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of my car, that's a pretty awful road network I have to use.
<br> <br>
Ideally you would get this thing up to 30mph and then actually drive it for more than two minutes at a time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; A top speed of 30mph...and it just went from cool to useless .
Hardly. I average 20-30mph to work each day .
That 's getting up to 60mph and then stopping at a light every couple of minutes .
Considering I 'm getting 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of my car , that 's a pretty awful road network I have to use .
Ideally you would get this thing up to 30mph and then actually drive it for more than two minutes at a time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;A top speed of 30mph...and it just went from cool to useless.
Hardly.  I average 20-30mph to work each day.
That's getting up to 60mph and then stopping at a light every couple of minutes.
Considering I'm getting 1/2 to 1/3 the speed of my car, that's a pretty awful road network I have to use.
Ideally you would get this thing up to 30mph and then actually drive it for more than two minutes at a time.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212124</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216440</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>CAIMLAS</author>
	<datestamp>1266691560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, we'll get right on that. I'm currently working on a prototype which burns hippies. There are some kinks to work out (such as burning hippies requiring an initial dousing of burning oil), but I'm sure that'll all be worked out once we get the venture capital and hit the banks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , we 'll get right on that .
I 'm currently working on a prototype which burns hippies .
There are some kinks to work out ( such as burning hippies requiring an initial dousing of burning oil ) , but I 'm sure that 'll all be worked out once we get the venture capital and hit the banks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, we'll get right on that.
I'm currently working on a prototype which burns hippies.
There are some kinks to work out (such as burning hippies requiring an initial dousing of burning oil), but I'm sure that'll all be worked out once we get the venture capital and hit the banks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214090</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266668880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Miles Per Gallon there is being used as a unit of energy consumption, not gas consumption. For an electric car it means "how much gasoline would you need to burn to produce this much energy?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Miles Per Gallon there is being used as a unit of energy consumption , not gas consumption .
For an electric car it means " how much gasoline would you need to burn to produce this much energy ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Miles Per Gallon there is being used as a unit of energy consumption, not gas consumption.
For an electric car it means "how much gasoline would you need to burn to produce this much energy?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212548</id>
	<title>sex with a cOck</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266657240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>OpenBSD leader Theo with process and confirmed that *BSD of business and goals. It's when philoso4hies must [klerck.org]? Corporate I know it sux0rs, problem stems</htmltext>
<tokenext>OpenBSD leader Theo with process and confirmed that * BSD of business and goals .
It 's when philoso4hies must [ klerck.org ] ?
Corporate I know it sux0rs , problem stems</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OpenBSD leader Theo with process and confirmed that *BSD of business and goals.
It's when philoso4hies must [klerck.org]?
Corporate I know it sux0rs, problem stems</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212096</id>
	<title>861 MPH...wow.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266697680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>861 MPH...3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine...guess my lawnmower can really cook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>861 MPH...3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine...guess my lawnmower can really cook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>861 MPH...3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine...guess my lawnmower can really cook.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217052</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>KDR\_11k</author>
	<datestamp>1266745320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That thing's basically the shape of a coffin, not much room to move in and going cross-country at 30MPH would be supremely uncomfortable.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That thing 's basically the shape of a coffin , not much room to move in and going cross-country at 30MPH would be supremely uncomfortable .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That thing's basically the shape of a coffin, not much room to move in and going cross-country at 30MPH would be supremely uncomfortable.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212322</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214162</id>
	<title>Re:clocked in at 861 MPH</title>
	<author>earthforce\_1</author>
	<datestamp>1266669480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Damn typos.  And I was just about to order one too.  The cops would have needed an F-16 on full afterburners to catch me!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Damn typos .
And I was just about to order one too .
The cops would have needed an F-16 on full afterburners to catch me !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Damn typos.
And I was just about to order one too.
The cops would have needed an F-16 on full afterburners to catch me!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212092</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222716</id>
	<title>Call me unimpressed</title>
	<author>RogueWarrior65</author>
	<datestamp>1266751680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll be impressed when a 36-foot motorhome gets 50 MPG.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll be impressed when a 36-foot motorhome gets 50 MPG .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll be impressed when a 36-foot motorhome gets 50 MPG.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31223046</id>
	<title>Just how long...</title>
	<author>YankDownUnder</author>
	<datestamp>1266753780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...do you think it's going to take the Petrol companies to shut this one up and keep it from the public? (On that same token, hydrogren? Where'd that go? Or Steam? Where'd that go? And why are we still "so far behind" in development of electric vehicles?)</htmltext>
<tokenext>...do you think it 's going to take the Petrol companies to shut this one up and keep it from the public ?
( On that same token , hydrogren ?
Where 'd that go ?
Or Steam ?
Where 'd that go ?
And why are we still " so far behind " in development of electric vehicles ?
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...do you think it's going to take the Petrol companies to shut this one up and keep it from the public?
(On that same token, hydrogren?
Where'd that go?
Or Steam?
Where'd that go?
And why are we still "so far behind" in development of electric vehicles?
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212450</id>
	<title>MPH?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266656460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."</p><p>Damn, that's a lot of speed</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today .
" Damn , that 's a lot of speed</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.
"Damn, that's a lot of speed</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222082</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>drinkypoo</author>
	<datestamp>1266748320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>There's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique. Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, making sure tires aren't underinflated, and keeping the engined tuned and clean. Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy.</p> </div><p>Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, keeping tires inflated, and keeping the engine in good order are <em>not</em> hypermiling techniques. They are basic design and maintenance. The techniques are <em>also</em> exploited by hypermilers, but they are all things either strived for or already recommended by manufacturers. The US gov't is the enemy of weight reduction and the average consumer is the enemy of aerodynamics; people won't buy cars which look like that, and the government keeps ratcheting up crash test standards rather than mandating stricter licensing for heavy vehicles. And have you seen the oil weights used in modern vehicles? ATF has gotten lighter, gearboxes which used to take gear oil take motor oil (much much lighter) and most modern engines specify 5W30 or lighter oil, where they used to specify 10W40 or heavier.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Going as slow as the speed limit (imagine that!) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over.</p> </div><p>Not in my former 1989 240SX or my current 1982 300SD, both of which get their best mileage around 80 MPH.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone users</p></div><p>Funny how you don't understand English. It's not inattentive behavior I am objecting to by hypermilers, but the inconsiderate kind. They'll save themselves a few MPG and harm everyone else's fuel economy, creating a net loss.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Bashing on hypermiling in general because you can't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones.</p> </div><p>My point was that the hypermilers do the same thing the hybrid drivers do, but moreso, and I can't even stand the hybrid drivers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain. Where's your outrage over bad road routing and design?</p></div><p>Oh, that's pretty heinous as well. I have the most ire towards the car companies for buying and shutting down profitable public transportation systems, though. Everything else is a natural consequence of too many cars, which is a natural consequence of inadequate public transportation, a situation deliberately created by the big three automakers.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>And where's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done? They haven't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy. They'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances, such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser.</p></div><p>That's the consumer's fault. They buy cars more for appearance than for function. As long as they do that, the automakers will compete to sell them something they will buy.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter. 20\% hit to fuel economy so you don't have to shift gears.</p></div><p>That is a bunch of shit. Every automatic trans since the 70s has had a lockup torque converter. The transmission is only responsible for a portion of the drivetrain loss, so 20\% in the transmission department is less than 10\% overall, and that only applies to <em>crappy</em> automatic transmissions. Meanwhile, CVTs produce <em>superior</em> mileage to manual transmissions, by permitting the engine to run in its powerband more often.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>A top gear that isn't high enough, so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift.</p></div><p>Most cars have the same final gear ratio whether they have an automatic or a manual trans.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>But you know what? We can have an automatic that doesn't need a torque converter.</p></div><p>Yeah, like a sequential manual gearbox, with automatic shifting and rev matching. But that's substantially more expensive than even an automatic, let alone a five speed.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars don't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through. We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it.</p></div><p>Not really. The only reason it works in hybrids is that you can accelerate and thus get the drivetrain moving by operating the electric motors. We live in the real world, where real world problems with starters and with engines alike make this a bad idea. If the engine doesn't fire up in a hybrid, you still get to limp off the road.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique .
Aerodynamics , weight reduction , use of lightweight oils , making sure tires are n't underinflated , and keeping the engined tuned and clean .
Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy .
Aerodynamics , weight reduction , use of lightweight oils , keeping tires inflated , and keeping the engine in good order are not hypermiling techniques .
They are basic design and maintenance .
The techniques are also exploited by hypermilers , but they are all things either strived for or already recommended by manufacturers .
The US gov't is the enemy of weight reduction and the average consumer is the enemy of aerodynamics ; people wo n't buy cars which look like that , and the government keeps ratcheting up crash test standards rather than mandating stricter licensing for heavy vehicles .
And have you seen the oil weights used in modern vehicles ?
ATF has gotten lighter , gearboxes which used to take gear oil take motor oil ( much much lighter ) and most modern engines specify 5W30 or lighter oil , where they used to specify 10W40 or heavier.Going as slow as the speed limit ( imagine that !
) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over .
Not in my former 1989 240SX or my current 1982 300SD , both of which get their best mileage around 80 MPH.Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone usersFunny how you do n't understand English .
It 's not inattentive behavior I am objecting to by hypermilers , but the inconsiderate kind .
They 'll save themselves a few MPG and harm everyone else 's fuel economy , creating a net loss.Bashing on hypermiling in general because you ca n't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones .
My point was that the hypermilers do the same thing the hybrid drivers do , but moreso , and I ca n't even stand the hybrid drivers.But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain .
Where 's your outrage over bad road routing and design ? Oh , that 's pretty heinous as well .
I have the most ire towards the car companies for buying and shutting down profitable public transportation systems , though .
Everything else is a natural consequence of too many cars , which is a natural consequence of inadequate public transportation , a situation deliberately created by the big three automakers.And where 's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done ?
They have n't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy .
They 'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances , such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser.That 's the consumer 's fault .
They buy cars more for appearance than for function .
As long as they do that , the automakers will compete to sell them something they will buy.One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter .
20 \ % hit to fuel economy so you do n't have to shift gears.That is a bunch of shit .
Every automatic trans since the 70s has had a lockup torque converter .
The transmission is only responsible for a portion of the drivetrain loss , so 20 \ % in the transmission department is less than 10 \ % overall , and that only applies to crappy automatic transmissions .
Meanwhile , CVTs produce superior mileage to manual transmissions , by permitting the engine to run in its powerband more often.A top gear that is n't high enough , so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift.Most cars have the same final gear ratio whether they have an automatic or a manual trans.But you know what ?
We can have an automatic that does n't need a torque converter.Yeah , like a sequential manual gearbox , with automatic shifting and rev matching .
But that 's substantially more expensive than even an automatic , let alone a five speed.Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars do n't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through .
We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it.Not really .
The only reason it works in hybrids is that you can accelerate and thus get the drivetrain moving by operating the electric motors .
We live in the real world , where real world problems with starters and with engines alike make this a bad idea .
If the engine does n't fire up in a hybrid , you still get to limp off the road .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's plenty more to hypermiling than driving technique.
Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, making sure tires aren't underinflated, and keeping the engined tuned and clean.
Quite a few of those things increase safety as well as fuel economy.
Aerodynamics, weight reduction, use of lightweight oils, keeping tires inflated, and keeping the engine in good order are not hypermiling techniques.
They are basic design and maintenance.
The techniques are also exploited by hypermilers, but they are all things either strived for or already recommended by manufacturers.
The US gov't is the enemy of weight reduction and the average consumer is the enemy of aerodynamics; people won't buy cars which look like that, and the government keeps ratcheting up crash test standards rather than mandating stricter licensing for heavy vehicles.
And have you seen the oil weights used in modern vehicles?
ATF has gotten lighter, gearboxes which used to take gear oil take motor oil (much much lighter) and most modern engines specify 5W30 or lighter oil, where they used to specify 10W40 or heavier.Going as slow as the speed limit (imagine that!
) saves gas compared to going 10 plus mph over.
Not in my former 1989 240SX or my current 1982 300SD, both of which get their best mileage around 80 MPH.Funny how you pick on hypermilers for alleged inattentiveness while overlooking cell phone usersFunny how you don't understand English.
It's not inattentive behavior I am objecting to by hypermilers, but the inconsiderate kind.
They'll save themselves a few MPG and harm everyone else's fuel economy, creating a net loss.Bashing on hypermiling in general because you can't stand sharing the road with a few hybrid drivers who might not even be doing any real hypermiling makes about as much sense as hating all uses of cellphones.
My point was that the hypermilers do the same thing the hybrid drivers do, but moreso, and I can't even stand the hybrid drivers.But picking on drivers is too far down the food chain.
Where's your outrage over bad road routing and design?Oh, that's pretty heinous as well.
I have the most ire towards the car companies for buying and shutting down profitable public transportation systems, though.
Everything else is a natural consequence of too many cars, which is a natural consequence of inadequate public transportation, a situation deliberately created by the big three automakers.And where's the outrage over the crap the automakers have done?
They haven't hesitated to save themselves a few pennies though it costs fuel economy.
They'll even waste gas for the sake of appearances, such as the useless grill opening that is much wider than the radiator and condenser.That's the consumer's fault.
They buy cars more for appearance than for function.
As long as they do that, the automakers will compete to sell them something they will buy.One of the biggest is the classic automatic tranny with torque converter.
20\% hit to fuel economy so you don't have to shift gears.That is a bunch of shit.
Every automatic trans since the 70s has had a lockup torque converter.
The transmission is only responsible for a portion of the drivetrain loss, so 20\% in the transmission department is less than 10\% overall, and that only applies to crappy automatic transmissions.
Meanwhile, CVTs produce superior mileage to manual transmissions, by permitting the engine to run in its powerband more often.A top gear that isn't high enough, so that you can roar around slower cars without having to downshift.Most cars have the same final gear ratio whether they have an automatic or a manual trans.But you know what?
We can have an automatic that doesn't need a torque converter.Yeah, like a sequential manual gearbox, with automatic shifting and rev matching.
But that's substantially more expensive than even an automatic, let alone a five speed.Another gigantic one is instant starting and stopping of engines so cars don't burn gas while sitting at a red light or in a drive through.
We could have had that by now if anyone cared for it.Not really.
The only reason it works in hybrids is that you can accelerate and thus get the drivetrain moving by operating the electric motors.
We live in the real world, where real world problems with starters and with engines alike make this a bad idea.
If the engine doesn't fire up in a hybrid, you still get to limp off the road.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213206</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212654</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>LoverOfJoy</author>
	<datestamp>1266657780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Maybe if the hypermiling could occur on a train track it could have a use...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe if the hypermiling could occur on a train track it could have a use.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe if the hypermiling could occur on a train track it could have a use...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212330</id>
	<title>Re:96 pounds</title>
	<author>iammani</author>
	<datestamp>1266699000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Gasoline density is ~ 3.4 pounds/gallon. So assuming you want a full fuel range of 2752 Miles, you need a gallon of gas, which is 3.4 pounds. Now 100-pound figure doesnt seem any less impressive than 96 pounds, does it?<br> <br>
Now if were to count humans, they unfortunately on average weight 180 pounds/person.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Gasoline density is ~ 3.4 pounds/gallon .
So assuming you want a full fuel range of 2752 Miles , you need a gallon of gas , which is 3.4 pounds .
Now 100-pound figure doesnt seem any less impressive than 96 pounds , does it ?
Now if were to count humans , they unfortunately on average weight 180 pounds/person .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Gasoline density is ~ 3.4 pounds/gallon.
So assuming you want a full fuel range of 2752 Miles, you need a gallon of gas, which is 3.4 pounds.
Now 100-pound figure doesnt seem any less impressive than 96 pounds, does it?
Now if were to count humans, they unfortunately on average weight 180 pounds/person.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214632</id>
	<title>Re:861 MPH!!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266672840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>That wooooosssssshhhhh is a lot more pleasant at 30 mph than at 861 mph, ain't it?</htmltext>
<tokenext>That wooooosssssshhhhh is a lot more pleasant at 30 mph than at 861 mph , ai n't it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That wooooosssssshhhhh is a lot more pleasant at 30 mph than at 861 mph, ain't it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212342</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215558</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Rei</author>
	<datestamp>1266681900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Current vehicles aren't anywhere near fully optimized, mass-wise or aerodynamics-wised.  They're still largely built out of steel (composites can be as much as nearly an order of magnitude better in terms of passenger protection per unit mass -- plus, they can't pin you in).  We *still* don't generally shroud the tires (and many cars have overly large wheel wells to boot).  Most cars have a sharp kink between the windshield and the hood, as well as around the A-pillars.  The hood is too long and the rear end too short.  There's not *nearly* enough rear taper.  We do all sorts of un-aerodynamic ridiculous grill styling, when most of the air for the engine of a modern car comes from underneath anyway.  Most cars still don't have aero belly pans.  Many include stupid things like fake (or even worse, real) spoilers.  Most cars still use *way* overweight wiring harnesses, rather than an aircraft-style networked communication system.  The rear wheels are spaced way too far apart (optimum is a single rear wheel).  I could go on and on.  Heck, only a small fraction of cars are even hybrids.</p><p>With current tech, we could make a reasonably affordable 5-person sedan that gets ~70mpg, four-person that gets ~90, three-person that gets ~110, two-person side-by-side that gets ~130, and two-person tandem that gets ~150+, with all of the normal car comfort and safety features.  But it'd mean having to first redo our production infrastructure for composites and throw our conventions of what cars *should* look like out the window.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Current vehicles are n't anywhere near fully optimized , mass-wise or aerodynamics-wised .
They 're still largely built out of steel ( composites can be as much as nearly an order of magnitude better in terms of passenger protection per unit mass -- plus , they ca n't pin you in ) .
We * still * do n't generally shroud the tires ( and many cars have overly large wheel wells to boot ) .
Most cars have a sharp kink between the windshield and the hood , as well as around the A-pillars .
The hood is too long and the rear end too short .
There 's not * nearly * enough rear taper .
We do all sorts of un-aerodynamic ridiculous grill styling , when most of the air for the engine of a modern car comes from underneath anyway .
Most cars still do n't have aero belly pans .
Many include stupid things like fake ( or even worse , real ) spoilers .
Most cars still use * way * overweight wiring harnesses , rather than an aircraft-style networked communication system .
The rear wheels are spaced way too far apart ( optimum is a single rear wheel ) .
I could go on and on .
Heck , only a small fraction of cars are even hybrids.With current tech , we could make a reasonably affordable 5-person sedan that gets ~ 70mpg , four-person that gets ~ 90 , three-person that gets ~ 110 , two-person side-by-side that gets ~ 130 , and two-person tandem that gets ~ 150 + , with all of the normal car comfort and safety features .
But it 'd mean having to first redo our production infrastructure for composites and throw our conventions of what cars * should * look like out the window .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Current vehicles aren't anywhere near fully optimized, mass-wise or aerodynamics-wised.
They're still largely built out of steel (composites can be as much as nearly an order of magnitude better in terms of passenger protection per unit mass -- plus, they can't pin you in).
We *still* don't generally shroud the tires (and many cars have overly large wheel wells to boot).
Most cars have a sharp kink between the windshield and the hood, as well as around the A-pillars.
The hood is too long and the rear end too short.
There's not *nearly* enough rear taper.
We do all sorts of un-aerodynamic ridiculous grill styling, when most of the air for the engine of a modern car comes from underneath anyway.
Most cars still don't have aero belly pans.
Many include stupid things like fake (or even worse, real) spoilers.
Most cars still use *way* overweight wiring harnesses, rather than an aircraft-style networked communication system.
The rear wheels are spaced way too far apart (optimum is a single rear wheel).
I could go on and on.
Heck, only a small fraction of cars are even hybrids.With current tech, we could make a reasonably affordable 5-person sedan that gets ~70mpg, four-person that gets ~90, three-person that gets ~110, two-person side-by-side that gets ~130, and two-person tandem that gets ~150+, with all of the normal car comfort and safety features.
But it'd mean having to first redo our production infrastructure for composites and throw our conventions of what cars *should* look like out the window.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214278</id>
	<title>Re:Looks better than I thought.</title>
	<author>nacturation</author>
	<datestamp>1266670260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I obviously need to get out more, but that low-angle front view looks like a woman reclining with her knees spread apart.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I obviously need to get out more , but that low-angle front view looks like a woman reclining with her knees spread apart .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I obviously need to get out more, but that low-angle front view looks like a woman reclining with her knees spread apart.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216386</id>
	<title>Shell Eco marathon</title>
	<author>barath\_s</author>
	<datestamp>1266690540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The shell Eco Marathon is pertinent and answers many of the questions I had when reading this <p>.

<a href="http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current\_records/" title="shell.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current\_records/</a> [shell.com]  [shell.com]
<a href="http://www-static.shell.com/static/deu/downloads/aboutshell/media/news/shell\_eco\_marathon\_press\_kit\_2009.pdf" title="shell.com" rel="nofollow">http://www-static.shell.com/static/deu/downloads/aboutshell/media/news/shell\_eco\_marathon\_press\_kit\_2009.pdf</a> [shell.com]  [shell.com] </p><p>

a) The CalPoly is an IC Prototype (futuristic) entry; as some noted, the record is held by the Microjoule, St Joseph La Joliverie, 3,771km/l (8870mpg per wolfram Alpha) b) There are categories for Urban Course - realistic quasi street legal modifications, with significant economy wins by the Norwegian and danish teams (fuel cell and ic engine</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The shell Eco Marathon is pertinent and answers many of the questions I had when reading this .
http : //www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current \ _records/ [ shell.com ] [ shell.com ] http : //www-static.shell.com/static/deu/downloads/aboutshell/media/news/shell \ _eco \ _marathon \ _press \ _kit \ _2009.pdf [ shell.com ] [ shell.com ] a ) The CalPoly is an IC Prototype ( futuristic ) entry ; as some noted , the record is held by the Microjoule , St Joseph La Joliverie , 3,771km/l ( 8870mpg per wolfram Alpha ) b ) There are categories for Urban Course - realistic quasi street legal modifications , with significant economy wins by the Norwegian and danish teams ( fuel cell and ic engine</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The shell Eco Marathon is pertinent and answers many of the questions I had when reading this .
http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current\_records/ [shell.com]  [shell.com]
http://www-static.shell.com/static/deu/downloads/aboutshell/media/news/shell\_eco\_marathon\_press\_kit\_2009.pdf [shell.com]  [shell.com] 

a) The CalPoly is an IC Prototype (futuristic) entry; as some noted, the record is held by the Microjoule, St Joseph La Joliverie, 3,771km/l (8870mpg per wolfram Alpha) b) There are categories for Urban Course - realistic quasi street legal modifications, with significant economy wins by the Norwegian and danish teams (fuel cell and ic engine</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216418</id>
	<title>Oh, wow.</title>
	<author>Khyber</author>
	<datestamp>1266691140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Something I kept talking about years ago finally made it onto slashdot.</p><p>BUT YOU FOOLS ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG CAR.</p><p>Considering we've got THREE THOUSAND MPG a few years ago from another group - a bunch of HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.</p><p>Try again, slashdot. Next time you rip off one of my leads, from YEARS AGO, at least focus on the prior cars that  BEAT THE SHIT out of this current car.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Something I kept talking about years ago finally made it onto slashdot.BUT YOU FOOLS ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG CAR.Considering we 've got THREE THOUSAND MPG a few years ago from another group - a bunch of HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.Try again , slashdot .
Next time you rip off one of my leads , from YEARS AGO , at least focus on the prior cars that BEAT THE SHIT out of this current car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Something I kept talking about years ago finally made it onto slashdot.BUT YOU FOOLS ARE FOCUSING ON THE WRONG CAR.Considering we've got THREE THOUSAND MPG a few years ago from another group - a bunch of HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.Try again, slashdot.
Next time you rip off one of my leads, from YEARS AGO, at least focus on the prior cars that  BEAT THE SHIT out of this current car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214254</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>cvtan</author>
	<datestamp>1266670140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They consume coal.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They consume coal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They consume coal.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215148</id>
	<title>Can't slashdot be readable outside the little feud</title>
	<author>alexandre\_ganso</author>
	<datestamp>1266677640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Using imperial units on the headline? Well, ok.</p><p>But NOT using it on the news? Oh fuck.</p><p>I still have not the faintest idea of what they've accomplished.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Using imperial units on the headline ?
Well , ok.But NOT using it on the news ?
Oh fuck.I still have not the faintest idea of what they 've accomplished .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Using imperial units on the headline?
Well, ok.But NOT using it on the news?
Oh fuck.I still have not the faintest idea of what they've accomplished.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31273522</id>
	<title>meh</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1267120320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>These competitions have been gone on for quite awhile.  I used to attend a 2 year college in upstate NY where we built a car that got 640 mpg using a Briggs &amp; Stratton engine.  Looked pretty much like this.   The winning car got 1300+ mpg.  Oh and by the way, this was in 1983.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>These competitions have been gone on for quite awhile .
I used to attend a 2 year college in upstate NY where we built a car that got 640 mpg using a Briggs &amp; Stratton engine .
Looked pretty much like this .
The winning car got 1300 + mpg .
Oh and by the way , this was in 1983 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These competitions have been gone on for quite awhile.
I used to attend a 2 year college in upstate NY where we built a car that got 640 mpg using a Briggs &amp; Stratton engine.
Looked pretty much like this.
The winning car got 1300+ mpg.
Oh and by the way, this was in 1983.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216484</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>kimvette</author>
	<datestamp>1266692280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By the time you federalize it so it can reach at least 65mph (80mph is a more realistic requirement), add in the wiring and lighting equipment, build up the body (or fairings) to hold head and tail lamps at the required height levels, not to mention make it crashworthy, you'll have easily increased the weight to well over 2000 lbs, unless you go <i>all</i> composite like the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consulier\_GTP" title="wikipedia.org">Consulier GTP (now the Mosler MT900)</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By the time you federalize it so it can reach at least 65mph ( 80mph is a more realistic requirement ) , add in the wiring and lighting equipment , build up the body ( or fairings ) to hold head and tail lamps at the required height levels , not to mention make it crashworthy , you 'll have easily increased the weight to well over 2000 lbs , unless you go all composite like the Consulier GTP ( now the Mosler MT900 ) [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By the time you federalize it so it can reach at least 65mph (80mph is a more realistic requirement), add in the wiring and lighting equipment, build up the body (or fairings) to hold head and tail lamps at the required height levels, not to mention make it crashworthy, you'll have easily increased the weight to well over 2000 lbs, unless you go all composite like the Consulier GTP (now the Mosler MT900) [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215784</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266684360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Or in other words, the 15mpg SUV is still wasteful, no matter what your previous vehicle was. Especially if there is a less wasteful vehicle out there that costs about the same and will meet your needs.</i></p><p><i>There you have it.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>....and will meet your needs.   A little tiny soda can of a car, will not meet my needs, especially so if I make over $50,000 a year and can afford the gas. </i></p><p><i>Making it just from A to B is only one of many needs that are filled by a car.  Not looking like a self-riteous prat in a sub-compact is one of the needs most of us desire to have filled.</i></p><p><i>I get very tired of the 500\% improvement or nothing crowd of tree huggers.  It betrays either your younger age (temporary stupidity) or the fact that your are an older idiot (permanent stupidity).  Could you imagine where we would be today if they were adding that 1mpg improvement, that you would scoff at, every 2-3 years since the 1979 fuel crisis.  Hell even 1 mpg more every 5 years would still put us way ahead.</i></p><p><i>Why not be grateful that even trucks and suvs are showing fuel millage improvements.</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or in other words , the 15mpg SUV is still wasteful , no matter what your previous vehicle was .
Especially if there is a less wasteful vehicle out there that costs about the same and will meet your needs.There you have it .
....and will meet your needs .
A little tiny soda can of a car , will not meet my needs , especially so if I make over $ 50,000 a year and can afford the gas .
Making it just from A to B is only one of many needs that are filled by a car .
Not looking like a self-riteous prat in a sub-compact is one of the needs most of us desire to have filled.I get very tired of the 500 \ % improvement or nothing crowd of tree huggers .
It betrays either your younger age ( temporary stupidity ) or the fact that your are an older idiot ( permanent stupidity ) .
Could you imagine where we would be today if they were adding that 1mpg improvement , that you would scoff at , every 2-3 years since the 1979 fuel crisis .
Hell even 1 mpg more every 5 years would still put us way ahead.Why not be grateful that even trucks and suvs are showing fuel millage improvements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or in other words, the 15mpg SUV is still wasteful, no matter what your previous vehicle was.
Especially if there is a less wasteful vehicle out there that costs about the same and will meet your needs.There you have it.
....and will meet your needs.
A little tiny soda can of a car, will not meet my needs, especially so if I make over $50,000 a year and can afford the gas.
Making it just from A to B is only one of many needs that are filled by a car.
Not looking like a self-riteous prat in a sub-compact is one of the needs most of us desire to have filled.I get very tired of the 500\% improvement or nothing crowd of tree huggers.
It betrays either your younger age (temporary stupidity) or the fact that your are an older idiot (permanent stupidity).
Could you imagine where we would be today if they were adding that 1mpg improvement, that you would scoff at, every 2-3 years since the 1979 fuel crisis.
Hell even 1 mpg more every 5 years would still put us way ahead.Why not be grateful that even trucks and suvs are showing fuel millage improvements.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215390</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212112</id>
	<title>861 MPH!!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Black Gold Alchemist</author>
	<datestamp>1266697860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.</p></div><p>Not only eco-friendly, it leaves some fighter aircraft in the dust! How do they prevent the sonic boom?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.Not only eco-friendly , it leaves some fighter aircraft in the dust !
How do they prevent the sonic boom ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It originally clocked in at 861 MPH and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.Not only eco-friendly, it leaves some fighter aircraft in the dust!
How do they prevent the sonic boom?
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</id>
	<title>So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266698100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm not that impressed. I mean, while the figure mentioned seems impressive, how is this 'research' helpful? I mean, we already have *known* for a very long time that if you made a super small, lightweight vehicle with excellent aerodynamics, very low top-speed, and very low torque/accelleration, you can get much more mileage than the typical car. But, nobody wants a vehicle like that. People want vehicles very much like what they already have. . . enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.</p><p>I honestly think these 'toy car' concepts, while they might be great learning exercises for engineering students, aren't very impressive. I'd be much more impressed by the 80-100 MPG 4-door sedan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm not that impressed .
I mean , while the figure mentioned seems impressive , how is this 'research ' helpful ?
I mean , we already have * known * for a very long time that if you made a super small , lightweight vehicle with excellent aerodynamics , very low top-speed , and very low torque/accelleration , you can get much more mileage than the typical car .
But , nobody wants a vehicle like that .
People want vehicles very much like what they already have .
. .
enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident , enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage , and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate * right now * in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.I honestly think these 'toy car ' concepts , while they might be great learning exercises for engineering students , are n't very impressive .
I 'd be much more impressed by the 80-100 MPG 4-door sedan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm not that impressed.
I mean, while the figure mentioned seems impressive, how is this 'research' helpful?
I mean, we already have *known* for a very long time that if you made a super small, lightweight vehicle with excellent aerodynamics, very low top-speed, and very low torque/accelleration, you can get much more mileage than the typical car.
But, nobody wants a vehicle like that.
People want vehicles very much like what they already have.
. .
enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.I honestly think these 'toy car' concepts, while they might be great learning exercises for engineering students, aren't very impressive.
I'd be much more impressed by the 80-100 MPG 4-door sedan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212094</id>
	<title>861 MPH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266697680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Very impressive! They should work on setting land speed records too.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Very impressive !
They should work on setting land speed records too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Very impressive!
They should work on setting land speed records too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212686</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266658080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Of course, it's a lot easier to pull out in front of a truck when you're sitting in a recumbent position with your eyes no more than two and a half feet off the road.</p><p>Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine: poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties.  I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all, and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around, but street signs are there for a reason, and blocking drivers' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean.  Stop doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course , it 's a lot easier to pull out in front of a truck when you 're sitting in a recumbent position with your eyes no more than two and a half feet off the road.Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine : poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties .
I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all , and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around , but street signs are there for a reason , and blocking drivers ' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean .
Stop doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course, it's a lot easier to pull out in front of a truck when you're sitting in a recumbent position with your eyes no more than two and a half feet off the road.Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine: poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties.
I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all, and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around, but street signs are there for a reason, and blocking drivers' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean.
Stop doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212312</id>
	<title>AMAZING!! 2752.3 MPG at 861 MPH</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266698880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>A modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine that can do 2752.3 MPG at 861 MPH would be damn impressive if it were true.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine that can do 2752.3 MPG at 861 MPH would be damn impressive if it were true .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine that can do 2752.3 MPG at 861 MPH would be damn impressive if it were true.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215446</id>
	<title>Re:not getting it here</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266680280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The efficiency of electric cars are often measured by converting the cost of charging the battery to the number of gallons of gas you could have bought with that money.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The efficiency of electric cars are often measured by converting the cost of charging the battery to the number of gallons of gas you could have bought with that money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The efficiency of electric cars are often measured by converting the cost of charging the battery to the number of gallons of gas you could have bought with that money.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212662</id>
	<title>Re:They say others did better</title>
	<author>Alwin Henseler</author>
	<datestamp>1266657840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At the gas station-<p>
"Fill 'r up, please!" <br>
"1/10 of a gallon, as usual, ma'am?" <br>
"Yes, thank you."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At the gas station- " Fill 'r up , please !
" " 1/10 of a gallon , as usual , ma'am ?
" " Yes , thank you .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At the gas station-
"Fill 'r up, please!
" 
"1/10 of a gallon, as usual, ma'am?
" 
"Yes, thank you.
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212608</id>
	<title>You can go faster using pedal power</title>
	<author>Colin Smith</author>
	<datestamp>1266657540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I find it ironic that you can get a fairly standard HPV (http://www.recumbents.com/home/) that'll let you go faster than 30mph just using pedal power.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I find it ironic that you can get a fairly standard HPV ( http : //www.recumbents.com/home/ ) that 'll let you go faster than 30mph just using pedal power .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find it ironic that you can get a fairly standard HPV (http://www.recumbents.com/home/) that'll let you go faster than 30mph just using pedal power.
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214578</id>
	<title>Re:I'd rather bicycle.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266672420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I bet you consume a lot of water during your cycling though.</p><p>On a 10 mile bike ride I generally consume 1/4 gallon of water. Add in the food it takes to get the energy and I bet you'll find it's much cheaper to drive.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I bet you consume a lot of water during your cycling though.On a 10 mile bike ride I generally consume 1/4 gallon of water .
Add in the food it takes to get the energy and I bet you 'll find it 's much cheaper to drive .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I bet you consume a lot of water during your cycling though.On a 10 mile bike ride I generally consume 1/4 gallon of water.
Add in the food it takes to get the energy and I bet you'll find it's much cheaper to drive.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213382</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212676</id>
	<title>Re:They say others did better</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266657960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, how about thisone? <a href="http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/18/transportation-tuesday-8923-miles-per-gallon/" title="inhabitat.com">http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/18/transportation-tuesday-8923-miles-per-gallon/</a> [inhabitat.com]<br>Makes that CalPoly car look like the traditional US gas guzzler, not?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , how about thisone ?
http : //www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/18/transportation-tuesday-8923-miles-per-gallon/ [ inhabitat.com ] Makes that CalPoly car look like the traditional US gas guzzler , not ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, how about thisone?
http://www.inhabitat.com/2008/03/18/transportation-tuesday-8923-miles-per-gallon/ [inhabitat.com]Makes that CalPoly car look like the traditional US gas guzzler, not?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212306</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213382</id>
	<title>I'd rather bicycle.</title>
	<author>nrlightfoot</author>
	<datestamp>1266662580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30. I have better performance than that on my bike (at least when I'm in shape) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well.</htmltext>
<tokenext>These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30 .
I have better performance than that on my bike ( at least when I 'm in shape ) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>These things average about 15 mph and top out at 30.
I have better performance than that on my bike (at least when I'm in shape) I would be willing to bet I could very easily out accelerate this thing on my bike as well.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213404</id>
	<title>shell marathon</title>
	<author>ekasperc</author>
	<datestamp>1266662760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Shell's got quite an impressive challenge running for many years, achieving way more than 2750 mpg on a regular basis : <a href="http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current\_records/" title="shell.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current\_records/</a> [shell.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Shell 's got quite an impressive challenge running for many years , achieving way more than 2750 mpg on a regular basis : http : //www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current \ _records/ [ shell.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Shell's got quite an impressive challenge running for many years, achieving way more than 2750 mpg on a regular basis : http://www.shell.com/home/content/ecomarathon/about/current\_records/ [shell.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212378</id>
	<title>Prior art</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1266699300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The\_Flintstones" title="wikipedia.org">This car</a> [wikipedia.org] used to do even more mpg, but wasnt very fast.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This car [ wikipedia.org ] used to do even more mpg , but wasnt very fast .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This car [wikipedia.org] used to do even more mpg, but wasnt very fast.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212342</id>
	<title>Re:861 MPH!!!!!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266699060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>quote from the rtfa: "It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>quote from the rtfa : " It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>quote from the rtfa: "It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today.
"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212112</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217038</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>mcrbids</author>
	<datestamp>1266745020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What... you think these cars are all about research? Really?</p><p>Cars like this are being built by students at schools and Universities. No matter how many times it's been done before, it's still a good idea to do it again to educate another crop of soon-to-be-highly-qualified engineering students. By developing projects such as this one, they get an intimate, first-hand understanding of engineering concepts like systemic efficiency, operational constraints, and the value of weighing costs/benefits.</p><p>Engineers who are successful at projects like this get to put this on their resume and then go on to develop cars that are a touch more pragmatic, such as the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen\_1-litre\_car" title="wikipedia.org">VW 1-liter.</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>This isn't a "pshaw" - IT'S THE POINT of exercises like this. And being able to drive from coast to coast on slightly more than 1 gallon of gasoline is pretty f***ing impressive, even if it is on a mylar-covered bicycle with a weed-eater engine on the back!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What... you think these cars are all about research ?
Really ? Cars like this are being built by students at schools and Universities .
No matter how many times it 's been done before , it 's still a good idea to do it again to educate another crop of soon-to-be-highly-qualified engineering students .
By developing projects such as this one , they get an intimate , first-hand understanding of engineering concepts like systemic efficiency , operational constraints , and the value of weighing costs/benefits.Engineers who are successful at projects like this get to put this on their resume and then go on to develop cars that are a touch more pragmatic , such as the VW 1-liter .
[ wikipedia.org ] This is n't a " pshaw " - IT 'S THE POINT of exercises like this .
And being able to drive from coast to coast on slightly more than 1 gallon of gasoline is pretty f * * * ing impressive , even if it is on a mylar-covered bicycle with a weed-eater engine on the back !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What... you think these cars are all about research?
Really?Cars like this are being built by students at schools and Universities.
No matter how many times it's been done before, it's still a good idea to do it again to educate another crop of soon-to-be-highly-qualified engineering students.
By developing projects such as this one, they get an intimate, first-hand understanding of engineering concepts like systemic efficiency, operational constraints, and the value of weighing costs/benefits.Engineers who are successful at projects like this get to put this on their resume and then go on to develop cars that are a touch more pragmatic, such as the VW 1-liter.
[wikipedia.org]This isn't a "pshaw" - IT'S THE POINT of exercises like this.
And being able to drive from coast to coast on slightly more than 1 gallon of gasoline is pretty f***ing impressive, even if it is on a mylar-covered bicycle with a weed-eater engine on the back!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216170</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>pclminion</author>
	<datestamp>1266688320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Wow. You've discovered... <i>the reciprocal</i>. Bravo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Wow .
You 've discovered... the reciprocal .
Bravo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wow.
You've discovered... the reciprocal.
Bravo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213972</id>
	<title>Re:Rather pointless</title>
	<author>Dausha</author>
	<datestamp>1266667800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles. 2752 MPG sounds like a lot. But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle. To cover a distance of 50 miles, the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons. The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon, for a savings of 1 gallon. The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons, for a savings of 0.982 gallons. This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG. Because MPG is inverted, a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle.</p></div> </blockquote><p>But, you're missing a big point, methinks, in your shell game. Switching from 25 MPG to 50 MPG incurs a fuels savings of 1 gal. Switching from a 25 MPG car to the 2752 MPG car saves 1.98 gallons. Let's use a slightly different unit of measure. A 25 MPG car consumes 32 cups of fuel. A 2752 MPG vehicle consumes 1/3d of a cup of fuel. I use more butter to make a batch of cookies than this car would to drive 50 miles.</p><p>Or to look at this in terms of cost. The average price per gallon in the US is USD 2.65. The 25 MPG car would spend USD 5.30. The 50 MPG car would spend USD 2.65. The 2752 MPG car would spend a nickel. Or in "Cents per Mile" (CPM), the 25 MPG is 10 CPM, the 50 MPG is 5 CPM, and the 2752 MPG care is 1 cent per ten miles.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles .
2752 MPG sounds like a lot .
But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle .
To cover a distance of 50 miles , the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons .
The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon , for a savings of 1 gallon .
The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons , for a savings of 0.982 gallons .
This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG .
Because MPG is inverted , a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle .
But , you 're missing a big point , methinks , in your shell game .
Switching from 25 MPG to 50 MPG incurs a fuels savings of 1 gal .
Switching from a 25 MPG car to the 2752 MPG car saves 1.98 gallons .
Let 's use a slightly different unit of measure .
A 25 MPG car consumes 32 cups of fuel .
A 2752 MPG vehicle consumes 1/3d of a cup of fuel .
I use more butter to make a batch of cookies than this car would to drive 50 miles.Or to look at this in terms of cost .
The average price per gallon in the US is USD 2.65 .
The 25 MPG car would spend USD 5.30 .
The 50 MPG car would spend USD 2.65 .
The 2752 MPG car would spend a nickel .
Or in " Cents per Mile " ( CPM ) , the 25 MPG is 10 CPM , the 50 MPG is 5 CPM , and the 2752 MPG care is 1 cent per ten miles .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A consequence of this is that MPG exaggerates the benefit of highly fuel-efficient vehicles.
2752 MPG sounds like a lot.
But switching from a 25 MPG vehicle to a 50 MPG vehicle saves you more gas than switching from a 50 MPG vehicle to a 2752 MPG vehicle.
To cover a distance of 50 miles, the 25 MPG vehicle would consume 2 gallons.
The 50 MPG vehicle would consume 1 gallon, for a savings of 1 gallon.
The 2752 MPG vehicle would consume 0.018 gallons, for a savings of 0.982 gallons.
This is less improvement than the switch from 25 MPG to 50 MPG.
Because MPG is inverted, a 10 MPG improvement on a 25 MPG vehicle saves a lot more fuel than a 10 MPG improvement on a 2000 MPG vehicle.
But, you're missing a big point, methinks, in your shell game.
Switching from 25 MPG to 50 MPG incurs a fuels savings of 1 gal.
Switching from a 25 MPG car to the 2752 MPG car saves 1.98 gallons.
Let's use a slightly different unit of measure.
A 25 MPG car consumes 32 cups of fuel.
A 2752 MPG vehicle consumes 1/3d of a cup of fuel.
I use more butter to make a batch of cookies than this car would to drive 50 miles.Or to look at this in terms of cost.
The average price per gallon in the US is USD 2.65.
The 25 MPG car would spend USD 5.30.
The 50 MPG car would spend USD 2.65.
The 2752 MPG car would spend a nickel.
Or in "Cents per Mile" (CPM), the 25 MPG is 10 CPM, the 50 MPG is 5 CPM, and the 2752 MPG care is 1 cent per ten miles.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212432</id>
	<title>Amazing stats!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266656400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt; have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG<br>&gt; It originally clocked in at 861 MPH</p><p>Then the LSD wore off<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG &gt; It originally clocked in at 861 MPHThen the LSD wore off .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt; have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG&gt; It originally clocked in at 861 MPHThen the LSD wore off ...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222382</id>
	<title>Re:So what?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266749820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>People want vehicles very much like what they already have</i><br>Well, <b>some</b> people want those.<br><a href="http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Microcars" title="wikimedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Microcars</a> [wikimedia.org]</p><p>gewg\_</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>People want vehicles very much like what they already haveWell , some people want those.http : //commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category : Microcars [ wikimedia.org ] gewg \ _</tokentext>
<sentencetext>People want vehicles very much like what they already haveWell, some people want those.http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Microcars [wikimedia.org]gewg\_</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215314</id>
	<title>Re:hypermiling is useless.y v</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1266678960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is an idiotic argument.  You could say the same thing about old people.  Or overly conservative drivers... and WOW what a stereotype you have going for hybrid drivers.  Is the rest of your world view as screwed up as this?  I drive a prius, and i drive like i have somewhere to be, because I do.  So your stereotype is lame and pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is an idiotic argument .
You could say the same thing about old people .
Or overly conservative drivers... and WOW what a stereotype you have going for hybrid drivers .
Is the rest of your world view as screwed up as this ?
I drive a prius , and i drive like i have somewhere to be , because I do .
So your stereotype is lame and pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is an idiotic argument.
You could say the same thing about old people.
Or overly conservative drivers... and WOW what a stereotype you have going for hybrid drivers.
Is the rest of your world view as screwed up as this?
I drive a prius, and i drive like i have somewhere to be, because I do.
So your stereotype is lame and pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31219190
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31221872
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212608
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214254
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215334
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215192
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212112
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214632
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31231500
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213678
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216440
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215234
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216774
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31218252
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215148
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216958
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213556
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213670
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215582
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212662
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215558
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216484
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214198
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212124
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215682
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214880
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217630
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215314
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214316
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217038
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212306
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215446
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214906
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212092
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213968
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212690
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213206
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222082
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212654
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214442
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31238874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215874
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215390
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214578
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215450
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217164
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216034
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217322
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213382
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215592
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215842
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214278
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212534
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217378
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212330
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212418
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212322
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217052
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213710
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214090
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_20_1855226_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213972
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212862
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215390
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31231500
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31238874
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217322
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213710
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214880
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213972
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215582
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214090
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216440
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214442
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214254
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213678
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215446
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213130
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212248
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212158
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217038
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213556
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212534
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216484
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212466
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212686
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215334
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212746
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212608
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212322
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215874
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217052
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217378
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215234
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215558
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212690
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212092
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212430
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214162
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212660
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213502
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214906
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215450
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31217164
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214316
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216034
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212306
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212676
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212662
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212218
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213206
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31222082
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214198
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215314
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212654
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213968
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31219190
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212112
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212342
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31221872
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214632
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212472
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215148
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31216958
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215016
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212698
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212900
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212166
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212330
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212418
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212124
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215682
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212422
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213670
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31218252
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214278
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212386
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212596
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31213382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31214578
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31215592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_20_1855226.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_20_1855226.31212566
</commentlist>
</conversation>
