CS,
The commercial truck/consumer electronics comp wasn't my analogy ! ( Although I seriously suspect probably 90+% of electronic gadgets end up in the hands of hobbists else there wouldn't be all the "big box" stores around.)
Before bragging on that Corvette, ask yourself how many of those full-bore launches will it withstand ? Sure as hell won't be 100K miles worth and a far cry from the 300K + miles worth of heavy hauling every truck is expected to deliver ! If all that's desired is pure fuel efficiency then put the load on the rails. A freight train's "ton/mile fuel efficiency makes any truck look like a fuel hog. But the thread topic is truck efficiency and government plans to decrease it at the behest of certain industry elements. IOW yet another case of government screwing with market forces to the detriment of the consummer.
We've made enormous strides in improving diesel engine performance/efficiency curves - if not always driveability - thanks in large part to the electronic revolution. But when all the "low-hanging fruit" are picked getting more involves a great deal more work ( and expense) for less return. And no government mandate is going to change that reality. If there was any " affordable pickings" do you really think our highly competitive manufacturers would leave them hanging ?
To use your analogy, did you invest all the bucks you report in the tools of your trade just because they were new/shiny/mandated ? Or was every purchase a hard-heaed business one ? Maybe cinematography needs some government mandates controlling what size/weight/configuration/power souce your stuff may use. Or where/how you may use it. Or what level of "emmissions" it produces.
Looked at in perspective the history of government interposing itself (via technical mandates) into motor vehicle engineering - particularly in the latter half of the 20th century - has largely been one of disasterous "unintended consequences". I suspect this latest will be yet another. >Mech
