[wylee]

Originally Posted by Kham

i'll go with Randy because he's been around as long as dinasaur.

my question is how do you determine if 55 works for every cars and especially modern cars? where exactly does aerodynamic comes into play for 18wheelers and for prius for example? i say start with 18wheelers. too many of them on the roads. then there's traffic congestions each days for each cities. that's gotta count for something. how do you solve that without going broke.

You want to get the 18 wheelers off the roads? What would you replace them with? I think the only thing more efficient at moving freight would be rail. Tractor trailers are quite fuel efficient for the job they do.

The Prius is not a lot better than a Yaris above 50mph. It takes a lot more HP to maintain interstate speeds than driving 20mph in city traffic.

[deslock]

Originally Posted by wylee

The Prius is not a lot better than a Yaris above 50mph. It takes a lot more HP to maintain interstate speeds than driving 20mph in city traffic.

It's all relative. 25-30 HP is all that's needed to go 60 MPH, but IC engines are inefficient when it comes to accelerating in 20 MPH city traffic. That's why the Prius generally gets 45-52 MPG for both city and highway while a Yaris generally gets 29-35 city and 34-41 highway. So the Prius averages ~30% better highway and ~50% better city.

BTW, the Yaris' Cd is between 0.29 and 0.32 (depending on body style). The Prius' Cd is 0.26.

[joeswamp]

Originally Posted by wylee

You want to get the 18 wheelers off the roads? What would you replace them with? I think the only thing more efficient at moving freight would be rail. Tractor trailers are quite fuel efficient for the job they do.

Supposedly rail is hugely more efficient than tractor-trailers (something like 1/4 to 1/2 the fuel), but the problem is railroads have to maintain their own tracks. I read once that trucks are massively subsidized because they're responsible for much more road damage than they actually pay for.

Of course the problem with rail is that you need to build your factory on a rail line, and since trucking is competitive pricewise nobody does this anymore.

[seth505]

Originally Posted by 04ZRX

I have a 05 Dodge Ram 1500 with the "Hemi" in it & I have found that it likes to run at about 1850-2000 R.P.M. for the best gas mileage. On the Highway I set the Cruise control at 66-67 M.P.H. with the A/C on and a full load of luggage plus the Wife, I got 18.867 M.P.G.

In the City I have found that I need to push the Tow/Haul button in when I travel at under 42 M.P.H. This increases my gas mileage by 1.5 per gallon. I.E. 14.5 my normal with overdrive in, 13 M.P.G.

In summary:

I won't do 55, & I have tried it, the highway mileage is worse for my truck!

I agree (same truck here), 65 works out pretty good, if you to 70-75 it drops a few mpg and 85 it probably drops at least 3 mpg. I can't really drive 65 though I do try sometimes. But people need to realize its not all "the speed you are driving", its gear ratio, weight, aerodynamics, tire drag, blablaa etc...

[seth505]

also, a prius does not do a burnout

[d3ad1ysp0rk]

Originally Posted by RandyO

your full of shit, you haven't driven at 55 long enuf to know what milage you get at 55, aerodynamics makes that much of a difference no matter how streamline your cage is

Funny how we're full of shit when talking about our observations, but then you aren't required to prove why. Sounds like you're full of shit too.

[spicy]

Originally Posted by seth505

also, a prius does not do a burnout

it doesn't? you'd figure it'd probably do pretty good burnouts, as electric motors make 100% of their torque at 0 rpm

[*GhostRide37]

what people fail to realize is that, yes, maybe slower driving uses less gas to run the engine at that moment, but if you drive faster, you get to your destination faster...at which point you turn the vehicle off and stop using gas (rather than still driving at a slower speed and using less gas for a longer period)


in the end it all cancels out and its the same.

[d3ad1ysp0rk]

Originally Posted by *GhostRide37

what people fail to realize is that, yes, maybe slower driving uses less gas to run the engine at that moment, but if you drive faster, you get to your destination faster...at which point you turn the vehicle off and stop using gas (rather than still driving at a slower speed and using less gas for a longer period)


in the end it all cancels out and its the same.

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. Please..

[deslock]

Originally Posted by seth505

also, a prius does not do a burnout:nono

The Prius' electric motor is rated for 295 ftlbs torque at low RPM, but the car isn't configured for performance so burnouts aren't gonna happen. As if it matters... FWD sucks ass no matter how you slice it.

Originally Posted by *GhostRide37

what people fail to realize is that, yes, maybe slower driving uses less gas to run the engine at that moment, but if you drive faster, you get to your destination faster...at which point you turn the vehicle off and stop using gas (rather than still driving at a slower speed and using less gas for a longer period)


in the end it all cancels out and its the same.

LOL

[TheIglu]

Originally Posted by *GhostRide37

what people fail to realize is that, yes, maybe slower driving uses less gas to run the engine at that moment, but if you drive faster, you get to your destination faster...at which point you turn the vehicle off and stop using gas (rather than still driving at a slower speed and using less gas for a longer period)


in the end it all cancels out and its the same.

YUM YUM YUM YUM

I'll eat this stuff up all day!

[*GhostRide37]

Originally Posted by d3ad1ysp0rk

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. Please..

nope, why would i be kidding. its true when you think about.

you can drive 60 miles for 1 hour doing 60mph

or drive 60 miles in 30 min doing 120 mph (using these #s for the sake of argument)

the gas you use up from going so fast is going to be about the same as the gas you WOULD HAVE used if you were still driving that extra half hour. at least thats the way i look at it.

[Benyen Soljax]

Originally Posted by *GhostRide37

nope, why would i be kidding. its true when you think about.

you can drive 60 miles for 1 hour doing 60mph

or drive 60 miles in 30 min doing 120 mph (using these #s for the sake of argument)

the gas you use up from going so fast is going to be about the same as the gas you WOULD HAVE used if you were still driving that extra half hour. at least thats the way i look at it.

brilliant!!!!


im nominating this guy for national treasurer!! by this logic he will save the country LOADS of money by spending the money faster. that way, you bought the stuff you need quick and wont spend all the time blowing money away while you spend it slow.

[tsanto]

Originally Posted by *GhostRide37

nope, why would i be kidding. its true when you think about.

you can drive 60 miles for 1 hour doing 60mph

or drive 60 miles in 30 min doing 120 mph (using these #s for the sake of argument)

the gas you use up from going so fast is going to be about the same as the gas you WOULD HAVE used if you were still driving that extra half hour. at least thats the way i look at it.

So they're going about it all wrong, the speed limits should be increased not lowered. Why didnt they think of that.

Come on you cant be serious...

[Benyen Soljax]

Originally Posted by tsanto

So they're going about it all wrong, the speed limits should be increased not lowered. Why didnt they think of that.

Come on you cant be serious...

you shouldnt be talking to the future treasurer of America that way!!!

[*GhostRide37]

didnt say anything SAVES money, but if you want to use this treasurer metaphor then fine

in charge of the big dig, i would spend more money over a shorter span of time, rather than less money over a longer span of time, to fix it up. like i said, in the end it cancels out.


drive how you want though, i guess ill just be the only one who gets to where im going quicker\


*and if you ask me, in the case of motorcyclea and standard cars, gas is used more based off of what your rpm is than your speed. you can drive around all day doing 13k rpm going 50 or you can drive around in low second gear doing 60. youll use less gas doing 60. try it

[taxonomy]

I, for one, would like to see a return to light rail. In the 1920s you could take local light rail from Portland ME to Chicago.

At some point people are going to realize that fuel independence is going to take a World War II like effort, meaning there will have to be some sacrifice on the part of normal people.

Right now the only folks bearing the cost of the war effort are a few military families, but this is going to have to be wider spread than that. Saving gas honors them.

If you get down to brass tacks Hitler lost the war because we had the gas to fly chocolate cake and bullets to Europe.

Have you ever seen the WWII poster "when you ride alone you ride with Hitler."? You could put Bin laden in there and it would be just as valid.

People made sacrifices in WWII because they were patriotic. Part of the reason that I ride is because it's a public good. In commuter mode the SV returns about 47 MPG, the Puch, if I can make it run again can do around 100. I save a lot of gas riding and don't mind "spending" a little playing.

In the long run it will be about who can get the most GDP out of a barrel of oil. It will be about who can spend the least time and money shoring up reserves in the mid east. It will be about energy independence. There's no super fuel waiting around the corner to replace oil. It's going to be about conservation. I am willing to drive slower when I commute, to bicycle when I can. To motorcycle when I ride alone. I am willing to drive slower on the many, many miles I commute compared to sport riding. When you consider the options it's an easy choice.

[Rossy83]

Originally Posted by taxonomy

People made sacrifices in WWII because they were patriotic.

And you had to have a coupon to buy gas.

[taxonomy]

Originally Posted by Rossy83

And you had to have a coupon to buy gas.

Yeah, that's true, but I think people still understood the scope of the problem more than we do now. My parents were WWII era people and I have talked with a lot of others.

Ride to work.

[Honclfibr]

Originally Posted by d3ad1ysp0rk

PLEASE tell me you're kidding. Please..

Wind resistance is a myth put forth by evil hippy scientists in order to get grant money.

[TheIglu]

It's in the same boat as global warming.

[g®eg]

Originally Posted by *GhostRide37

nope, why would i be kidding. its true when you think about.

you can drive 60 miles for 1 hour doing 60mph

or drive 60 miles in 30 min doing 120 mph (using these #s for the sake of argument)

the gas you use up from going so fast is going to be about the same as the gas you WOULD HAVE used if you were still driving that extra half hour. at least thats the way i look at it.

*shakes head*

[taxonomy]

Originally Posted by TheIglu

It's in the same boat as global warming.

Which is to say broadly supported by science. The popular press has no real interest in doing proper research. They have to be "balanced" which often mean reporting "both sides" of the issue, even when one side is wrong.

Do you know what peer review is? In order for something like global warming to rise to the point it has many scientists have to look at the data and be able to get the same results from it. People have no idea what the scientific process and publishing in journals is all about, but by the time something makes it to a journal like Nature it's passed muster.

[TheIglu]

It's much easier to say "MAN, IT WAS COLD THIS YEAR. HOW'S THAT FOR GLOBAL WARMING, HUH????".

Must be easy to live in that world.

[taxonomy]

Originally Posted by TheIglu

It's much easier to say "MAN, IT WAS COLD THIS YEAR. HOW'S THAT FOR GLOBAL WARMING, HUH????".

Must be easy to live in that world.

I am baffled.