The beginner's guide to a practical motorcycle

Several years ago, I went looking for a motorcycle. Silly me.

It had been more than 25 years since I’d ridden a bike (of the motorized type), and I wasn’t quite prepared for how the market had changed.

Yesteryear’s bare-knuckled gear-head riders have been replaced by snooty dooted-up (technical term there) brand image worshippers. This is very sad; but sadder still is the fact that practicality has been completely replaced by ostentation for its own sake. Ugh. So what we have is “boutique” bike shops (*gag*). How did we get here?

Never mind: it's not for me to say.

Suffice it to say that I got so frustrated trying to find reliable, non-testosterone-laden information that I simply gave up. I decided to purchase the current version of a model that I knew to be a solid bike back in 1979. I figured I could always upgrade after a few years, when my own experience could inform a better purchase. So I got up one morning, and decided to buy it.

Fortunately for me, I lucked into a guy at the dealership who did what all talented salesmen do. He listened closely to my needs and informed me flatly that I did not want the bike I was ready to purchase (for those of you who don’t know, this is extremely risky -- you can cost yourself a sale if the customer decides to be insulted). He then dragged me by the nose over to the bike I didn’t know existed, but that I had described in our conversation. It was 50% more costly. I bought it. Three years later, I’m still tickled pink with it, and am very thankful he had the brass kahunas necessary to put me on the right machine.

Not everyone is going to get this lucky with his or her salesperson. Nor are most people equipped to recognize true talent in the sales staff, as opposed to a slick weasel who’d push his own mother down a flight of stairs if it meant closing a deal. Don’t get all indignant here and insist you’re different than all the rest. You aren’t. Besides, everyone says that.

OK, so you’ve decided to purchase a motorcycle, because it represents an affordable way to adapt to the next gasoline shortage and the inevitable rationing that will result (either by price or by government edict). You’re a forward thinker smart enough to realize that you don’t wait until the crisis hits to try to buy one. By the time it happens, it’s already too late and stores will be cleared out in a matter of hours. So, you’re busy taking the riding lessons and considering the options. But you’re in a Catch-22. You don’t ride, or haven’t in a very long time, and every time you ask an “experienced” biker, you get an answer that directly conflicts with the LAST “expert” you asked (insert favorite ball-grabbing mouth-breather image here).

Well, you came to the right place. Read on for instructions on how to find the most practical bike for your physical size, strength, dexterity, mechanical aptitude and coordination.

Configuration

This is the choice that will have the most impact on your satisfaction with your new (or new-to-you) bike.

Scooters: Most scooters are designed for city streets - NOT highway travel (no matter what your hippie chick co-worker told you). There are a few exceptions, and you can tell by engine size (400cc or more). As a general rule, larger wheels offer better handling and comfort, at the cost of some luggage capacity, and a higher sticker price. The biggest advantage scooters have over conventional bikes is the step-through frame (no need to swing your leg over the back of the seat), and integrated, locking luggage compartments. The step-through design provides excellent protection from the elements, as you can keep your legs and torso tucked behind the fairing. Even if it’s raining, you’ll stay relatively dry while underway. One downside to step-through frames is the loss of the “connected” feel provided by a conventional bike that allows you to “grip” the tank and frame between your knees. If you want an automatic transmission without giving up good fuel economy, look very hard at Scooters. They were designed specifically for you.

Cruisers: These are the low-slung bikes that try hard to look like something out of Easy Rider, and almost always have a V-Twin engine. To further confuse the issue, some manufacturers tack on the “Touring” label to add prestige. Don’t be fooled. If it looks like Clint would ride it and has a V-Twin engine, you’re looking at a Cruiser. (Note: the huge, heavy, and expensive Touring bikes will not be discussed here, as their fuel economy makes them irrelevant to the discussion). They are great on on city streets, high-speed freeways, and winding two-lane roads. While they are very forgiving and predictable on dry pavement, if there is a chance you’ll ever be riding on gravel roads or slippery conditions (snow, sleet, frost, etc.) this configuration will likely be very disappointing. The long wheelbase and aggressive front fork rake are wonderful for comfort and low-fatigue operation, but it also makes them difficult to recover once you lose control. That’s why you see this type of bike swarming all over town on sunny weekends. The aging lawyers, doctors and financiers that buy them love them for their easy-breezy handling -- not to mention noise -- not to mention tough-guy delusions. If you live in a temperate and sunny part of the country, there are number of cruisers out there that would make excellent commuter bikes. Just be aware that the lumpy exhaust note (a result of the V-Twin engine and its peculiar tuning) can come at the expense of reliability.

Sport Bikes: Also known as “crotch rockets” these built-for-speed machines generally aren’t a good choice for daily riding or commuting. You have to hunch over the gas tank to keep your profile low for the aerodynamics necessary to reach top speeds north of 150mph. Granted, they’re a hoot to ride - for short periods of time. Even the smallest among them have intoxicatingly smooth, high-revving engines that emit sexually-charged melodies right up to (and sometimes beyond) their redlines. If you have a lot of money, and don’t care about your fair share of resource consumption, buy one of these as your second bike. They’re like a freak-in-the-sack yoga instructor -- it’s all fun and games until someone gets a crick in his neck (you know it won’t be her).

Dirt Bikes (now called “off-road”): If you think it would be fun to ride in a topless Willy’s Jeep like this:

on the highway, then get a dirt bike. You’ll love it. Just make sure it’s certified street legal (usually referred to as “dual sport”). Otherwise you’ll get a ticket. You only ride off-road? Oh my. That’s a whole different subject, and there’s a ton of good information out there written by people more qualified than me. Of course, by “qualified,” I refer to people educated in the art of ripping up fragile ecosystems for no apparent reason. But I digress. This configuration is punishing to ride for any distance on the highway. Of course, some people might like that; and who am I to judge what they do in the privacy of their own saddle? The tiny, light little engines must scream along at high-RPM just to maintain speed. They buzz. They dart around when buffeted by wind from passing trucks. If you like a good adrenal rush on your morning commute, go for it.

Standard Bikes: These tried-and-true workhorses are inexpensive to buy, own, and ride on a regular basis. However, they can be tough to find because most of the time, they’re disguised as something else. This is because the Standard Bike is the station wagon of motorcycledom. Remember what I told you at the beginning of this post? The last thing today’s bike buyer wants is to look dorky. So how do you spot a standard bike when it has been disguised as something else? The way you can tell if a Cruiser is really a gussied-up Standard is by the engine. It will be between 250cc and 750cc in size (a common size is 500cc), and it won’t be a V-Twin. It will be an air-cooled single- or twin-cylinder engine with a manual 5- or 6-speed transmission, and a carburetor. It’s a little trickier with Standards dressed in Sport Bike drag. Start by looking at the engine specifications. Is it liquid cooled? Does it redline north of 12,000 RPM? Is it fuel-injected? If it has all three, it’s a Sport Bike. If it has an air-cooled engine, or a power peak in the 8,000-RPM range, or a carburetor, you’re probably looking at a Standard Bike. The best way to tell for sure is to go sit on one. Are you sitting upright and able to comfortably reach the handlebars? You’re sitting on a Standard Bike. I don’t care how many graphics or racy plastic doo-dads have been hot-glued on. If you’re not leaning way forward to reach the handlebars, you’re sitting on a Standard Bike. Price is the final clue. They’re always inexpensive, compared to other bikes of similar size. Disclosure: this is the type of bike I had settled on before running into Mr. Talented Salesman. I was familiar with, and trusted, the technology. And I probably would have been reasonably happy with it.

All-Purpose Bike: This style is the Swiss Army Knife of two-wheeled transportation. The engine sizes and cylinder configurations are all over the map, and they generally incorporate the latest technology. The real story here is their advanced, strong, lightweight frames that allow large payload capacities, and athletic suspension systems that can handle everything from crumbling back roads to autobahns. They’re designed so that a skilled rider, on a properly equipped machine can tackle any type of road, paved or not, in most weather conditions. They have enough fender clearance for snow tires. Their articulated long-travel suspensions can give them the appearance of an off-roader, but don’t be deceived. They’re far too large, heavy and powerful for truly safe off-road use, even though their chassis could handle the pounding. The heavy-duty suspensions and frames are designed to withstand the heavy shocks associated with large potholes, cobblestones and broken pavement so common in older cities around the world. However, they must be equally capable of sustained high speed. Think of them as all-weather, all-road, cross-country commuters. I know. It sounds for all the world like an oxymoron. But, it’s not, and here’s why: price. These guys add, at minimum, 50% to the price of a good Standard Bike. The best of them double or triple it, depending on how much capability you want. For example, the most capable All-Purpose Bikes have exotic spoked wheels instead of cast alloys (which can break when subjected to extreme conditions). It all comes down to budget. Disclosure: I split the difference and purchased an All-Purpose Bike with cast aluminum wheels. I couldn’t afford the spoked model, but I also have no qualms slowing down to appropriate speeds on rough surfaces. Here’s the last caveat about All-Purpose bikes: if you’re unwilling or unable to eventually acquire a high level of riding skill, ignore this style. A novice rider with formal instruction and a willingness to study, practice and learn will be able to master and utilize all of their capabilities. If this isn’t you, save yourself the extra dough. 

Weight

As a general rule of thumb, try to stay with a machine that is roughly double to triple your weight. Anything less, and you’ll easily overwhelm the chassis if you add a second person or luggage. Anything more, and the bike will feel unwieldy. If you plan on carrying passengers or luggage, make sure the bike’s payload rating is high enough to carry it all.

Transmission

Be honest! If you can’t get the hang of shifting a manual transmission, don’t torture yourself with one. There are plenty of good automatic bikes out there, and the best ones are Scooters (note: CVT = automatic). You just twist the throttle and it goes, while you focus on traffic, road conditions, safe braking, and effective cornering. For manuals, more gears isn’t always better. Five gears is generally fine for most riders. Six-speeds usually employ a very low first gear to give the impression of more power. Pay special attention to the recommended 1-2 shift speed. If you plan to ride a lot in city traffic, you’ll get annoyed if forced to shift before getting across the intersection when accelerating away from a stop sign or traffic signal.  Trust me on this. If you intend to ride long distances, look at the RPM’s at 70 mph in high gear. The lower the better. A busy, droning engine gets old after a couple hours.

Engine

This is probably the most difficult category about which to make a decision. Everything here involves a trade-off. Liquid-cooled engines offer more reliability, at a higher price. Fuel injection offers better fuel economy, emissions, and power -- again at a higher price. I’m ambivalent about multiple cams and valves. This technology is most important for extracting a few more horses so you can get to 60mph a few fractions of a second faster. If it has more valves and more cams, and the price is right -- great. But the benefits seem marginal to me. To determine the best size (displacement), start with your body weight. If you’re an average male, you’ll want no less than 400cc. Anything less won’t keep up with the cars around you in traffic (a big no-no in motorcycle safety). A fuel-injected, liquid-cooled 500cc to 650cc engine is ideal, if you can afford it. If not, go for one of the lighter bikes with the largest air cooled engine you can afford. If you find yourself looking at an air cooled engine in the same price range as an advanced engine of smaller displacement, go for the latter. It will give you just as much power, more reliability and better fuel economy. If you’re 250 pounds or more, try to stay above 650cc. Petite women who don’t intend to carry passengers can get away with a 250cc engine. Upsize it a bit if you want to travel long distances or through mountain passes. Anything over a liter (1,000cc) is overkill. They don’t call them “hogs” for no reason. The one-liter Sport Bikes with are pure insanity and built for exactly that. A lot of your friends will howl and tell you how stupid I am for saying so, but remember that this post isn’t about sex appeal. It’s about low-cost resource-efficient transportation. It’s good to keep in mind that the world is full of highway-capable automobiles using 1100cc to 1600cc engines. And anyone who weighs as much as a car probably shouldn’t be riding a motorcycle. Oh, and those engines that go “thumpa-thumpa”? Fuhgettabouddit. The lumpy idle and raucous exhaust notes actually cause them to fail and malfunction. They literally shake themselves apart. If you’re an athlete, you know this. Abrupt impacts cause injuries, whether or not they’re obvious right away. An engine is the same way: smoother is better. This is why Cruisers with V-Twins should usually be avoided. By the time a manufacturer spends all the money necessary to make it sturdy enough to endure their inherent stresses, you may as well spend the same money and opt for a bike with more capabilities.

Gear

This is the most often overlooked expense category. It’s possible to spend the same amount on gear as you do on the bike itself. Gear covers everything from safety equipment like helmets and protective outerwear to luggage, security, and maintenance devices. The first thing to do is splurge on a full-face helmet. Buy it from an independent long-established (ideally 10 years or more) motorcycle gear shop (not a bike dealer). If you have to drive an hour to do this, do so. Follow their directions and buy the helmet they tell you to buy. Spend the money. Don’t argue with me on this because it’s a waste of breath. I won’t budge. Next is body armor, which is a tradeoff between safety and comfort. You have to decide how much protection you can afford and tolerate wearing. All the body armor in the world is useless if you can’t wear it because you get overheated and lightheaded sitting in traffic in the hot sun. Conversely, if you get cold too easily, your shivering and numb fingers will compromise safety. Spend the money and get yourself a heated jacket and gloves; maybe even pants. The other item (besides the helmet) that allows no compromise is a good set of sturdy boots that cover the ankles. It’s not like you can’t use them for other things, and you don’t need the special over-priced ones made specifically for biking (unless you have that kind of money). So get a top-notch full face helmet, good-fitting quality sturdy boots, and motorcycle gloves (you WILL want gloves specially made for biking). Next, take your personal comfort level, climate and budget into account, and accessorize accordingly.

Remember: you’ll appreciate great gear and less bike; but you’ll curse a great bike if crappy gear makes you miserable.

Automakers Today: Brilliant and Baffling

Automakers are baffling at the moment. Three years after wrenching spikes in fuel prices, and their product offerings are still lame-o.

For the moment, let’s pick on Honda -- not because it’s a bad company, but precisely because it’s been so good for so long but seems to be getting so much wrong these days.

The current incarnation of the Insight is a great case in point. It’s rather obvious the top brass just can’t understand why nobody wants it. At its core, it’s a dandy piece of engineering: typical Honda simplicity and design elegance. Unlike the hopelessly complex and technologically burdened Prius, the Insight doesn’t suffer from adding layers of complication on top of each other to solve the efficiency problem. It IS efficient. Aside from the battery pack, it only requires a little extra metal and parts over a comparably-sized compact car. It certainly consumes far less material than the average “crossover utility vehicle” so popular with buyers these days.

So what’s wrong with it?

Identity and commitment. It’s like Honda is dipping its big toe in the water to gauge market temperature, and then expecting applause as if it dove in full throttle. Inexplicably, Honda decided to compete head-to-head with the Prius -- only with a cheaper, smaller, louder, less comfortable version. There was a teensy problem with that strategy: the Prius buyer is smug, image-conscious, pampered and well-to-do. They wouldn’t be seen driving something “less than.”

Why not keep the Fit’s basic body architecture (the Insight uses a lot of off-the-shelf Fit pieces), box it up just enough to resemble a CR-V and raise it a bit off the ground with tall wheels and tires? Yes, this would have caused a bit of a hit on highway mpg. But most people buy hybrids to commute in town (where aerodynamics don’t matter nearly as much). And what better marketing strategy than a hybrid SUV that gets nearly-Prius mpg numbers? There’s a proven market of buyers (Ford Escape) who’d be more than happy to save a few dollars and get better mileage driving a socially-acceptable styling package.

Once established in the mindset of the consumer, an AWD version would be the logical next step. What’s really sad is that Honda’s original CR-V was a tall Civic wagon. It was ugly as sin, but they couldn’t build them fast enough. Why? Because it was the mid-80’s and the twin gas shocks were still fresh in everyone’s mind, and it was a roomy small car that was available in 4WD and got fantastic mileage.

The “ECO” button was the final nail in the coffin, proving that Honda just doesn’t understand the hybrid buyer. That button should not -- let’s all say it again -- SHOULD NOT -- exist. Period. A hybrid is expected to sip fuel. All the time. Program the electronics so that full acceleration is available in the last 10% of pedal travel only, and once you hit that level, goose the electric motor while forcing the CVT to aggressively lower the gear ratio instantaneously. All buyers want to know is that the power is there if they need it. To add injury to insult, the existence of that infernal “ECO” button ruined the official EPA mpg ratings. Ugh. What a mess.

Finally, and oh-so-sadly, it’s one of the very few cars in Honda’s lineup that isn’t built on this side of the Pacific. So, Honda is at the mercy of the wildly fluctuating yen for profitability in a segment that has notoriously razor-thin margins. Granted, converting one of the American assembly lines to subcompact production would have been a big risk. But we’re back to the toe-in-the-water thing. Do you want to beat Toyota at their own game? Then make some bold moves -- like Toyota did with the Prius.

There are more “huh?” moments once you get inside and look at the sub-par (for Honda) and illogical packaging for passengers, storage -- and even the spare tire.

It’s just so sad to see such poor execution on all fronts, because the parts you can’t see (engine, integrated motor assist system, CVT, electronics, valvetrain, battery packaging and efficiency) are all so delightfully efficient and brilliant. Like a Honda.

Would You Give Up One of Your Cars for Someone Else?

The citizens of India are embracing automobiles like never before: http://ow.ly/2y1rT.

Am I the only one who notices a huge disconnect with reality here? Where is all the fuel going to come from to power all the snazzy new cars? Worldwide oil production has been stuck at zero growth for many years now. And don’t tell me it’s because of the worldwide recession, which confuses the symptom with the disease.

Could it be that automakers around the world are aware of the stakes, and are simply rushing to position themselves as last man standing? After all, there is still lots of oil left. For now.

This situation illustrates the abject failure of markets in one specific area: resource conservation. Unfettered markets may be quite efficient at allocating scarce resources -- but only to the highest bidder and right down to the last drop. This model does not, and will never, foster conservation or rational stewardship. Instead, it favors short-term gluttony (for the lucky few) at the expense of long-term economic stability (which benefits everyone).

Most western drivers probably don’t think much -- if at all -- about auto production in emerging markets. But they should. How are you going to tell an aspiring Indian new car owner that he or she doesn’t deserve it? We “need” cars. They don’t. Go ahead, try to come up with a convincing argument for that one.

When the Solution Becomes the Problem

Thirty years ago, most cars had little triangular vent windows that could be opened to deflect air. They looked like this:



These dandy little devices were crucial to an era when air conditioning was an expensive option usually found on luxury cars. Opened just a bit, they were indispensable to defogging the windshield and keeping a good airflow during wet and humid weather.

In extremely hot weather, you could twist them all the way around and direct the airflow along the side of the car into the interior, quickly and efficiently exhausting the solar heat buildup.

So, what happened to them?

Ironically, the huge push during the 1980‘s for an extra half a mile per gallon in the EPA cycle is what happened. By smoothing out the exterior lines of cars, automakers could eke out an infinitesimally higher number on the new federally-mandated fuel-economy ratings. Because Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) was based on these ratings, small changes in this number carried significant consequences in the form of fines (a.k.a.: taxes).

What’s ironic about that? Well, the law of unintended consequences comes into play here. Without vent windows, it’s impossible to sit for very long inside of a car without A/C in warm weather, let alone truly hot weather. So now the vast majority of cars are sold with A/C, which reduces fuel economy by several orders of magnitude more than that which was saved by removing the vent windows.

Now, the EPA has come full circle. Have you wondered why the MPG stickers on new cars are so much lower these days? It’s because they now test with the A/C (and other accessories) on. Previously, even the power steering pump wasn’t required to be in operation -- as if a functioning steering system were something you could decide to do without. This is why you’re seeing a lot more cars on the market today with A/C not offered on the base models. They don’t actually intend to sell many of these (save for the hardiest of penny pinchers out there), but it does allow them to achieve a higher number on the CAFE ratings.

Expect more of this.

A Taxing Dilemma

You know how we used to think that everyone should own a house? Well, we all know where that little fantasy got us.

So why do we still think everyone should own and drive a car? The consequences of low-skilled driving are far more severe than low-skilled home ownership. And more likely than not, someone else pays the price of a low-skilled driver’s incompetence or indifference. You’d think this would make a compelling case for immediately tightening the qualifications necessary to obtain a driver’s license. But it doesn’t.

Maybe that’s why I’m looking forward to a devolution in automobile complexity and road quality. I’m hoping driving a car will soon require a fair amount of mechanical skill, planning and organization. Maybe it will scare the the stupid and the meek away from taking the wheel.

Let’s face it. There are a lot of people out there who have no business operating complex machinery at high speeds. They don’t -- and will never -- understand the physics of bodies in motion, nor should they be expected to.

Why then, do we not divide this particular form of labor like we do everything else? If you want to be an engineer or scientist, it’s accepted fact that you need to be adept at math. If you want to be a journalist or editor, we all agree that you’ll need highly developed language skills.

It’s high time we all agree to leave the driving to the experts. Doing so would solve several problems at once. It would stop urban sprawl in its tracks. It would result in an immediate reduction in the national demand for gasoline. It would alleviate unemployment by negating the need for two cars for each family and therefore, a second income.

The median wage right now for a high school graduate is trending downwards toward $25,000 per year. Subtract taxes (mostly social security and medicare), and you’re left with just a little over $20,000 to spend. The average bear spends about $6,000 or so on car payments in any given year. Add insurance, gas, repairs, parking, tolls and an extra garage bay on your house, and that figure doubles. So, now you’re left with $8,000 to spend. Most two-earner families have children. Child care, if you can find it, is going to cost at least $8,000 per year assuming you and your spouse managed to find jobs with staggered schedules, and you only need a few hours a day for the overlap. In an absolute BEST case scenario, the second wage earner in the average family is working his/her butt off for nothing. Zero, zilcho. In most cases, it’s a net loss.

Fewer cars on the road would also mean fewer roads would be needed. We could focus on maintaining what we have instead of trying to build out more capacity.

As with most “solutions” to this collapse, it’s simple and straightforward, but exceedingly difficult to implement. So, I have few illusions that it will happen painlessly. But, it will happen.

The really interesting thing to me is how our rulers will react to it. Right now, they think it’s just dandy that unemployment is so high because it keeps labor costs low. This is very myopic thinking. But it’s been their playbook for more than 30 years now, so I don’t expect they’ll be changing behavior anytime soon.

At some point, we’ll reach a tipping point. It may have already happened. When families start to “get” it, they’ll leave the car market in droves -- and with it, the job market. The two are inextricably linked. Tax revenues across the board will crash hard and unexpectedly. Income taxes, registration fees, parking fees, speeding tickets, fuel taxes, sales taxes ... it just goes on and on. Profits will plunge too. If households suddenly revert to single-income entities, their ability to service new debt will drop accordingly. This will further depress everything from the price of houses to the value of used cars. Contractors, plumbers, mechanics, accessory manufacturers, car washes, tire manufacturers, etc., will all be hit.

Nobody has a model for this because it’s never happened before. There hasn’t been an economy in the history of the world that was so dependent on every able-bodied worker participating in the the official money economy, eligible to be taxed and profited from. If a household figures out that they can retain the same standard of living by having one person return home, cut out one car & income (both of which are heavily taxed and profited from) and cut all child care expenses by providing those services for themselves, how do you tax that? How do you profit from it?

In a word, you can’t.

That’s why “we” tolerate incompetent drivers on our roads. We’ve been convinced that we need everyone driving so we can have “prosperity,” which is really just another word for “excess profits, taxes, and power” for our rulers.

You must die for my convenience

I ride a bicycle and a motorcycle. Other drivers act very differently towards me when I’m on either of these vehicles, as opposed to my 4x4 SUV. They’re far more aggressive and inconsiderate than they are when dealing with me in my SUV. Why is this?

I would submit to you it’s because they can. In other words, they perceive no threat or consequence to their actions, so they use their superior power, size and weight to muscle their way “in front” of me, regardless of right-of-way or risk to my safety.

I don’t really know why this still amazes me, but it does. Logically, it stands to reason that the person with the least to lose defers to the person with the most risk. This would allow the highest margin of safety for all involved. But that’s not how people act. The vast majority of drivers only respect size and power, and they are singularly concerned only with their own safety.

There’s also another mental calculation (and gamble) at play here. At-fault accidents cause one’s insurance to go up. A car driver who ignores right-of-way is gambling that the cyclist loves his own life enough to get the hell out of the way (which is a heavy odds-on bet). Therefore, it becomes a win-win for the car driver. He gets to be “in front” or cut in line, or whatever prize he was gunning for, and suffers no consequence (e.g.: insurance rate increase).

There’s a dark lesson here.

Our extravagant fuel consumption isn’t a technical problem. It’s a social disease. We have legions of drivers on the road today who’d rather put everyone else at risk so they don’t have to trouble themselves with the small amount of effort required improve their skills or show some consideration.

Folks, this is a sad state of affairs. And it doesn’t bode well for idea that we’re going to handle the contraction in energy supplies with dignity, as a society.

Hybrids - the Third Rail of Post-Apocalyptic Doom

Putting people on a pedestal rarely results in anything good, so I rarely do it. But there are those whom I can’t help but hold in high esteem. John Michael Greer (thearchdruidreport.blogspot.com) is one of those people. I confess to not fact-checking him nearly as assiduously as other bloggers because ... well ... he’s wicked smart. So, why bother?

However...

He dismisses the idea that hybrid cars will ever make sense in large numbers. He even lumps them in with hydrogen powered vehicles in terms of their viability. He and I diverge widely in this line of thought. Hybrids have the largest chance of being the configuration of choice in decades to come.

However...

It’ll take a calamitous disruption to fuel supplies to get people to embrace the type of automobile they can actually afford to own and drive. There are many reasons for this, not least among them the psychology surrounding large purchases.

A personal analogy might be illuminating here. I know very little of the inner workings of computers. But every 5-10 years, I must buy one, and then use it. There are many specifications that are quoted by various manufacturers. Combing through the data, I feel like a first year algebra student looking at a chalkboard full of formulas in advanced physics. Everything looks vaguely familiar, but I have absolutely no idea how to “read” it. The next step usually involves speaking with one or more of my expert friends. This method produces as many opinions as .... well, you get the picture. If one gigabyte is good, then two is better... and so on. I must unlearn everything I thought I knew before and re-assemble my understanding. Then I try to understand the relationship of the new numbers to my expectations of daily use. No, I don't need a giga-anything of storage. I'm not a video producer. No, I don't need a 22-inch screen to read lines of text. The human eye can only efficiently follow a column of text that's not more than 4 or 5 inches wide (blogger knows this fact, which is why you're reading a narrow column with lots of space on both sides).

Most people, however, don’t check their perceptions, or verify what they "know" to be true. People only know what they "know," and prefer to “build” on past knowledge because it’s an efficient adaptive behavior for an intelligent species. New information confuses them, and so they tend to shy away from anything new or unfamiliar. This is why we still use internal combustion engines burning mostly gasoline, ideally in some sort of “V” configuration.

We settled on gasoline 120 years ago because it made a lot of sense at the time. We refined oil originally for its tar and some other useful substances, like kerosene for lamps. Gasoline was a huge byproduct that was hazardous to handle, dispose of, or store.  Furthermore, it was exceedingly abundant: about 19 gallons of a 42-gallon barrel of crude is gasoline. Why not burn it up in a newfangled transportation technology called the automobile? At the time, profits from gasoline were pure gravy.

That was then. This is now. We  have an entire population that only understands personal transportation from a very narrow point of view. And why not? It’s all we’ve needed to know. Eight is better than six because it’s more, and more is better. If 35 mph is good, 60 is better (because everyone knows that 60 is more than 35). If some extra weight (a.k.a: safety) is good, more is better. If the driver gets an airbag, why can’t everyone have one? If 200 hp is good, 300 must be better. If “V”-8 is great, then “V”-anything is great.

So what does this have to do with our current predicament? It prevents effective and timely adaptation. This is where Mr. Greer seems to get some of the causes confused with effects, and I think I know where the breakdown occurs within his logic stream. Ironically, he made this error while discussing appropriate green technology, which is exactly the arena in which hybrids start to make sense -- just not in the way we currently think of them.

He is correct to observe that today’s hybrids are massively more complex than what he probably currently drives, if he drives anything at all. But they are not much more complex than the average gasoline-powered new car on sale today (remember: more is better). He assumes that it’s the hybridization that adds cost and complexity. This assumption couldn’t be further from the truth.

Adding a battery and an electric motor introduces redundancy (which will be necessary soon), removes the need for other types of complexity (fewer cylinders, weight and material in the recip engine), and allows more efficient packaging. 

Today’s excessive automobile complexity is a political result which differs very little in its root causes from the financial complexity that caused the current economic crisis. In short, it’s because we humans want something for nothing, and really think that “someone will think of something” to give us this result.

Very wealthy and powerful capitalists know this. I don’t have the space in this particular missive to go into all of the machiavellian machinations concerning the control of battery technology (essential to effective hybrids) over the last 30 years. But, it’s been quite the row. Maybe I’ll attempt it in a later post. Like all things human, it’s a soap opera of intrigue, hidden agendas, greed, back-stabbing and double crossing. Suffice it to say that today’s rentier class has a very deep vested interest in keeping our insane personal transportation system limping desperately along. Like our financial system, this will continue until it collapses of its own weight, and then hybrids will be the standard automotive technology.

Why?

Well, to start with, we have a national system of roads and highways that allows us to use cars to get almost anywhere we want in the 48 continental states. I can hear everybody howling about how it’s falling apart, which is true. But try to keep in mind that the work is done, and the energy has been expended. Most of the cost of building a road (a.k.a.: energy) is in leveling and straightening all those paths through the mountains and hills. Of course, over time we’ll see bridges decommissioned and a return to more circuitous paths. We’ll also see the return of gravel roads. But by that time, grading will be a nominal expense because the cost of labor will have returned to historical norms. I submit that automobiles will be a fact of life for as long as everyone reading this is alive -- regardless of whether you personally own one or not. This is simply because the roads are there, and available to be used. 

Another reason hybrids will make sense is because it will become increasingly necessary to extend the range of whatever fuel source you’re using. Pure electric vehicles make sense as long as you have reliable electricity supplies wherever you intend to drive. Do a short bit of research on the cost of delivering small amounts of electricity to rural areas, and then tell me how long you think we’ll be able to continue this expensive activity into the future. So, a portable liquid fuel will still be a requirement to get into and out of those areas. The technology for non-petroleum-derived liquid fuels has existed for as long as we’ve had internal combustion engines (i.e.: appropriate tech). Just ask your local moonshiner.

The problem arises in the fact that biofuels won’t be available at the prodigious rate we currently consume gasoline. This is because we will be limited to growing seasons. This means no cars for the lower classes, period. Prices will stabilize at whatever the cost of labor to harvest the type of plants that are willing to grow on marginal land and then turn them into something that can be burned. This process is easily ten times slower than simply pumping hydrocarbons out of the ground and refining them.

Therefore, it will be necessary to extract as much distance as possible out of each drop of liquid fuel. Hybrids do exactly this. The one key technology that provides the extended range is regenerative braking (recovering the energy used to slow your car to a stop, and then use it again to accelerate). The technology to harness this sort of energy is 150 years old, and it’s known as the lead-acid battery. Just because lead is toxic doesn’t mean people won’t use it. Whether we develop the political will to force its usage in a closed manufacturing loop remains to be seen. But since lead-acid is the only technology that can be produced using human labor alone as an energy input, we'll likely see it gain in prominence, compared to the patent-laden lithium and nickel batteries the big players are stuffing into today's rolling entertainment centers. 

Combine an extremely small engine (150cc or so), with a modest electrical motor of similar power (7-10 hp) and you have a vehicle capable of sustaining 35mph, with the auxiliary power necessary to pull you up a hill (regenerating on the down slope). This is about as fast as you can safely drive on gravel. Depending on how you gear it, drive it and configure it, you’ll get somewhere between 100 and 300 miles out of your gallon of fuel. Filling stations become obsolete in this scenario. You’ll be able to buy fuel in gallon-sized glass jugs from roadside merchants -- maybe even from the farmers who grew it.

If you think this is impossible after a complete crash of all large-scale manufacturing systems, think again. Your local machine shop can make a simple 2-cycle air-cooled engine from iron or aluminum, depending on how it's equipped. Small scale regional smelters still exist and aluminum can be smelted with firewood, if necessary. A belt-drive transmission using a pulley and centrifugal clutch is also easy to make in a metallurgist’s workshop. Any belt will do. In a worst-case scenario, you’d use leather treated with pitch and replace it every few thousand miles. There are numerous small-scale battery re-manufacturers all over the country who’d be more than happy to keep you in batteries (refurbishing the millions of car, boat and ATV batteries now in existence) for however many years it took to build a real battery plant on a local river. Find yourself a starter motor from some diesel truck, get an electrician to wire it up for you (including a reverse-polarity rheostat on your dash) and voila, you’re in business with a hybrid car. The body structure can be adapted from something already in existence or made from scratch, depending on your local fabricator’s skill level.

Personally, I’m not betting on apocalypse. I don’t subscribe to the sudden stop theory where everything shuts down all at once and starving mobs of mutant zombie bandits roam the countryside unmolested. There is absolutely no historical precedent for this. Even the Barbarians who sacked Rome had home bases and organized social structures. Random acts of piracy, or raping and pillaging as different groups battle for territorial control -- I’ll buy that. But anarchy is always a flash in the pan.

Regardless of how the future plays out, my point still stands. We have roads. They are built. If Rome is any example, the rights-of-way will be used for centuries into the future. One of the ways General George Patton confounded the technologically superior Germans on their own turf was to study the ancient Roman routes because he knew they’d support mechanized troop movements. Where there were no bridges, he found a way around, or used temporary floating bridges. Do you think for a minute that people won’t erect simpler structures once the grand cement monstrosities we have today begin to crumble? I wouldn't bet on it.

Cars will be needed. They won’t exist in the numbers they do today. And we won’t use them to go to the grocery store. But hybrid vehicles will be necessary in very short order when the production capacity of liquid fuels begins dropping precipitously.

In a later post, I'll discuss a hypothetical buildup of a gasoline-only high-mpg car, plus the cost of adding a hybrid drivetrain.

I have a feeling you'll be surprised, and you'll wonder why you're struggling to make the payments on the one you have now.