Walk the talk

One person asked me, upon reading my anti-capitalism pro-free market essay series, for ideas on how individuals might help contribute in daily life.

Walking the walk on two of the big points is easy: shop at independant stores instead of chains, don't buy IPOs, and if you create something (art, music, software, inventions), make it creative commons / open source / patent it but then licence it for free.

As to walking the walk on real estate: I don't really think it's applicable. There is some political momentum behind changing the corporate system after Citizen's United, and there is piracy/file sharing undermining copyright, but there is exactly zero movement behind one person one parcel.
Thats not even a phrase that exists. I just made it up, just now, as I was typing!
But there really is no inbetween. Nothing any one person does (short of the solution proposed in Manna) is going to have more than zero effect on the rest of the world.
The closest I imagine one could possibly come would be buying rental properties, and renting them at below market rent, even at cost (though with hidden irregular costs, like vacancies and major maintenance, factored in). One could opt out, but that would do as little to change the system or benefit anyone as opting out of voting does (i.e. exactly none, and possibly counter-productive, since then you are diluting your own potential influence)

For one person one parcel, I think the best anyone could do right now, even a billionaire, would be to publicize and promote the idea, because the first step would be getting the idea into the minds of millions of people. Its not quite communism, not quite libertarianism, not quite anarchy, not quite free market. As far as I know, its something no one has ever thought of before.

There is one other thing - probably the single biggest change to our system, (short of one person one parcel) would be for working hours to be adjusted downward to match increases in efficiency.
That is something we could easily do, if we were so inclined, just like we reduced working hours from 60-80 per week at the turn of the last century down to 40-50 hours today, as the industrial revolution vastly increased output per worker.

Today, computers and the internet and robots, plus outsourcing and corporate consolidation, not to mention quickly advancing 3D printing, has increased productivity far more than steam power and assembly lines ever did, yet we have never adjusted the 40 hour work week to match.  Our insanely massive income inequality, inflation adjusted income stagnation, and steadily high unemployment are all direct results of that.
I have started a petition to that end: http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/a-35-hour-work-week-will
Of course, given the actual increase in output per worker since the 1940s when the 40 hour week was officially established, we should be at 4 hour work weeks by now,

 but 35 seems a bit more politically realistic as a starting point.

Unfortunately, I'm just a manual laborer with some ideas and a free blog account, not an activist or promoter, but if you happen to have a network of people who'd support the idea, by all means help me get some signatures
http://petitions.moveon.org/sign/a-35-hour-work-week-will

All of the money stuff I sometimes talk about, condensed

A lot of my personal friends and family have heard me mention something regarding saving money and investing, probably remember hearing me referencing "Mr Money Mustache" or "Jacob of Early Retirement Extreme".

Chances are, though, you chalk it up to one of those random Bakari nutty things, or maybe you even glance briefly at one of the links I send you, but it's long and there's like 300 other articles, and you don't have time for all that.

I'm going to try to explain all that stuff in a condensed and untechnical manner.

Of course, the majority of my readers who I don't know in real life found me through MMM, and all of y'all feel free to skip this post, as you won't learn anything new - it might be perfect for forwarding on to your own friends and family though who haven't come around yet.

Very early on into adulthood I discovered that I don't particularly care for employment.

Its not just about the work itself - it doesn't matter how much fun, how creative or rewarding or self-directed the job is - its just the fact of being forced to be some specific place doing some specific thing for almost exactly 1/2 of your discretionary time (factoring in mandatory lunch hours and commute time), for the majority of your life.

Luckily, I grew up poor (there were 73 of us, living in a cardboard box), plus I self-identified as an environmentalist since about age 9, plus being non-conformist, all combined to make rejection of all forms of materialism come naturally.

I never felt much need for "stuff".  Living in my RV felt plenty luxurious enough.

Psychologists say that money spent on experiences produces more happiness than money spent on stuff - but I've found there is a practically infinite supply of entertaining and educational and downright amazing and wonderful experiences to be found for free almost everywhere I look.  No, not even that - I frequently don't even have to look; often times they come to me!  Sometimes when I was looking for something else, other times they just literally come seek me out.

I've never even had the desire for the stuff most American's spend money on: cable TV, a new car, fashionable clothes, or a "phone" that is really a tiny computer.  So, after food and rent, I never had all that much to spend money on.

And here is the point of all that backstory:
 
 

I discovered early on that if I don't spend a lot of money, then I don't need a lot of money, and if I don't need a lot of money, I don't have to spend so much time working.

So that is what I did for the next 10 years.

I might work full time somewhere, but I'd get bored after a few months, and quit, with no backup plan. Other times I'd work part time, maybe two or three very part time jobs, or maybe just show up sporadically to my supposedly full-time job. I built up a ridiculous resume of jobs - experiences (that I got paid for). I traveled across the country, I went to school purely to learn interesting stuff with no intention of leveraging a "career" out of it.

I made a couple of less than ideal financial decisions here and there, but managed to pay very little in interest, never miss a payment, and keep my credit score high.

And I had lots of free time, whether I was working or not, to play, to spend with my partner, to read and learn, to go on bike rides and camping trips.

Not that I ever thought debt was no big deal, but between moving cross country, college, buying a bigger RV, and getting divorced, I hit a peak of debt (around 10k), and decided to focus seriously on getting rid of it.

Older and more mature, the day I made my last payment, I also opened an IRA - 18 February 2010

Along the way, one of my blog posts caught the attention of Kirsten Dirksen of Faircompanies.com, who asked me to write for her, and then later did a video interview of me when she was in the country.

Which got moderately popular (a good quarter million views in a couple months), which resulted in a number of internet fans who found me on facebook - one of whom suggested I look up Jacob Lund Fisker of ERE, who also lived in an RV at the time.  Well, it turned out he also lived in the Bay Area, and was planning a get together soon, we met, I started reading his blog posts... it couldn't have come at a better time.

Having recently paid off the last of my debt and opened an IRA, it was perfect timing for the message.

It turns out I was on the right track, but I missed an important detail.

Allow me to summarize how many, if not most, young people look at money:

Retirement is something that happens when you are old.  If we are lucky, it will still be at age 67 by the time we get there.  By that time most of your life has gone by and if you don't have major health problems, at the least you are too weak and tired to do all the sort of things you want to do now.  Hell, you don't even know for sure you'll live that long, so it doesn't make any sense to put off living life to the fullest now.

Of course you aren't stupid either, you aren't going to spend money frivolously, and its good to have some savings in case of emergency, maybe even a retirement plan, but that all has to be balanced with enjoying life today.
 

That's more or less how most people I talk to look at it.

It's how I looked at it.

The philosophy is good.

It's the underlying assumption that is mistaken.

Its a totally understandable mistake, because every one else around us takes it for granted.

Here is the enormous underlying mistake from the paragraph above:

67 is when social security starts paying out.  That has nothing to do with when you retire.  Retiring can happen much sooner, or much later.  Its simply a function of when (if!) you have enough to live on without having to work.

And let me cut off objections preemptively here, by emphasizing a word from my last paragraph:

"...have enough to live on without having to work."

Maybe you really enjoy your job.

It may be fun, and/or meaningful.

As of now, lets stop using the word "retire".  Lets substitute "financial independence" instead.

Not having to work means that if you get bored, you can do something else, with no stress during the transition.  It means if your boss is a jerk, you quit.  It means you can start your own small business, doing what you love.

If you already love what you do, but your company is small and on the brink, you can take a voluntary pay cut.

If you love what you do, and your employer is a soulless corporation, you can use your salary to buy expensive toys, vacations, or donate to charity, or whatever you want, because if you are already financially independent you don't need to worry about rent or food or transportation or health care.

In a word, it means "Freedom".

Would you rather have more freedom in your life, or less?

"Yeah, all that sounds great, Bakari, but it is totally unrealistic"

Ah, you'd think so, wouldn't you?

Now we get to the fun part.

I'm going to leave out all the math, and all the stock market/investing stuff.  I'll point you to some MMM posts that go into detail if you want to learn a little more and go a little deeper, but for now just trust me on the numbers.

If you invest wisely (and that doesn't mean "picking the right stocks", it means taking the safe, easy, average, middle of the road route) then once you have saved up 25 times your annual spending, you are set for life.

That's actually a really really important summary, that deserves an inset section

Once you have saved 25 times your annual spending, you are set for life.

( http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/05/29/how-much-do-i-need-for-retirement/ )

That's secret ("secret") number one.

Here's another:

Under capitalism, money that is invested creates its own money.  Then that new money also creates new money.  Then that new money creates even more new money.  This cycle repeats indefinitely.

An early MMM analogy is to think of each and every dollar bill you have as a potential employee.  If you spend it, you have essentially fired a reliable worker.  If you invest it, it will produce a small percentage of its own value for you, 24/7, forever.  Give it enough time, and that dollar will make you a new dollar, just by sitting there not being spent.  Then, if you only spend the new dollar, and leave the original alone, you just got something for nothing.

It gets better.

If you put away five bucks a week, starting at age 18, you will have more money at (official) retirement age than you would if you put away 30 times as much - $150 a week - but didn't start until 10 years before you retire.

In the former, you only put away $260 a year, for a grand total of 13k of your own money (spread out over 50 years)

In the latter, you spent $7,800 a year, for a grand total of  78k.

You spend 6 times as much, and have less to show for it!

All that extra free cash in the former is coming from interest and dividends, compounding and snowballing on themselves.  The new money creates new money which creates new money which creates...

But what if you put away $150 a week, starting at age 18?

Well, then you would be a millionaire just a little after your 50th birthday.

Literally.

That's just math.

But lets go back to the first secret again; once you save 25 times your annual spending, you are set for life.

If you can spend less than 40k in one year, then you don't need to be a millionaire in order to be financially independent.

Given that 40k is substantially more than median individual income (and only slightly less than median household income, which on average has more than one earner), I'm going to say it is not a particularly bold claim to suggest that it is possible - nay, downright easy - to live on less than 40k per year.

(Remember, we're talking spending, not income, and you can subtract any spending on savings, as well as any spending directly related to employment, such as commuting or work clothes, from what you need once you are financially independent).
If, for example, you can live comfortably on under 20k a year, then you don't even need one half of a million in order to be financially independent for the rest of your life.

Here's the other big mistake that people tend to make:

We think in terms of what we can afford.  When we have some extra cash, we think about what we can spend it on.  Money burns holes in our pockets.

I don't hold it against you.  Its human nature, and I'm just as guilty of it as anyone else.  Most of my working life I made only enough to cover my expenses, however much that was, and if I happened across a nice large lump sum I thought "what fun and cool thing or experience can I buy with this?"

That reasoning means we tend to spend however much we have.

In other words, maybe you were actually fairly comfortable when you were only making 23k per year, but you just switched to a better job, and you moved in with your partner so your rent is half as much, and so all these opportunities open up of stuff to buy and trips to take, maybe you get your internet speed one tier higher, since you can easily afford it, maybe you eat out a little more, get a latte at Starbucks twice a week, and before you know it, you're breaking even again.
   

There's a term for that: "lifestyle inflation".
  

Hedonic adaptation dictates that it soon becomes the new normal, and provides exactly zero happiness above baseline.

Suppose when life changes allow you to have higher income and lower expenses, you threw all the excess into investments?

Suppose you make a point of lowering expenses, cutting out anything that doesn't truly make your life better in a tangible, ongoing way.

Could you save 10% of your income?
25%?
50%?
75%?
90?

90%??!? Lets not get ridiculous here.  We aren't all stock brokers and corporate lawyers and software engineers.  Sure, if you make 6 digits each year, it would be totally possible to live a comfortable life with all the modern amenities (like cars and internet) on 10% of your salary.

Here in the real world, 1/2 of all American who work make less than 30k per year, and even bike-riding, 30-year-old-truck-owning, RV-trailer-living Bakari can't see living comfortably on three grand a year.

Ok, ok, so lets step back a couple lines.

How about 50%?

This still probably sounds a bit extreme - at first...
 
 

For reasons I don't entirely understand, people seem to think money numbers are supposed to be private.  But then, I have never been much of one for secrets, so how about I use me for an example:

Remember, I started saving at the beginning of 2010.  I made $22k that year, after subtracting business expenses.

In 2011 I made $22k again. In 2012, $21k.  This past year was my worst since I began working for myself, (8 years ago), and I only made $13k.

In 2010 my net worth was $0.

Today it is $52,000

("Wait a minute now..." you say, "those numbers mean you have to be living on less than 10 Gs on average each year!" Yup.)

It's not hard.

It is, more than anything, a change in mindset.

Remember that whole thing with my old RV trailer being stolen?

The entire settlement check went straight into one of my IRA accounts.

Remember that giant chicken coop and run I built?

The 2 large I made on that, all invested.

I don't live a deprived life.

I still buy toys now and then, (like my boombox and its battery pack). I have high speed internet, a cell phone, pets, I buy organic food, I eat out and go to the movie theater now and then.

I just try to ration spending, and avoid spending money on crap I know I really don't need, that won't improve my life in any significant way in the long run.

As a result, I am 1/5th of the way to financial independence, in just over 3 years.

At this rate, about 15 years from when I started, I should be there.

I'll be 45 - still young enough to take full advantage of freedom from mandatory employment. 

Just imagine though - if I had started back at 18; I'd be financially independent already!

You aren't me, you don't live how I live, so enough anecdote - lets segue back into some real life numbers.

We were talking about saving 50% of your income, and I was just using myself as an example to prove that even if your income is much lower than average, it is still possible.

In my example of me, spending only about 1/2 of income led to a working career of 15 years.

And there's that sweet math magic again: that number isn't just true for my particular circumstances.

It is universal.

If you only spend 50% of your income, you will have approximately 25 times your annual spending saved up in approximately 15-20 years.

Simple mathematics proves that.

Even without the power of compound interest, if you spend 50% of your income, then for every year you work you buy a year of freedom (think about it for a second).
But add in the money generating money infinite feedback loop, and at 50% every year you work earns you more than a year of freedom, and the earlier you start, the more free bonus time you get.

And here is the really beautiful part of all that, which may be easy to miss:

It doesn't matter how much your income is.  The ONLY variable in that equation is what percentage of your income you spend, VS what percentage you save.

 
( http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2012/01/13/the-shockingly-simple-math-behind-early-retirement/ )

Going back to the philosophical point from near the beginning, but with this new knowledge, we have two potential life paths, especially while we are still young:

• Path 1: Live simple, so you don't need too much money to live, and take advantage of that by not working too much.
  Spend the occasional windfall on toys and/or experiences.
  Low income, low cost of living, moderate amount of free time and freedom - but you will never retire.
  The same is true if you have a higher income, but lifestyle inflation keeps you spending however much you make.  If your savings rate is zero, you will need to continue working until you die.

• Path 2: Live simple, so you don't need too much money to live - and work full time anyway, so that you have plenty of surplus to invest.
  Put most, if not all, of your occasional windfalls into your savings too.
  Moderate income, low cost of living - and low free time and freedom, at first, for a few years.  But then, before you know it, TOTAL freedom, and as much free time as you want.  For the rest of your life.

Path 1 is pretty good, beats working a 9-5 for 50 years.  Path 2 is a whole heck of a lot better.

Especially considering we aren't talking about some hypothetical future 50 years from now.  We are talking a short decade and a half.  We are talking "retiring" with the majority of your life still ahead of you.

Don't believe the math?  There are hundreds of people who have actually done exactly what I'm talking about.  A lot of them are on the Mr Money Mustache forums.  Mr MM himself is one, one who uses some of his free time to share all this information with others.  If you want to learn more, his blog is the place to start:

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2011/04/06/meet-mr-money-mustache/
 
(if you start here at the beginning, when you finish this post, scroll down a little to the link that says "Meet the Realist")

and

http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2013/02/22/getting-rich-from-zero-to-hero-in-one-blog-post/

 

If you don't feel like reading too much, try maybe just this last link.

Later, if you like, you can read more for all sort of details on how to actually start spending less (with zero sacrifice to quality of life), what specifically to do with your savings to make it start working for you, and answers to all the other questions and concerns and objections you either have already, or will come up with soon.

The really important part is just the concept.  You have it now.  Very minor delayed gratification now, for totally life changing payoff in a few years.  You - you, reading this right now - can be one of those "financially independent" people.  No inheritance, no lottery, no lucky breaks.  Just being moderately frugal, and the math of compound interest.

Start looking at your money differently.

And make sure to come thank me when employment becomes optional for you.

Quote on Consumerism from the founder of Early Retirement Extreme

"The problem is that most of us have become utterly dependent on this industrial-technological  system  for  all  of  our  needs  and  wants.  Shopping is as important as oxygen to us. Close down the malls for a few days and people go crazy. We no longer think of ourselves as citizens but as ”consumers”, a descriptive term that I've always found kind of derogatory. This dependence  is  so  fundamental  that  it  goes unseen, much like fish don't see the water they swim in. Consequentially, the only solution we can think of whenever we struggle with unfulfilled needs or wants is to ”earn more” and start a side-business, negotiate a raise, and gamble on some more education – it's an investment in your future (ha!). The only perceived way to a better so-called standard-of-living is to work harder and smarter and earn more. However, what this often results in is more environmental damage or at best reshufling money from suckers to scammers." - Jacob Lund Fisker

If I Were Elected King of the Country

My new friend asked me a few weeks ago, "what would you change about the world, if you had the power to?"

She said she tried to ask all new people she met that question.

She said it was surprising how many people didn't have an answer because they had never thought about it.

I couldn't answer, but for a very different reason.

I just couldn't sum up, couldn't choose from the list what to say first.

I've been thinking about it ever since then, and I still can't find any way to tie all the various things together, so, instead of going into the detail about how and why for each one, I think I'll just list as many as I can think of.

(and if anyone wants elaboration on any in particular, ask me as a comment, and maybe I'll make that one its own post)

These are in no particular order:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Election day would be a national holiday.  No one could be forced to work more than a 4 hour day on election day. 

Anyone not registered to vote would pay a small annual penalty with their taxes.

Judges would be subject to recall by popular vote.

Congressional, presidential, and governor terms 6 years.

All term limits would be eliminated.

All elections would be instant run off type (or another equivalent to eliminate "lesser of two evils" votes).

Party, primary, and electoral college systems eliminated.

Voter initiative process on federal level, and all 50 states.

All campaign related ads would be banned from TV, radio, print, direct mail, and billboards, starting 1 year prior to any election.  Each candidate or initiative would receive expanded space in the official election guide.  All statements made that could not be verified by an independent 3rd party fact checker would be marked with an asterisk.

No individual could donate more than $500 to any campaign or political organization in a year.  No company or corporation could donate any amount to any campaign or political organization.  No union, church, or other group could donate without 100% unanimous consent of all members, and then no more than the equivalent of $100 per member.  For any amount an individual spent out of pocket for a campaign, they would have to contribute an equal amount to the public campaign fund. 
All of this would be less important, giving the ban on media ads.

Media (of any form) which reports any mistaken information or error as factual, would be required to report the correction with equal or greater prominence and length of time as the original mistake (if error was headline for 3 days, retraction must be headline for 3 days)

Public school would be paid at the national level, by number of students (regardless of performance).  Any outside income (gifts of cash or supplies by parents for example) would reduce funding by 50% of the amount of income (i.e. parent donates $100, then federal funding is reduced by $50), used for the pool, to benefit schools with less generous parents.

Teacher training and classroom curricula would be evidence based

No multiple choice test could be used for assessment.  Guiding principal should be teaching for understanding, not just retention of facts.

Preschool and kindergarten would both become mandatory and free.

2 and 4 year college / university would be voluntary, free for any family below median national income.

All college finals would be administered one semester after the end of the class (to test for long-term retention)

Public school teacher salaries would be cut by roughly 5-10% (approximately the amount private school teachers make), principals and administrators by 25-50% (to be within 25% more than teachers).  All of this extra money would go to hiring more teachers to reduce classroom size. 

Teachers would have at least 15min of prep time for each 55min of instruction.
They would be eligible for overtime after 112 hours per month(equivalent annual hours to other jobs, considering summer and other breaks - after reduced work hours, (see below))

Cognitive biases, logical fallacies, and predictable irrationality would be a required course in middle school, high school, and college (beginning, intermediate, and advanced, respectively).

Drug use would be decriminalized.  Selling without a license would not be.  Prostitution and gambling would also be legal, (though regulated and taxed).

No law or regulation could stay in effect unless it can be shown to tangibly benefit some individual or society as a whole.

No censorship of "indecency" (nudity, sex, language)

Sex ed would be taught in preschool, 5th grade, and 12th grade, each class more advanced and in-depth (the first would be similar to current Jr High level, the last would be equivalent to college Human Sexuality course).  It would be a graduation requirement, so no opt out.

It would be illegal to formally teach any child below the age of 18 any form of religion, (other than in a historical or sociological context).  This would include attending services.

Churches would no longer be tax exempt.

No government recognition of religion or God, even in a neutral, non-specific way (e.g. "...One Nation, Under God..." or "In God We Trust")

All pronouns would be replaced with gender neutral ones.

All restrooms and locker rooms would be unisex (with individual stalls, and/or separate areas of the room optionally)

Combat and infantry roles would be available to women in the military.

No government or business could mandate different dress codes by gender.

This would include that women could be topless anywhere that men could.

Public beaches and parks would be clothing optional.

All laws on sexual assault, age of consent, marriage, etc would be gender neutral (this would, among other things, inherently legalize gay marriage).

No cosmetic surgery (including circumcision and pierced ears) before the age of 18

All subsidies and price controls for feed crops would be eliminated.

Minimum standards for animal welfare would include daily access to outdoors and a diet resembling a "natural" one - i.e. herbivores could not be fed animal by-products, nothing would be fed manure, nor its own specie, nor a reciprocal specie (i.e. Animal A is fed animal B, and animal B is fed animal A)

All new cars would be governed to a maximum of 65mph, or to the maximum of the state is is sold in, whichever is lower.

Each lane on any highway with 2 or more lanes in each would direction would have specified lane speeds. A two lane would have a maximum speed of 65 and minimum of 55 in the left lane, and max of 55 and minimum of 40 in the right. 
For a 3 lane, from the left, the speeds to maintain would be 60mph, 50, and 40 (each +/- 5mph).  A 4 lane would be 60, 55, 50, and 45 (+/-5).  A 5 lane would be 60, 55, 50, 45, 40 (+/-5). 

Speeds on all highways would be monitored by randomly placed, (and periodically moved) radar machines - a combination of the radar systems that say "your speed is:" and the camera detection system that catch red light and toll violators.  Like the latter, they would look up registration by plate number, and mail you your ticket.

The first 2 violations would be warning.  The 3rd would be a $100 fine.  The 4th would be a $500 fine.  The 5th would be one week mandatory community service.  The 6th would be license suspension for a year.

No one could get a drivers license without an intensive driver's ed class (50 hours minimum).  It would cover all the basics, plus: changing oil, checking tire pressure / fluid levels, changing a wheel, and safety check - cone tests, parallel parking, driving in reverse - calculating speed, distance, and time, as well as braking distance and impact force at different speeds - fuel economy, basic hypermiling - safe and legal bicycle operation - auto crashes, causes and prevention - practical accident avoidance, using simulator - poor weather handling, rain, ice, snow, fog, and glare - driving with manual transmission.  The final test could not contain any multiple choice questions, and would cover all topics, some as hands on skills tests.

Driving class (as above) would have a 2-3 day mandatory refresher course every 10 years - every 5 years before age 25 and after age 60, as well as after every moving violation or accident

No communication device while driving (including hands free) except 2-way radios used in the course of a job which involves driving (truck and taxi drivers, emergency services)

Public safety tax based on weight for all motor vehicles, added to annual registration (i.e. one pays for the additional risk to everyone else caused by their choice to buy a 3 ton SUV rather than a 1 ton car) - based on the grand total public cost of all accidents, divided by the total number of registered cars, proportioned by weight.

Anyone found to be 1% or greater at fault in any auto "accident" would be automatically charged with criminal negligence.

Revoke mandatory airbags, seatbelts, crash rating standards.

Traffic lights would flash green before turning yellow (as in Mexico).  They would flash red before turning green (so you know to turn your engine back on)

Stop signs would be considered yield signs for bicyclists (as in Ohio)

All 4-way stop sign intersections would be converted to either a 2-way stop, a traffic circle, or a stop light.

All major one-way streets would have timed / synchronized stop lights.

50% tax on retail gasoline, money used to subsidize public transit.

At rush hour, instead of a carpool lane, the left most lane would be for commercial vehicles (being used for work, not for commuting), transit, emergency services, and people with permanent disabilities only.  On highways with 3 or more lanes, the next one over from the commercial / handicapped lane would be for carpools of 4+ people, plus toll road paid by electronic RFID tag

Upper limit of inheritance or gifts of $10,000.  The government income from estates would replace all (or at least most) of the income tax.

The rate for any remaining income tax would be at least half for earned income (wages / salary / commission) as for unearned income (dividends, capital gains, gifts, prizes).

The tax rate on unearned income would be steeply progressive, with a maximum rate of 99% after $100,000.

One may only own land which you personally live and/or work on - i.e. a maximum of two parcels (one for work, one for home) per person.  They can be any size, so long as they are a) continuous and b) actively and directly used by the owner in some way.

No one could have more than 2 households as tenants, and then only if the tenants share the same parcel that the landlord lives on.

Corporate charters would only be granted for very specific circumstances, where it is demonstrated that the product or service offered could not be provided by a privately held company, and that it is of overall benefit to society.  Any charter application which met those standards and was granted would be for a specific and limited time period - 1 year by default, 5 years with requested extension, 10 years considered with an explanation of the need for a longer time period.

Patents and copyright would be good for 10 years, or until a 25% return on investment was made by the patent/copyright holder, or until the applicant dies whichever came first.

Business licenses and fees would be by percentage of net income, not flat amounts.

Business insurance companies would be required to offer a broad range of coverage and deductible amounts, so that small scale and hobby businesses with low maximum potential risk could afford coverage.

Any form of business could be run out of one's residence unless a specific risk or harm to the neighbors could be demonstrated.  "Lowering property values" would not in-and-of itself be a valid form of harm.

Employers would not pay for the employees' payroll taxes.  The employee would cover the full amount of their own social security and medicare taxes.

Employers would also not cover medical insurance, but that would be irrelevant, because there would be nationalized, single payer, health care.

1/2 of company profit would be distributed equally among all employees, without regard for title or position.  Any increase in efficiency due to improved technology that were not passed on to the consumer would be distributed to employees either in the form of fixed hours and increased salary, or fixed salary and decreased hours.

No one could sue for loss of profit.

A company with more than zero profit could not lay off employees.

Overtime would be anything over 86 hours per month, would pay time and a half, no exceptions by profession, would apply to salary and commission as well.  Double time after 172 hours in one month.

No company or corporation could buy another.

No company could have more than one location, except in those cases where the nature of the company required multiple locations (such as delivery service).  Exception could be made on a case by case basis, if the expansion could be shown to benefit society as a whole enough to offset the anti-competitiveness.

Any company based in the US, or with a majority of US shareholders, or with 1% or more of product exported to the US, must follow all US wage, safety, and environmental laws and regulations, regardless of the location of production.  (For example, if a company builds a factory in China, they still must pay US minimum wage if they want to export the product into the US)

No US military protection of private property, on US soil or abroad.  For example, US oil companies would have to pay for their own private security to guard pipelines.  Private corporate interests could not be considered "national interests", even if the product they produce is of value to the nation.

Any action of military or CIA is automatically war, whether or not it is officially declared.

Any action longer than 5 days must be approved by congress.  Any action longer than 60 days must be unanimously approved by all 50 states (via senators and/or governors).  Any action longer than one year requires majority vote of all US citizens.

Military budget reduced by 90% (give or take).  It could never be increased to more than 10% less than whatever nation has the highest military budget.

Universal conscription of all citizens at 18, both genders, deferments for medical issues, but no other reason.  Everyone must attend bootcamp.  After that, choice of 2 years of either military service, or civil service.

In middle school, high school, and college, reversible long-term birth control would be provided at no cost to both genders (yes, the technology exists).  This would be voluntary, and either child or parent could choose to opt out for any reason, however it would be the default - everyone would get it unless they actively choose to opt out.

(Voluntary) permanent sterilization would be provided at no cost to all adults.

All forms of contraceptive would be covered in full through health care.

Child tax credits would be eliminated.

Welfare would provide a fixed amount per household - it would not increase with additional children.

Universal, single payer healthcare - however, in order to engage in certain high risk activities, you would have to opt out.  You would present your opt out card before buying cigarettes, and to get a registration sticker with a stripe which indicates you may drive a car without a seatbelt of ride a motorcycle without a helmet.  Possibly also for purchasing more than a certain quantity of alcohol at one time, and certain foods.  Anyone who opted out could be refused service at any hospital unless they pay in full in advance, even in emergencies.  They could still purchase private health insurance, if any private insurer wanted to cover them.



Citizenship would not be automatic:
At age 18, each person would need to pass the same citizenship exam that immigrants have to pass (this would be covered in high school). 
They would  have to go to military bootcamp, and then either serve in the military or in civil service for 2 years.  They would have to register to vote. 

Anyone choosing not to apply for citizenship would be considered a native resident. 

Native residents would not have to pay any taxes.

They also could not vote or run for office.  They would not be eligible for public assistance, including health care and (college level) education.  They could not drive motor vehicles on public roads, nor sue in court.  They would be responsible for the labor, fuel, and expenses if using emergency services such as police or firefighters. 

One could apply for citizenship at anytime, up to age 40, however, once revoked, you could not get it back for 15 years, and would have to begin the process from the beginning.

Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*

*In the morning and evening of most large American cities (especially those surrounded by plenty of suburb), when everyone is driving their cars to their 9-5 jobs, there are simply too many vehicles on the highway for the lane capacity.  You get on the highway at the nearest entrance, and proceed to average 15mph the entire distance from your suburban home to the downtown city center where you work, frequently coming to a complete stop, never going more than 25mph at the most.

In that situation, traffic is going to go slow, no matter what.

That isn't the type of traffic jam I'm talking about.

There is also another type of traffic back up.  The kind that happens in moderate traffic.  Everyone slows down, sometimes even to a complete stop, and then a few hundred feet later, you are moving again at 50, 60, 70mph, as if nothing happened.

Sometimes this happens because there is the aftermath of a crash in the shoulder, or even across the divider on the opposite shoulder of the oncoming lane, and all the drivers feel it is very important for them to take a good look at it, because humans are just like that.  Other times its because someone is getting a traffic ticket, and, even though the cop is clearly busy at the moment, people imagine they are more likely to be caught speeding if the can see a police car.

But most often, these slow downs happen for no apparent reason at all.  You get to the front of it, and cars are accelerating just as suddenly as they slowed down.

Sometimes traffic pulses like this, fast - slow - fast - slow - fast - slow for miles.  In some places, not quite as dense as in the first example above, the daily commute does this pulse jam every single day.

When you find yourself in this situation, the choices you make can either make it better, or they can make it worse.  If you are reading this, there is a decent chance you are one of the few who makes it better already - but if you are like most people, there is a much better chance you are making it worse. 

In fact, if everyone realized what I'm about to explain, and acted appropriately, those slowdowns would never happen in the first place, but, of course, most people don't know any better, so its hard to hold it against them.

At least once you have finished reading this, there will be one more person who understands whats going on, and makes it better instead of worse.

The easiest way to understand how individual actions make the backup better or worse is with an analogy.

Lets say you are in a crowd, and for some reason everyone wants to go through a doorway as quickly as possible (the iconic burning theater, perhaps, or maybe just a Black Friday sale).

Each individual is acting as an independent free agent, and each wants their own personal speed to be as fast as possible.

What happens? 

Everyone rushes the door, and they get stuck on each other as they try to squeeze through all at once.  In extreme cases people get trampled, occasionally fatally, but even if everyone stays on their feet, the chaos amplifies the bottleneck and it takes an even longer time for everyone to get through.



Now consider an equally large crowd, but imagine they consist of a highly trained military company.  When the fire alarm goes off, instead of each individual going straight for the door and attempting to shove each other out of the way, they all immediately form a single file line down the center of the room, each taking their place based on where they started, no one "cuts in line", everyone moves at a quick but controlled pace and never any faster than the person in front of them.

In the second scenario the very last person to go through the door gets through faster than the middle person in the free-for-all scenario.

What has changed?  Each individual is moving a little bit slower, they all give each other a little more space, and no one runs around to the edge of the door to try to squeeze in from the side.  The exact things that people acting as individuals do to try to optimize their own individual escape time are what cause them to get stuck on each other and, paradoxically, means they and everyone else gets out slower.

Researchers have looked at this phenomenon of "more haste, less speed":

The desire for speed overwhelms the desire to avoid collision and the blob people jam up against one another -- just as salt can jam the shaker even though the hole is bigger than the largest grain. The room takes longer to empty even though everyone tries to move faster -- handfuls of people escape in bursts between clogging events.

http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000928/full/news000928-9.html

You can see something analogous on the highways everyday.  Drivers attempt to go as fast as possible at all times, even when there are other cars ahead of them.   Many tend to drive as close as possible to the car ahead, much closer than the recommended 2-3 second rule from drivers-ed class.  When coming up on a line of stopped cars ahead, they will keep a foot on the accelerator as long as they possibly can before hitting the brakes hard just in time to prevent impact.  And any time one lane is temporarily going slightly faster than the one they are in, they pull into it to gain one or two car lengths over those around them. 

The overly aggressive drivers are obvious.

But almost everyone contributes, if to a lesser extent, to the same general phenomenon. 
Say every car is as close as is safe to the car ahead, in every lane, and everyone is moving at a constant rate.  Now what happens if one car wants to change lanes?  Since the cars are all as close as can be already, there is no possible way that the car can change lanes smoothly, because someone is going to have to slow to let them in, and they will have to slow to make the merge.  Now the following cars in both lanes have to brake.  And since the cars behind them were already as close as possible to them, those cars also have to brake.  And since the cars behind them... you get the idea... the stopped cars now travels back through the traffic in a wave. 

Now the same scenario - except the drivers are self-regulating like our military company escaping the burning theater: each car leaves a gap from the car ahead of them large enough that another car can safely merge in front of them.

Now when a car inevitably needs to change lanes, they can do so without slowing down, and without making the car behind them slow down.  They and the car behind them will want to reopen the gap that they just filled, but this can be done gradually over time, with only minor adjustments to speed, and the wave of stopped cars never occurs.

Traffic engineers can control individual driver behavior by putting in deliberate bottlenecks, called metering lights - the kind found at toll plazas and some on-ramps, where everyone is supposed to wait just a couple seconds before they merge with traffic.  Everyone ends up on the highway, but that moment of waiting forces everyone to space themselves out, and even though you had to wait, it is more than made up for by higher average speeds for everyone - including you. 

Sometimes you can even see a similar effect from lane closures or rubbernecking - a section of highway that is moderately backed-up everyday, but on one occasion has a lane closed for construction or due to an accident, if its near the beginning of your trip, occasionally has you get to your destination faster than usual.  As the cars slow down for the bottleneck, and then reach the end and start to accelerate one at a time, they spread themselves out, just like a metering light would have done. 

An identical effect is seen with the crowd of pedestrians trying to get through a doorway; putting an obstacle in the way of the exit actually makes the crowd get though it faster.

Most fire codes require that the pathway to an emergency exit be kept wide open, but according to researchers in Japan, placing an obstruction next to an exit may actually help crowds of people to get out of a room more efficiently.

Researchers found that when people bottleneck near an exit, they start to jostle each other for position. The jostling acts much like friction, slowing down the rate at which people can exit. Introducing a strategically-placed obstacle near the exit can reduce the number of people pushing for the exit, speeding up the rate at which people can pass through.

"We found that we can evacuate faster if we put an obstacle at the suitable position in front of the exit," said Daichi Yanagisawa, who lead the study from the University of Tokyo in Japan.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/08/for-quick-exit-just-block-fire-door.html

Even without metering lights, though, you can make a conscious choice to help traffic you are in move more smoothly.

Pay attention to the road ahead.  If you see an ocean of brake lights up ahead, take your foot off the accelerator.  There is no point in racing to be the first to come to a stop.  Resist the urge to change lanes every time one appears to be going slightly faster, unless you have enough space that you can do it without anyone having to slow down for you. Leave a big enough gap between you and the car ahead of you that someone else could safely merge in front of you without you having to slow down.  That applies at any speed, from stop and crawl to over the posted limit** - not only will it smooth out traffic flow, it will also reduce your chances of being involved in a collision, not to mention reduce other people's road rage.  No one can cut you off if you choose to slow down and let them in.

That means people will get it front of you.

And that's ok.

At as slow as 10mph, one car length costs you all of one second.  At 35 it costs you one third of one second.  Big freggin deal!  Let 50 cars get in front of you on a trip with a 45mph average speed, and you get where you are going all of 30 seconds later than you would have had you made sure to be the one to go first.

Not only have you made 50 people a little happier, but you have helped traffic flow a little better for all the people behind you, all the way back down the highway.

Better still, when you are coming up to one of those pointless braking waves, and you start slowing down well in advance, often times it will have completely cleared itself up by the time you get to where it was.  Which means by simply taking your foot off the accelerator, you never have to brake at all.  By avoiding coming to a complete stop, your average speed ends up being higher!  Its quite like timing traffic lights - if you try to go faster than the timed lights are designed for, you have to stop for the red, and someone driving at the speed limit will pass you just as it turns green again while you are accelerating from a stand still.

And if driving with less pointless starting and stopping, less stress, and helping to clear up traffic jams wasn't enough, this also happens to be the best way to minimize fuel when driving in traffic, so you save cash too, along with the environment and America's energy independence. 

Next time you are driving, think about this essay.  When someone exits in front of you, leaving a huge gap between you and the next car, don't rush to catch up.  When you are entering the highway, and the on-ramp is clear but the merging lane is slow, don't stay on the on-ramp until the very last second and then cross over the solid white line in an attempt to pass as many other cars as possible.  You are saving yourself a negligible amount of time, probably less than a second, but you are creating a braking wave that will snarl the traffic behind you potentially for miles.  Think about the orderly single file line, and how much faster everyone exits the building.  Everyone else is going to drive how they are going to drive, but at least you won't be making it worse.  And who knows, if enough of us start doing it, a few others might just take notice, and sooner or later stop and go traffic waves will simply cease to exist.

Aerocaps for pick-up trucks

by Bakari Kafele on October 24, 2012

When people think about fuel economy, they usually think about small cars, perhaps a mid-size hybrid.  If they think about trucks, its usually to contrast them with a more efficient vehicle (and perhaps chastise truck owners for their wasteful choice).
But while cars are great if you need to get yourself and maybe a few other people from one place to another, they don’t excel in moving large amounts of stuff, and can’t tow very much.
If you regularly need to move lots of big, bulky, or heavy stuff, or tow something large and heavy, but rarely need to move more than a couple people, a truck makes a lot of sense.

Of course there is a reason that trucks are seen as inefficient: they are.  They are heavy, overpowered (although cars are even more so these days), and not at all aerodynamic.
Then again, because trucks get such low mileage to begin with, improvements in their mileage have a relatively bigger impact.  For example, an increase of 15mpg for a 45mpg car is a 33% increase and will save 55 gallons of fuel over 10,000 miles.  Not bad, but that same 15mpg improvement to a 15mpg truck is a 100% increase, saving 333 gallons over the same distance.
So what is a mpg-conscious person who needs to move a lot of stuff to do?



The classic question was whether its better to drive with the tailgate up or down – the reasoning being that the tailgate might be catching the air coming off the roof like a parachute, being a flat vertical surface and all.  It turns out though that (at least for most trucks) that at speeds an air bubble naturally forms in the truck bed of an open bed pick-up with the tailgate up, and that creates a virtual tonneau which deflects the air current over the gate.  With the tailgate open, that bubble can’t form, and aerodynamics is actually decreased overall, reducing MPGs along with it.


(image from: http://johnversteeg.com/projects/2 )

(image from: http://www.symscape.com/blog/tailgate-up-or-down )
It’s important to note that this does not seem to be universally true; while the MythBusters and some (better controlled) studies have found better fuel economy with the gate up, other studies have found the opposite: reduced air drag with the gate down.
Which actually shouldn’t be too surprising, given the complexity of fluid dynamics, and the plethora of shapes and sizes and other variables that go into the design of a truck bed, cab, and tailgate, from length of bed and height of cab, to whether edges are sharp or rounded.  In any case, neither shape of truck bed is optimal for aerodynamics, and the potential improvement gained by tailgate position is relatively minimal.
The next step in truck aero evolution is the tonneau.  When installed, it makes the truck bed a solid flat surface at the height of the bed rails and tailgate.


Now instead of a virtual surface closing the truck bed, consisting of a bubble of air, there is an actual surface there, to do the same thing.
Unfortunately, this is still far from the ideal tear-drop shape, and (again, unsurprisingly) while it is frequently seen to improve fuel mileage, it isn’t by terribly much, and it doesn’t consistently show any improvement at all.
The goal is aero-mods is to make a vehicle as close to a teardrop shape as possible.


And while many car designs typically match this shape better than an open bed pick-up truck,

the large bed area (with no particular requirements for headroom) leave a lot of room for modding a cap to make it fit the shape even better:



The result is referred to as an “aerocap” or “aeroshell”, and it can potentially give a truck lower air drag than some cars, while providing a covered and secure space to store cargo.

Of course none of this is news to serious ecomodders, and a large number of varying designs have been built, with different solutions to balance the trade-offs of maximum aerodynamics, interior space and accessibility, rear visibility, being securely attached but easily removable (in case on needing to use the truck bed for large items), and looking seamless and integrated.
Here are some of the designs that have been showcased in the ecomodder forums:

---

AeroHead / ITworks / Phil Knox’s T-100

One of the very first.  Phil has been aeromodding since the oil embargo of the 1970′s.  This particular truck was in the form in the picture in 2005.
Measured coefficient of drag on the stock truck, plus aeroshell: 0.325
For reference, an open bed pick up has a cd around 0.40 to 0.45, a typical car 0.30 to 0.35, and the original Honda Insight had a Cd of 0.25, the lowest of any standard production car.
The lower the number, the less air resistance.
With all of the mods shown in the picture, coefficient of drag dropped all the way to: 0.25
The shell alone caused a 13% highway mileage improvement compared to the same truck at the same speed without it, 27.5 miles per gallon (EPA 25), and with all aeromods it got 32mpg at 70mph.
For more on this truck, see: http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=870

---

AeroHead / ITworks / Phil Knox’s T-100: V2
 

The original aeroshell was partially eaten by goats (or something like that…)
So he started over, and built another, goat-proof shell, and, as heavily aero-moddified as the first version was, he took the new one even further.
The new shell is made from the hull of a sailboat – you can tell in the first picture, the others are the same, just painted, and later with a window which removes the passenger side blind spot.
Aerohead takes this to Bonneville for racing and setting records and such, so the priority is maximizing aerodynamics over cargo carrying utility (the shell is removable though, so the truck could be used like a truck).
Theoretical Cd of 0.156
almost 80% mpg improvement compared to an original unmodified T-100, at 36mpg highway!
And yet still this was not enough – he has also built a trailer that attaches to the back of the truck just to extend the aerodynamic taper even further!

Wow.  Just wow.
A labor of love with years and years of labor put into it.
For more on this absolutely magnificent monstrosity, see:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/pickup-truck-streamlining-14884.html
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/basjoosing-toyota-t-100-articulated-front-wheel-skirts-22971.html
and
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/full-boat-tail-trailer-gap-fillers-toyota-t-7839.html

---

Bondo / Brett Herndon’s Aerolid

Ok, so the ITworks T-100 may be a little too extreme for the average pick-up truck owner.
On the other end of the spectrum of customization and labor required by the end user is the very polished and professional looking “Aerolid”.
These are available for purchase.
The long term goal is funding for large scale commercial availability (patent pending), but even without corporate sponsorship, he has already produced several on his own, and has a website up for their sale.
Highway mileage increase (on this truck) of over 20% 18mpg to 22.
For times the truck needs to be used for serious truck stuff, the center section can be removed without removing the entire shell

If a load is just a little too big to fit under the shell, but not so big it has to be removed entirely, it is hinged and can swing up partially; also making it a potential place to hang out while camping.

For more interior space and even better aerodynamics, there is an optional extender kit that is deployed with the tailgate down, which can fold away when not in use


For more on the Aerolid, see his website:  http://www.aerolid.com/
or the ecomodder thread http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/commercially-produced-aerodynamic-pickup-bed-cap-583.html

---

In between those two extremes the DIYers at Ecomodder have come up with plenty of unique designs:

---

SkyKing’s aeroshell/boat tail for the Dodge truck “Woody”


Made from laminated plywood sheets on a plywood frame, this design goes further and lower than any other.
26mpg highway from an otherwise unmoddified (except those beautiful wood side boxes) 1-ton.
For more on Woody’s shell, see:  http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/testing-aeroshell-boat-tail-dodge-22354.html

---

T Vago’s compound curve foam board pickup aeroshell


10% improvement, from 19mpg to 21mpg with no other mods.
Its made of foam, so its very light; which is good, sense adding weight reduces fuel economy, which would be counter-productive.  Also, it makes it easier to take off when the bed space is needed for big bulky stuff.
You can read much about its design process on a previous blog post:  http://ecomodder.com/blog/makings-pickup-aerocap-vagos-dakota/
as well as the forum thread http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/t_vagos-compound-curve-foam-board-pickup-aeroshell-15862.html

---

BamZipPow’s T-100 Aerocap


Made from coroplast (plastic sheets) over wood and metal frame.
Up to 27mpg highway.
Long thread covering everything from concept to construction to V2 trials:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/another-truck-aero-cap-idea-15137.html

---

JRMichler’s Nameless’ Canyon topper


Along with other mods, improved mileage from 21mpg to 30mpg in winter, and 27 to 35 in summer, with around 2mpg of that increase specifically upon replacement of the original non topper with this one.
Believe it or not, it is constructed of plain old plywood, waterproofed and strengthened with epoxy, and prettied up with some hardware store paint.
Details at http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/modding-06-gmc-canyon-17070.html

---

JRMichler’s brother’s Ford F-250


Mileage of 23.5mpg, up from 19.5
Not a lot of information on it is public, but what there is is here:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/modding-02-ford-f250-16798.html

---

Bajascoob’s Lightweight Aerocap on BigWhiteWhale


In addition to being relatively light, this design neatly solves the issue of reduced visibility created by every single other aerocap design.  The entire thing is completely translucent.
Unfortunately, plastic film isn’t 100% clear, so while he can see headlights behind at night, it isn’t clear enough to allow eliminating outside side mirrors.
Went from 16 to 19mpg.
Made of 1/2″ metal conduit frame wrapped in 4mm film, for a total of roughly $20 material cost.
More here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/f-250-7-3-4wd-light-aerocap-12573.html

---

Swede’s Aerolid


Coroplast over a welded 1/2″ conduit metal frame.
13% improvement, from 20mpg to 23.
Read more:  http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/swedes-aerolid-build-thread-13092.html

---

Kevlar’s aero “Toyota truck” (Apparently in 1992 Toyota didn’t give its trucks model names or numbers?)

Made of fiber-reinforced plastic board panels, the stuff public restroom stalls are made from.
31mpg actual, with an EPA estimate of only 24mpg highway
Since sold – and the new owner is reporting even better mileage, 32-36mpg.
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aero-truck-project-begins-2269.html

---

Ccrider’s Tacoma Aerocap


1/2″ Plywood on a wood frame.
$45 worth of material, including the paint.
30+ mpg in a truck rated for 20.
Simple, inexpensive, yet the numbers speak for themselves.
Build thread at: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/aerocap-tacoma-pickup-11271.html

---

Jacob Aziza’s Big Orange Work Truck’s tilted tonneau
(That’s me, the author)

Mine represents the opposite extreme from the first truck in this list, the ITworks T-100 in the trade-off between aerodynamics and the ability to use the truck bed.
Unlike every other design, the cover does not actually start at the roofline.  From an aerodynamic perspective this is a pretty major design flaw – it means that the air flowing off the back of the roof will not continue on smoothly to the cover, but will actually separate, leaving an air space of slower moving and potentially turbulent air right behind the rear window.
I was aware of this when I built it, but I decided it was more important to have a fully unobstructed view to the rear.  I regularly drive this truck in dense city traffic, at lower than normal speeds on major highways, and have to back up down driveways so narrow that I have to fold both side mirrors in.  In other words, I use my rear-view mirror a lot.  And even without a cover, I managed to back-up into a parked motor scooter once.  So I decided to sacrifice optimum aerodynamics and have the bed cover start about midway between the top of the bed and the roof.  I have a rearview mirror mounted just below the ceiling inside, and being higher than the top of the cover means I can see over it right to the edge of the tailgate.  I actually have a better view to the rear than with the stock mirror set up.

My other consideration that required a major trade off in maximum efficiency for maximum utility is that I regularly use the truck to haul things which would not fit under any of the above aerocaps, even the hinged ones if they were at maximum tilt angle.



Some of the aerocap designs have removable tops, or remove relatively easily for those times, but those times are so frequent for me that it would be extremely inconvenient to have to be constantly removing and replacing a cover. Besides for which, living in an RV, I have nowhere to store a large aeroshell when not in use.
Most of the time my trip goes something like: travel to location with bed empty, pick up bulky stuff, transport it to somewhere else, travel home with bed empty.  So if I was going to do anything to make the truck bed more aerodynamic, it had to be something I could remove completely within seconds while in the field, store it out of the way on the truck, and then deploy it again just as quickly for the trip home.
My solution was to take a standard, commercially available roll-up vinyl tonneau cover, and mount it on triangular plywood sheets.  When I need to access the bed, I just roll it up.  If the bed is empty (or carrying little enough) I roll it down, and the built-in rails keep it locked down.  While not the ideal angle, it still lets the air coming off the roof travel down to the tailgate level more gradually.
Vinyl tonneau with metal stabilizers on metal rails attached to plywood sides.
I already owned the tonneau (originally cost about $180), and used some old plywood and bolts I had lying around, for an additional cost of $0
My overall average mileage (on an already heavily modded truck) increased from 26mpg to 28, and test-run highway mileage from 28mpg to 30.
A lower improvement than many of the other designs – no doubt due to not starting at the top of the roofline – but an improvement none the less, and not too far behind most of the other numbers when reporting an actual before and after (as opposed to comparing with the EPA numbers – after all, the expected mileage for my truck is around 15mpg)

---

There are surely more that I have missed.  Hopefully there will be plenty more to come.
Its always best to buy the smallest vehicle that will fit your daily needs, (and rent a truck if you only need one every now and then).
But for those few people who legitimately do need a big truck, there is no reason to resign yourself to terrible fuel mileage.  If ecomodders can get hybrid like mileage out of ordinary cars, we should be able to get at least ordinary-car-like mileage out of big trucks.
If you’ve been inspired to improve your own truck, post on the forum with your thoughts and questions.  There are a lot of helpful knowledgeable people who will be more than happy to give you any advice you may need to do a similar project of your own.

Update: Oct. 25, 2012 …
For even more examples of aerocaps in the EcoModder forum, see: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/comprehensive-list-aerodynamic-pickup-caps-aeroshells-ecomodder-elsewhere-23775.html

Prius C: A sub-compact hybrid, at a non-hybrid price.

by Bakari Kafele on July 13, 2012

The newest Prius, available for only 2 months now in the US, is a compact fuel-efficient hybrid.

One thing it is not, however, is a Prius.



The car is really a Yaris hybrid.

But, given that “Prius” is basically synonymous with “hybrid” among average Americans, and that the Yaris may seen by some as an “econ-o-box,” it is a smart marketing move on Toyota’s part to label it as a Prius. (In its home country of Japan it isn’t called a Yaris hybrid either, its called the Aqua).
Despite the misnomer, both the pricetag and the size reflect its true roots as a Yaris.
Sticker, at just under $19,000 baseline, is over 20% less expensive – $5000 less – than the standard model. Of 337 different models available for sale in 2012, only 17 cars are cheaper – and none of them are hybrids.

The first time I was in the original Prius, I was shocked at just how large the interior felt. It almost seemed more like a small minivan than the “compact” car it was classified as. I guess this shouldn’t have been surprising given how most long-lasting models have been super-sized over time (the modern Honda Civic, for example, is an entire 3 feet longer than the original Civic) – but it was not that long after the debut of the first US hybrid, the Insight, and I had assumed the Prius would be a 4 passenger version of that tiny car.

Ever since, it has seemed rather odd to me that the vehicle with the best (standard) mileage for sale in the US is one which falls in the 4th highest of the 5 size ratings. Surely, I imagined, something with a Prius like drive-train, but in a mini or compact size, should be able to get even better mileage.
It took them 12 years to do it, but the “Prius” C is just that.

It is over 1 1/2 feet smaller, 2 inches thinner, and almost 2 inches shorter than the original Prius, as well as 500lbs lighter – it’s actually lighter than many non-hybrid compact cars, such as the Fit, the Miata, and the new “Mini” Cooper.

The ‘C’ in the name stands for ‘City,’ where the small size would make parking easier and the lighter weight will help fuel mileage. As it does, at least in city traffic, where its meant to be used. By US EPA standards it gets 53mpg city, the highest rating of any (non-electric/plug-in) mass-produced commercially available highway capable auto in the country. At the same time, the EPA gives it 46mpg highway, slightly worse than the original Prius, and the two average out to a mixed rating of… 50mpg, exactly the same as the original Prius. However, it is very interesting to note that – although the marketing department is limited by law to only advertising the EPA generated numbers – Toyota’s own engineers estimate the mileage at a whopping 82mpg(US) under Japan’s mileage testing system. One tester even got 57mpg on the excessively hilly streets of San Francisco, so the official ratings are clearly conservative. Even a lead-footed car-guy tester with Car and Driver beat EPA with 55mpg on his test run.

Some of the reviews coming from professional car reviewers are pretty much what you would expect before even looking at them: this is a nice car – looks good, comfortable though small inside, handles decently, lots of technology and gadgets – but it doesn’t have enough acceleration. Its 0-60 is around 11 seconds. This apparently feels like driving through syrup to someone who is used to reviewing modern overpowered passenger cars, but for comparisons sake, a semi-tractor-trailer measures its 0-60 time in minutes or miles, and they are apparently capable of merging onto freeway onramps somehow. The more a particular reviewer is able to shift their frame of reference from performance to fuel economy, the more they liked it.

Bonus: everyone agrees that its 25-40mph acceleration of 3.6seconds – more what you’d use in city driving – is plenty.

Apparently consumer’s minds are coming around. Despite its small size and <100hp 10="" 2012.="" 2012="" 337="" 3="" 3rd="" 4="" 5000="" all="" and="" any="" aqua="" are="" as="" at="" award.="" been="" between="" by="" c="" can="" car.="" car="" cars="" combined="" compact="" countries="" deathtraps="" demand="" dying="" earn="" fact="" faster="" fastest="" first="" for="" have="" helped="" higher="" highway="" in="" institute="" insurance="" is="" it="" its="" japanese="" just="" keep="" literally="" minivan="" models="" month="" most="" much="" myth="" new="" of="" one="" only="" op="" original="" out="" over="" p="" part="" perhaps="" pick="" plug-in="" popular="" pre-orders="" prius="" produce="" production.="" projected="" rii="" riuses="" s="" safety="" same="" selling="" slowly="" small="" sold="" than="" that="" the="" them.="" they="" three="" time="" times="" to="" toyota="" two="" units="" up="" v="" was="" with="" world.="">
Then again, even though it is smaller than its predecessor, it isn’t really that tiny. While it is 1.5 feet less in front to back length than the original Prius, it is still a full 3 feet longer than the Scion iQ, another city car made by Toyota, which (unlike the Smart Car) has room for 4 passengers. The last 2 passengers might not be in luxury, but the reality is that most people, most of the time, don’t have 4 adults in the car. They have one, maybe 2, and possibly one or two children. So the iQ would probably be an appropriate size for many, if not most, households – especially if it’s the second of two cars. Of course the iQ gets nowhere near the C’s mileage (36/37), it is also $3,000 less.

I guess I will just have to keep waiting for a car to come out with the size of the iQ but the mileage of the Prius C. They are heading in that direction.

If one was going to get a new car now, the Prius C is the most efficient car out there, at a pretty reasonable price. In a decade or two, when used ones can be found on Craigslist for a few thousand, I might just pick one up myself. In the meantime, hopefully an ecomodder with a bigger bank account than mine will pick one up. I’d love to see what could be done with it in the right hands.

Jacob Aziza / Bakari Kafele; Ecomodder / Hypermiler

by Bakari Kafele on May 2, 2012

Good morning fellow ecomodders, hypermilers, and efficiency enthusiasts of all kinds.

The EcoModder blog has been inactive for over a year (save Tim’s two most recent updates), and I have been asked to help pick it up again.
So, since I also have not been active on this site for nearly a year, to start I thought I would re-introduce my self:
My name is Bakari Kafele.  My internet screen name (or at least one of them) is Jacob Aziza.
You may remember me from such internet sites as the EcoModder Forum and Instructables.com
I have an old (1983) full-size truck with a 6.9L diesel V8 that I use for deliveries and hauling and occasionally towing.  It would be a monstrosity for a commuter vehicle, but it’s about the smallest thing that could serve my work needs – most people hauling large or heavy loads (see below) would use a box truck, a flat bed, or maybe even a dump truck.


At the very least an F-350 or equivalent1-ton pick-up.
So, depending on how you look at it, getting 15 miles per gallon, (as I was five years ago), could be considered decent, given the type of work being asked of this old truck – 15 mpg being what I measured I was getting, which coincided more or less with what most people report getting in the same make model and year truck.
Then, in 2008, I read an article about Wayne Gerdes…


I found it to be revolutionary and inspirational.  It was one of those moments where it seemed like the idea should have been glaringly obvious all along, and yet somehow never occurred to me.  Slow down, accelerate with moderation, coast early instead of braking last minute.  Obvious stuff, right?
While I had always been environmentally conscious (I was running the truck on biodiesel most of the time,  and my personal transportation was – and is – mostly done by bicycle), I had also been a speed enthusiast in my youth.  The only reason I gave up on casual street racing, drifting, and other performance and trick driving in my Honda Civic was that I totaled it when I attempted to take a tight turn (the sign recommended 20MPH) at 55MPH.
I never put two and two together; never recognized the direct correlation between driving habits and resource consumption.
After reading the article, my driving habits underwent a 180 degree turn.
Despite having once received a letter from the DMV warning me that I was one point away from a suspended license, I now started driving below the speed limit, anticipating stops, and even coasting.
And after a few months, I was pulled over by the CA Highway Patrol once again.
Not that driving 50MPH on a 65MPH highway is actually illegal in CA; but because EVERYONE speeds here, all the time, the officer assumed I must be intoxicated to actually drive below the speed limit.  When I passed the breathalyzer, I was free to go.
I found that to be a (tragically) funny thing – I am surrounded by people breaking the law.  I am the one person NOT breaking the law.  And I am the one who gets stopped by law enforcement, because it is suspicious that I am not breaking the law like everyone else.  I thought that would be an interesting story to share, especially with people who were also trying to get the best possible fuel mileage from their own vehicles.
So I went online, and tried to find out if there were any discussion boards specifically dedicated to this “hypermiling” thing.
And that’s how I discovered:  EcoModder.com
Wow.  A whole new level.  Not only were there dozens of more in-depth secrets to driving technique, but people were actually modding their cars – not to make them faster or look cooler – but to actually make them more efficient.  Revolutionary, mind-blowing, and in the end as it turned out, life changing.
I won’t chronicle the entire process here, because I already did in the forums, as it was happening.
During this process a friend of mine (and fellow mechanic at the bikeshop I work at) convinced me to write about my truck mods for Instructables.com.
They happened to be doing an energy efficiency contest at the time, which I entered and took second place in, winning a T-shirt!
But even better, the founder and CEO of the company noticed my contest entry, and personally hired me to do a little work at his home.  How cool is that?
Throughout this time period, I had also been writing my own personal blog, and one of the founders of faircompanies.com, Kirsten Dirksen, happened to run across my article on anthropogenic global warming, in which I argue that the evidence is still inconclusive, but we should be acting as though it is true regardless of what science eventually finds.  She asked if I would post some of my content on their website, which I began doing.
About a year or so later she emailed me saying they were taking a trip to the US (from Spain) and asking if I would be willing to be interviewed on camera.
I was still new to hypermiling and hadn’t started ecomodding when the video was taken, so while I did mention driving the smallest vehicle that meets ones needs, fuel efficiency, and bicycles, the portion on my small home got most of the attention.
As my ecomodding habit began, since I was already posting eco related content to the Faircompanies website, Kirsten followed the development of the truck, and its transition from 15mpg to up to 30mpg. The next time she came to the US, several years later, she requested a follow up interview – and the new video which came out recently is all about hypermiling and ecomodding.

That brings us to today.
I recently looked into replacing the rear differential, as was suggested to me in the forums, but it turns out the 2.73  and 3.08 were never made for the stronger 8 lug / F-250+ wheels.  So I’m back to wanting to replace the transmission with one that has overdrive to lower my highway RPMs, but I haven’t found a diesel ZF with the granny gear yet.
I’ve been getting slightly lower mileage than my peak, just over 25 miles per gallon over the past 6 months, VS 29MPG average over the 6 months before that – but still a whole lot better than the 15MPG I started out at.

I suspect this is mostly due to having re-installed the alternator after my onboard 120v charger died, and being lazy about pulse and glide (as in, not doing it at all).
Between the video coming out and writing here, I’ve been more motivated to get my mpgs back up.
I’ll let you know how that goes.
UPDATE – I recently replaced all four tires with the General Grabber HTS, which is one of only two brands that is supposedly low rolling resistance in a tire with a 120 load rating.  I have only had them on about a week, so its too soon to say if/how much they will help (they are replacing on/off road tires in back, and dangerously worn road tires in front) – but what I can say is that the first time I drove with them fully inflated (the shop of course only inflated to 50 – even though I specifically asked them to go to the sidewall max of 80PSI) it was so easy to turn the (manual) steering wheel that for a split second I actually thought there might be something wrong.  I had gotten used to the old tires, and these ones turn with so little resistance that it feels like power assist by comparison.  That feels like a good sign to me.
I also just received my new battery charger (yesterday!) so I can take the alternator belt back off.  Between the two, I’m hoping to hit my 5th 30+mpg tank average – and then keep it there.  We’ll see…