On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:37 AM, Pete Theisen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Not wrong as a goal, but as a *requirement*. The "car" would have to > weigh less than 300#. No upholstery, no sound absorption, no safety gear > and a top speed of maybe 35. Something people would not like at all. ---------------- When you take out the high speed requirements your weight drops quickly and your mpg soars. "It is just that I use to drive an SUV and I don't want to be in anything little now." The atypical American response. If they said Drive this to put a dagger in the heart of the Middle East everyone would line up to get it. >> Don't they do what they can afford to do? They get hand me down in >> equipment and technology from airplanes to mining gear. > > I get the impression that they think it is all a joke. ----------------- Who is they? People on this list or business leaders in India, Africa or South America? "They" want to get the best possible investment in the capital expenditures they are buying. To them the balance between the environment and output is probably not a major concern. I just wonder when the people of China get sick of what the country allows pollution wise. Just as we did in the 60s. -- Stephen Russell Sr. Production Systems Programmer CIMSgts 901.246-0159 cell _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
