# Gas Demand Decreases Across US



## Tessa (Jun 20, 2008)

I saw on the cover of USA Today that there's been a 6 billion mile decrease in travel across the US vs. mileage by this time last year.  If the average car receives 25MPG that's 240,000,000 gallons of gas.  At $4 a gallon, that's $960 million dollars worth of gas we haven't bought.  

How many gallons are in a barrel?  Is it 60?  I think I read that somewhere.  If it IS 60, then we've cut our usage by 4 million barrels vs. this time last year.

It's a small dent, but it IS a dent, none the less.  

Seems like a decrease in demand would at least slow this increase in the price per barrel.  We can't be the only country that's decreased usage over the last 6 months; especially considering how wasteful Americans are.  I think this aids in the argument that supply vs. demand is not the only factor in this inflation situation.....not to stir the debate again.


----------



## WoodMann (Jun 20, 2008)

You'd think, bt that's not a big enough dent. There are still too many people like my sister that won't put of the trip to the Kalihari in the Wisconsin Dells via the Suburban just so her 2 kids will think she's cool.............


----------



## webbie (Jun 20, 2008)

42 gallons in a Bbl.

It is an interesting stat and proof that conservation is the ONLY thing that we can instantly put into practice. 

Here is my question - when I heard that stat.....

Can they accurately measure how many miles are driven as opposed to how much gas we all save by being lighter on the pedal, lower speeds, turning the car off at drive-in windows, etc.

I'm not doubting that there is less driving - just that the proper stat might be the fuel use as opposed to miles driven. 

Hey, as far as I am concerned, less traffic is a good thing......


----------



## Tessa (Jun 20, 2008)

Webmaster said:
			
		

> Can they accurately measure how many miles are driven as opposed to how much gas we all save by being lighter on the pedal, lower speeds, turning the car off at drive-in windows, etc.
> 
> I'm not doubting that there is less driving - just that the proper stat might be the fuel use as opposed to miles driven.
> 
> Hey, as far as I am concerned, less traffic is a good thing......



One of my first thoughts was "how did they get that figure?"  I'd imagine they probably calculated the amount of gas purchased, used an average MPG rating and calculated miles driven because 6 billion miles sounds a lot more impressive than 240 million gallons.  Shock value seems to be the deciding factor in how a story is presented anymore; we want to be awed by what we read/hear.


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 20, 2008)

Obviously the high fuel prices are sending the 'proper' signals to the consumer.
Also obviously, higher fuel prices will only enhance 'proper' consumer behavior, especially to we piggish Americans, so therefore it is best to encourage their rise until the 'proper' behavior is realized.


----------



## mayhem (Jun 20, 2008)

According to Wikipedia as of 2005 there were approximately 247,000,000 vehicles registered in the USA...so a national average of 6 billion fewer miles driven equates to a whole 24 miles per year per vehicle.


----------



## WoodMann (Jun 20, 2008)

Well I guess this is a baby step in the right direction...................


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 20, 2008)

42 gallons of oil in the barrel but only roughly 26 gallons of it comes out of the refinery as gasoline, even less if they are running in distillate mode instead of gas mode. Lots of other stuff in that barrel. Lube oil stock, petrochemical stock, sulfur, residual (asphalt), coke, butane, propane and on and on and on.

Actually more gallons come out of a refinery than go in. When ya heat the stuff up and rearrange the molecules the volume increases.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 20, 2008)

mayhem said:
			
		

> According to Wikipedia as of 2005 there were approximately 247,000,000 vehicles registered in the USA...so a national average of 6 billion fewer miles driven equates to a whole 24 miles per year per vehicle.



With my 454 3/4 ton Suburban it equates to about six blocks less a year.


----------



## begreen (Jun 21, 2008)

Hmm, that Suburban would make one helluva smoker. Pipe the old Sierra through the back doors and you could smoke a year's worth of meat in one pass.


----------



## Redox (Jun 21, 2008)

I thought the thread was about NATURAL gas.  I haven't bought gasOLINE in months...

CNG=$2.40/gal equivalent here, only $0.73 in Utah!

Chris


----------



## fraxinus (Jun 21, 2008)

Actually, this decrease in gasoline consumption is pretty impressive when you consider how quickly it's come about. At this point, perhaps most of it is attributable to increased use of public transportation where that is available, but it's interesting to note that the percentage decrease in consumption almost exactly mirrors the decline in traffic on the Maine Turnpike so far this spring. This in a state with very few public transportation options. A further dramatic indication of where things are headed is the phasing out of low mileage vehicles by Ford, GM and others. Ford, for example, can't produce enough Focuses (Foci?) to meet demand, but will drastically reduce production of F250 and F150 pickups - their previous best sellers.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 22, 2008)

As I've been saying for years, the market responds faster and with better results than any government solution. These high prices will drive the development of innovation quicker than any proposed government solution. Now if only we could get the military spending/subsidizing of oil removed from the equation we'd be set.

There is a reason Ford/Chevy/Chrysler is in the toilet and the government should not bail them out. Let other automakers take up the slack and replace them.


----------



## fraxinus (Jun 23, 2008)

TMonter:  The decrease in gasoline consumption is certainly a vivid example of market forces bringing about rapid change. I'm not so sure, however, that these forces always operate faster and with better results than government action. Some examples that come quickly to mind: Would we not be in a better position today if mandated mileage standards circa 70's and 80's had been maintained and even strengthened? Would we not also have been better off if we had established a floor price for gas through taxation (which helps support public transportation) as most European countries did? I can't quite imagine how strictly market forces could have brought about seat belts and their tens of thousands of saved lives. Finally, Vermont's plans for the coming winter posted elsewhere on the site seem to me an excellent example of things government can and should do.
  I do agree completely that there should be no Federal bailout of Ford, GM or any other auto company.They can adapt or perish. American corporations and their Congressional enablers have, however, become so addicted to govermental largess I expect they will all be arriving in Washington with their hands out any day now. If we had the same mindset as today when the first Model T's began rolling off the assembly line, we'd probably still be paying subsidies to blacksmiths and buggy makers.


----------



## webbie (Jun 23, 2008)

Oil and energy are NOT free markets, not by any stretch of imagination!

If we all were allowed to grow pot in our back yards and then sell it to whoever we wanted, that may be a relatively free market.

But when you are a monopoly or state-owned or backed industry - as we can say ALL oil companies are, the market is nowhere near free. When the price of admission is in the tens of billions of dollars, no one can say the the dude with only a million has a chance to compete in the "free" market.

Once again, T, to a Hammer everything looks like a nail! If you cause people pain (or lack of pleasure), they will respond quickly! That is the only dynamic at work. If you told people right now that we could lower the price of gas to $2.00 a gallon by allowing power plants to double their emissions (which would, in turn, kill many more people), they would vote yes! That is not a free market. That is mob  behavior. Survival. Pleasure seeking. Conditioned response. 

Market Forces are a whole different thing than free markets.

Sounds more like Behavior Science than anything to do with free markets.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 23, 2008)

When you have anybody involved in a process that didn't either make it, processes it, transport it, distribute it or consume it, free market principles don't apply. Demand elasticity hits the wall when somebody is allow to tie knots in the elastic.


----------



## TMonter (Jun 23, 2008)

> Oil and energy are NOT free markets, not by any stretch of imagination!



Never said they were, just pointed out that markets respond faster and more appropriately than government.



> Some examples that come quickly to mind: Would we not be in a better position today if mandated mileage standards circa 70’s and 80’s had been maintained and even strengthened?



Not really. The harm to consumers may have been just as great, maybe more so. What should have been done is force producers to internalize all the costs and prevent them from offloading external costs onto taxpayers.



> If you cause people pain (or lack of pleasure), they will respond quickly! That is the only dynamic at work. If you told people right now that we could lower the price of gas to $2.00 a gallon by allowing power plants to double their emissions (which would, in turn, kill many more people), they would vote yes! That is not a free market. That is mob behavior. Survival. Pleasure seeking. Conditioned response.



It is a free market when businesses must pay for all the costs associated with their business. You are specifically using a loaded example that is invalid because it is in fact framed as something it's not. Yes people often take the easiest path, but that does not make a free market bad. That is where the government is supposed to step in as a referee and keep all parties honest.


----------



## webbie (Jun 23, 2008)

I thought I was a Utopian!
Government as a referee - eh?

Let's see - would they care more about a citizen or a corporation who flew them around in private jets, financed their campaign, provided them every luxury and VIP treatment?

Of course I agree that markets work! Slave markets work, heroin markets on the street corner work, black markets work, gray markets work....etc, etc.

The myth, as I see, is that anyone thinks there is something special about this - it's become a sort of religion! 

As far as a loaded example, we are talking about Energy, aren't we? It is what all markets are based on.......in the end. You say that is a loaded example, yet this is EXACTLY the thinking that the "drill everywhere" ethic is based on...the perception that it will alleviate short term pain.

I think we can agree on one thing - if there is not a financial or major (jail, etc.) reason for corporations and people to act in an honorable way....then they will not! At least not in the marketplace.

Not trying to be ornery because I think we probably agree that the market, free or not, needs long term planning which takes into account all the various angles.

Listen once again to those Enron Energy traders laughing at 10's of millions of suffering people! Then tell me we should punish those couple dozen traders - and how that will help the 10's of millions that were hurt. That is the problem of culpability. You cannot get blood from a stone. The traders that are making big $$$ right now will NEVER pay the money back to the consumers who they are making it from.


----------



## Tessa (Jun 23, 2008)

So Web, how do you feel about the "windfall profit tax" suggested for Big Oil?


----------



## webbie (Jun 23, 2008)

No windfall profits tax, but:
1. Do not lower corporate taxes until and unless budget is balanced (a long way ahead!)
2. Remove or reduce current tax subsidies for domestic drilling - these were put into place to make more domestic drilling happen when oil was $30 or below. Now that it is over $100 this is certainly not needed....plenty of incentive in the oil itself.

The way I hear it, the Congress has been trying to remove those subsidies and have the money used for renewable energy crash programs, but the GOP and McCain have voted it down numerous times. 

You have to be real careful about the language in these news stories - for instance, the Dem plan is said to have a "Windfall profits tax".....which is true ONLY if the companies "failed to reinvest their profits in new exploration activity or renewable energy projects." How can the same folks that want to open up every square foot of the coast for drilling...then complain that a company who does not actually drill or invest will be taxed?? Doesn't make sense....

Another interesting use of words is that the bill "raises taxes on oil companies".  That is true only if you think this way - the government sent you out a $600 stimulus check this year. If they fail to do so next year because the economy improves greatly, is that a tax increase?

We need a crash program on alternative energy - even McSame is coming up with new expensive programs every day - like today he wants to give 300 million to someone to build a battery and $5,000 to the automakers for each clean car sold...

BUT, I think he forgot one thing - we have to pay for these efforts! The Bills which have been voted down use the removal of those tax breaks to PAY for the renewable stuff. So once again, we have Bizzarro Backwards world......the GOP jumping up and down about tax increases while funding programs which vastly increase the debt and deficit! I'm not saying the Dems have it perfect, but I would rather have an effort be financed then just printing money - we see now the effect of printing money (it is worth less).


----------



## TMonter (Jun 23, 2008)

> Listen once again to those Enron Energy traders laughing at 10’s of millions of suffering people! Then tell me we should punish those couple dozen traders - and how that will help the 10’s of millions that were hurt. That is the problem of culpability. You cannot get blood from a stone. The traders that are making big $$$ right now will NEVER pay the money back to the consumers who they are making it from.



Except Enron happened because of government meddling with the market, not because of it. In an open market system what Enron did would have never been possible.



> I think we can agree on one thing - if there is not a financial or major (jail, etc.) reason for corporations and people to act in an honorable way....then they will not! At least not in the marketplace.



Which is why a free market works better than government regulation. If corporations are forced to internalize costs by enforcement through courts and by people in the marketplace it keeps them honest.



> Not trying to be ornery because I think we probably agree that the market, free or not, needs long term planning which takes into account all the various angles.



Which is not done better by government. Market driven solutions are always better than government ones. (Assuming noone is being defrauded)

Note that when I talk free market system I'm taking a system with minimal or no regulations outside of the prevention of companies/individuals using fraud or force.


----------



## RedRanger (Jun 24, 2008)

[quote author="TMonter" date="1214268969


Which is not done better by government. Market driven solutions are always better than government ones. (Assuming noone is being defrauded.

So nice to be an assuming Libertarian--bye the way you spelt none incorrectly.

Many things are better done better by government for the common good.  (ASS) suming that private individuals will always step up to the plate, is extremely naive.  In the real world that just doesn`t happen.

And when we lose all faith in government and society pulling together, then we shall indeed become an island and surely be washed away.  Remember the old saying--"no man is an island, and the death of any man dimishes me"..

Apparently that is not the Liberatian Way--and I hope that my senses never become so compounded that it becomes my selfish way.  Just too myoptic for my liking.


----------



## mayhem (Jun 24, 2008)

So, any bets as to how long before we start seeing new and creative tax increases to cover the losses to state coffers from reduced usage of toll roads and bridges?


----------



## begreen (Jun 24, 2008)

That's happening right now in VA isn't it BB?


----------



## WoodMann (Jun 24, 2008)

mayhem said:
			
		

> So, any bets as to how long before we start seeing new and creative tax increases to cover the losses to state coffers from reduced usage of toll roads and bridges?



4 months....................


----------



## webbie (Jun 24, 2008)

They already took care of that one! They sold (and are selling) roads and bridges to multi-national corporations, the idea being that these companies can increase rates and the pols will not have to take a popularity hit.......brilliant! Spanish and Australian companies will own our infrastructure....the Selling of America is almost 100% complete.


----------



## Tessa (Jun 24, 2008)

mayhem said:
			
		

> So, any bets as to how long before we start seeing new and creative tax increases to cover the losses to state coffers from reduced usage of toll roads and bridges?



After being ticketed at one of those "red light cameras" a few months back I discovered that most of them (in Texas at least) are owned by private organizations who've worked out a deal w/the state.  Every person who runs a light is issued something similar to a "citizen arrest" by this private corp; a letter is sent with a fine attached.  The infraction is never reported to your insurance and a ticket is never issued so there is no possibility of a warrant.  The catch is, if you don't pay the fine the company sends a notice to the DPS/DMV and you have a block issued on your registration so you cannot renew your tags when they expire.  There was an article in a local paper talking about the state's increased revenue since the institution of the red light cameras; it wasn't a small amount by any means.

I'd imagine if people stop using toll roads (which is hard here, with most cities utilizing toll roads on the busiest highways/best routes), Texas would see an increase in red light cameras.  Easy revenue, cheaper than a cop, very passive.


----------



## webbie (Jun 24, 2008)

As an interesting aside, Lockheed Martin is the contractor for many of these Big Brother efforts - talk about the union of state and corporations! They build missiles and also keep DB of how you drive. Much more, too.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 24, 2008)

BeGreen said:
			
		

> That's happening right now in VA isn't it BB?



Yep. And guaranteed to be followed by the historic avalanche of "unintended consequences".

In Virginia we are not only subject to the National Religion which is education, we have a State Religion. Roads. Everybody seems to feel they have a birthright to buy a house 75 miles from where they work and have everybody else pay for a six lane road to get them to work. I did that but never complained about trekking a two lane cow trail to work every day. I knew it was the price of my decision.

I now have the pleasure of educating their kids, paying for their roads and listening to them groan about gas prices. Grrrr.... And don't even get me started on the demands for more parks and golf courses.


----------



## webbie (Jun 24, 2008)

BB, they can also enjoy the beautiful view of the hills and mountains (through the haze) as they drive the 75 miles to work.


----------



## fossil (Jun 24, 2008)

And people ask us why we moved away from Fairfax County.  After 12 years there, I couldn't get far enough away fast enough.   hh:   Rick


----------



## velvetfoot (Jun 24, 2008)

I think the guy in front of me at the store paid more than 7 bucks for a pack of cigs.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 24, 2008)

velvetfoot said:
			
		

> I think the guy in front of me at the store paid more than 7 bucks for a pack of cigs.



Yeah I think it has reached the point where pot is cheaper than tobacco.


----------



## Redox (Jun 24, 2008)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> velvetfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Kinda like how electric heat is getting cheaper than oil?

Chris


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 24, 2008)

Redox said:
			
		

> BrotherBart said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Propane is the one I am watching. 15 years after we built on this place some people bought six acres next to us. Built a house and put in propane in an area where everybody else is all electric and at that time most heated with wood. Well, the new guys were no more than moved in when they started a petition drive to try to get nat. gas in here. Everybody else but us was happy with their heat pumps and I was happy whacking trees. Though I missed whacking them off of the the land they built on. I also knew that the utility right of way runs across my property so I knew where the ditch would be dug for pipe. Soooo... Here we are ten years later and they still have that truck backing up the driveway with the backup alarm ringing. That bill has just got to hurt. Three years ago I asked him how the propane was working out and he said fine but kind of expensive. He ain't seen nothin yet.


----------



## Jags (Jun 25, 2008)

Checked with my propane supplier today, summer fill = $2.09 with the winter month lock in at high $2.20's to low $2.30's.


----------



## begreen (Jun 25, 2008)

Wow, that is half our local price. Thanks Suburban.


----------



## Redox (Jun 26, 2008)

I think it's all in who you know.  I met a guy who married the daughter of one of the local propane distributors and he told me he was paying about $1.75 a year ago.  I haven't talked to him recently, but he sounded like he was set for life!

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought propane was a byproduct of oil production.  You can't drill for propane, it has to be separated out after cracking in a refinery.  If this is the case, then the price would HAVE to be manipulated so that the market wouldn't go crazy.  If the price was lower, then everyone would switch to it and supples would become stressed.

Chris


----------



## Jags (Jun 26, 2008)

Not sure how it is made, but a year ago I was paying $1.46.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 26, 2008)

Here are details on propane sources and extraction.

http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Propane.html


----------



## WoodMann (Jun 26, 2008)

I still can't believe that gas use is down, folks around here drive as if gas was $0.99 a gallon...............


----------



## Jags (Jun 26, 2008)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Here are details on propane sources and extraction.
> 
> http://www.madehow.com/Volume-3/Propane.html



Thanks BroB, never knew and that filled in the knowledge gap.  Interesting read.


----------



## Res5cue (Jun 26, 2008)

Used to drive 75 MPH and get 20 MPG on the highway. Im setting the cruise for 66-67 MPH now and getting 29 MPG. I actually wouldnt mind seeing the old 55 signs back up as a big screw you to the oil companies.


----------



## heaterman (Jun 26, 2008)

WoodMann said:
			
		

> You'd think, bt that's not a big enough dent. There are still too many people like my sister that won't put of the trip to the Kalihari in the Wisconsin Dells via the Suburban just so her 2 kids will think she's cool.............



Tell your sister to check things out in the Dells before she goes. Last I heard there were a number of attractions there that will remain closed for the rest of the year due to flood damage.


----------



## Telco (Jun 26, 2008)

Res5cue said:
			
		

> Used to drive 75 MPH and get 20 MPG on the highway. Im setting the cruise for 66-67 MPH now and getting 29 MPG. I actually wouldnt mind seeing the old 55 signs back up as a big screw you to the oil companies.



Really doesn't matter on the 55MPH.  I've had cars that get their best mileage at 45MPH, and had them that got their best mileage at 80MPH, and everywhere in between.  It's not just the speed, it's the speed plus the engine's characteristics and power output plus the car's physical shape and weight plus the final gearing and transmission type that determines mileage.  Change any one of these, and the speed for best mileage changes.  The one I had that got its best mileage at 80MPH would return a third less MPG at 50 to 55MPH.


----------



## Tessa (Jun 26, 2008)

Telco said:
			
		

> Res5cue said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



And on THAT note, I usually run around 70-75 on the highway (which is keeping pace w/the traffic, honestly..even semi's down here gun it).  I'm getting better mileage than EPA projections on my car.  Of course, I think SOME of that is the fact that I coast a lot on the downwards and level spots....and any time traffic gets jammy.


----------



## Wet1 (Jun 27, 2008)

What car gets better mileage at 80 mph than at 50 mph????????????????????????????????????????????????  Since it will take about 50+ more hp to overcome the increased wind resistance, I'm highly doubtful any vehicle will get better mileage at 80 than it will at 50-55...


----------



## RedRanger (Jun 27, 2008)

Wet1 said:
			
		

> What car gets better mileage at 80 mph than at 50 mph????????????????????????????????????????????????  Since it will take about 50+ more hp to overcome the increased wind resistance, I'm highly doubtful any vehicle will get better mileage at 80 than it will at 50-55...



Agreed:  we don`t even have those kind of speed limits where I live..  I for one will be more than happy to see those gas-suzzling pickups and suv`s with one person driving them taken off the road.  Just an absoulte waste of energy.  You know, they were only invented in the first place for people`s vanity,,   and how wasteful!!  just a horrendous waste of non-renewable  resources.


----------



## begreen (Jun 27, 2008)

If you lived in Texas you'd be going 70mph. The state is a series of cities connected by highways through excruciatingly long sessions of boredom. There's a reason why a lot of hybrids are selling there.  That and a long habit of having some of the cheapest gas in the country.


----------



## Jags (Jun 27, 2008)

sonnyinbc said:
			
		

> I for one will be more than happy to see those gas-suzzling pickups and suv`s with one person driving them taken off the road.



I would look pretty silly trying to pull my trailer or boat (just a small fishing boat, so don't get into an uproar) with a Geo prism.  My road would swallow those little things and never even belch a tire back up.  Believe it or not.....I actually WORK my truck and on many occasions, and I know this is a strong word, but NEED a truck.  Hell, last year I got my big truck stuck twice to the point that I had to go back home and get my friggin' backhoe to get me out.

If a fuel sipping vehicle was available that could address my needs, you bet I would have one, but they ain't been invented yet.  Now soccer moms......thats a different story.


----------



## Adios Pantalones (Jun 27, 2008)

Off roaders say that 4WD allows you to get stuck further from the main road.


----------



## Jags (Jun 27, 2008)

Adios Pantalones said:
			
		

> Off roaders say that 4WD allows you to get stuck further from the main road.



Yep, and those are the guys that I drive by to get to the main road. %-P


----------



## webbie (Jun 27, 2008)

Heck, I USED a truck every day for 30 years. But drive down the road in most places and look at pickups and big SUV's. In 90% plus of the cases, you will see them empty. Of course, the same is true with passenger cars (driver only).

Man, oil at $142 today.....


----------



## Telco (Jun 27, 2008)

The car that did so well at 80MPH was an 89 Camaro RS with a 305 TBI and a chip.  Other than having the 305 the car was a stripper model.  Cruising at 80MPH kept the RPMs at about 2200RPM, which apparently was the sweet spot for that engine.  And, this isn't hearsay, this is what I did.  In my military days my wife was staying with her parents in South Carolina while I was stationed in Maryland, and for the few months we were waiting on household goods to arrive from overseas so we could get her up I'd drive down to her parent's house every weekend.  To keep myself distracted while driving I'd make a game out of trying to get the best mileage out of the car.  I could almost make it the whole way on one tank of fuel.  Dividing gallons into miles would yield 30 to 31MPG if I travelled 80, 29 to 30 at 75, something like 27 at 85.  You don't have to believe, and I do know it's hard to, but this is what I was getting.  I believe because it was what I was seeing.

On the speed limits, I didn't care about them then any more than I do now.  Ran a remote mounted radar detector since I knew I'd be living near Virginia with that car, never had a problem.  When in Virginia, if the detector went nuts I'd slow down and shut it off, and with no telltale signs of a detector the cops wouldn't know who had it.


----------



## ISeeDeadBTUs (Jun 27, 2008)

Give it a little while . . . the petro companies will whine to the Govt that people are driving less and they need some sort of bail-out from the Govt. Think that sounds far-fetched?? Try reviewing the airline industry.


----------



## BrotherBart (Jun 27, 2008)

Jags said:
			
		

> If a fuel sipping vehicle was available that could address my needs, you bet I would have one, but they ain't been invented yet.  Now soccer moms......thats a different story.



Soccer moms address your needs?  :coolsmirk:


----------



## Redox (Jun 27, 2008)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Bart!  Stop that!  (where's the smiley with the blue hair?)

There used to be a grassy hill on a certain piece of county school property 'round these parts that was very steep.  The game was to get your 4WD to the top without getting stuck.  Some people couldn't do it, it was that steep.  One drunken evening, a few of us decided to try it with whatever we were driving, and I managed to pull it off.  Hooked the front wheels over the top edge and bottomed out.  The vehicle was a RWD 1982 Chevette. :coolsmile: 

I can get to the SC line from Baltimore in the Roady on one tank of gas.  It's also very sure footed in the snow.

Chris


----------



## Jags (Jun 30, 2008)

BrotherBart said:
			
		

> Jags said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ummm....Yes :red:


----------

