FWIW if you're driving a vehicle that cannot at least do close to speed limit you really shouldn't be running around in the left lane of the road. The scooter at the very least should have been to the right and at the best should have sought an alternate route where he wouldn't be impeding the normal flow of traffic.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Chill a little. Nobody said he didn't have the right to be on the road. The error was riding in the left lane (while the right lane was clear) on a vehicle incapable of driving at least the speed limit. The comments about Darwin were pointing out how stupid he was, not wishing him injury. He was taking his life into his own hands--as if he had the deathwish. Nobody expects a vehicle like that in the left lane. The original poster was also pointing out how easy it would have been for him to be injured if traffic had been worse and nobody could see him around the two vehicles. Accusing someone of stupidity is not the same as wishing them ill, sheesh.
Yup, I would agree. Just think if the misguided views contingent wins out and 55 mph becomes the speed limit again. One can expect to see an EXPLOSION in the population of better mpg vehicles like..... SCOOTERS!! Just think if you are a scooter going 45 mph in the #1 lane. THEY CANT TOUCH YOU!!! So be very careful what one wishes for, You just might get it. ??!!
If I can get 36 MPG at 75 MPH, and 40 MPG at 80 MPH, why couldn't he get 35 MPG at 85? If his speed in constant, with no downshifting to pass, or climb hills, I wouldn't doubt his claim one bit because I've witnessed the same thing firsthand in our 3 Accords (Actually, since 1990, we've had a '90 LX, '92 EX, '93 EX, my current '96 LX, '00LX, '01 LX, '03 EX, dad's current '05 EX (which I achieved the 40MPG at 80 MPH in), and my current 06 EX. All 4-cylinder mileage mongers.
I took a Honda Civic VP on a north/south cross state trip at between speeds of 80-85 and 90-95 (two drivers switching off) with the AC blasting and plug in GPS and another DC device, got 37 mpg.
If I can get 36 MPG at 75 MPH, and 40 MPG at 80 MPH, why couldn't he get 35 MPG at 85?
Key word in your statement is 'if' and since everything I have seen, read and had explained to me would say that you would get less mileage at 80 then at 75 the issue is moot.
Again I seriously doubt he is getting those numbers at 85MPH.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
OK, I'll restate that. I DID get 36.4 MPG in my new 06 Accord when it had about 2,600 miles on it. I went about 75 MPH (cr. set, occasionally passed at 80). In dad's car, I got 40 MPG w/cr set on 80 (41,000 miles at the time). Little traffic, and no A/C either time (it was Feb in my new car, and April Fools day in dad's.
It's all about how much fuel you use to increase your speed. If I'm only using 3 % more fuel to get 6 % more speed, then I'm going to get better mileage at that higher speed (which I did).
Doesn't matter it goes against everything I have learned on the subject. In other words I don't believe it. I cannot believe you were using only 3% more fuel to create the minimum 13.87% more energy needed to go the additional 5MPH.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
We have a 2004 EX-L 4 cyl 5 speed. My wife regularly get mid 30's on her commute to work. Heck I don't think my 1996 Civic can beat the Accord for gas mileage. Like I said, I think the "magic" speed if different depending on the car. And even if it isn't, I'm doing far better than the SUV crowd getting 35 MPG at 85. We got similar results from our other Accords that we've owned. This is our third from this generation. We owned 2 from the previous one. And 3 90-93 models. They all could top 30 mpg on the highway at high speeds.
Now my 03 SI that I just sold, that's another issue. It wouldn't break 30 mpg. And the Mazda Protege was a dog past 80. The engine was tuned for low rpm torque and the gearbox was too short.
Yes, I do drive like a bat-out-of-he** at times. But when that's not possible due to conditions, it's much easier to sustain an 95 mph cruise. As many others will attest.
Yep, any time one is operating a vehicle incapable of traveling at speeds at least equal to the speed limit at any time (for whatever reason, not just scooters), that driver should be cautious and considerate to an extreme. Why? Because that vehicle is a potential bottleneck and problems happen quickly at bottlenecks. The more extreme the bottleneck, the more potential for problems/conflicts. I, personally, would prefer to avoid any such problems... especially when so exposed as on a scooter. *shrugs*
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
Yes. Actually I perceive the "optimum speed" to be 65 mph maybe 70 mph MAX.
I actually wished I had taken another car, a 2003 VW Jetta TDI. It (seems) is particularly well suited to longer distance driving and at higher speed ranges. With those same speeds, I swag an mpg of between 48/50 mpg. A steady 85 mph will yield 50 mpg.
Now, this is not an attempt to refute the mileage claims, but I wonder what the same car's mileage is at something slower, like 65 or 55 - if it is worse or better or the same, etc. Gearing and aerodynamics have a lot to do with the curve for sure. But, again, it is pointless to compare to different vehicle types because they are built for different purposes and will obviously have different curves. It might be more useful to run comparisons with, say, the Camry, Taurus, and other 4-cylinder midsize sedans.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
On the way home today I am on a four lane road (two lanes in each direction) coming up to a stop light where there is a left turn lane. Sitting on the white line separating the left turn lane from the left lane waiting on a red light is a bicyclist, not a motorcycle or a scooter just a bicycle rider. When the light turns green he pedals his bike to the middle of the intersection and stops to make a left turn. :confuse:
I don't know but maybe he is related to your scooter guy.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
well seeing that the EPA rates it at 34 MPG highway (I4 engine) and no user is reporting higher MPG to the epa (read other owners don't agree with you) and that mileage drops like a rock at those speeds I cannot believe you until it is demonstrated to me.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
"Convince snakeweasel of that. We accord owners know it to be true. "
Perhaps that is the good news and the bad news of anecdotal data. So for example, I am sure SnakeWeasel gets not more than 34 mpg with his Elantra at 65 mph or whatever he has claimed or posted. It is more than obvious the Elantra is optimized for 65 mph and BELOW. So it might be unconceiveable to him that other cars are "BETTER" optimized. I.E. get better fuel mileage at higher speeds. There are real reasons why Honda year after year wins a lot of different awards.
Hey, I didn't get all bent out of shape about it. I didn't toot my horn, raise my fist or middle finger, or tailgate the scooter. I'm pretty laid back now, and I just waited the extra 30 seconds or so. No big deal.
I'm just amazed the guy was taking his life in his hands by blithely riding so slowly in the left lane. I'm also glad there was no other traffic around besides the scooter, tow truck, and me or things could have gotten dicey very quickly.
And I don't believe those mileage claims of 35 mpg and over at 85+ mph. (Ok, maybe the diesel VWs.) Just the exponentially greater air resistance would severely cut into your fuel economy, no matter the gearing. Plus your revs are higher, because you've got 5 or 6 gears max.
I hope you stay in the right lane. Especially on the four laners. I once raced a Eclipse on 81 in VA right outside Bristol. That's some nice curvy road. Lotsa built in cop hidin places too.
Believe it or not, I understand why you don't, and I was amazed too. It's not skin off my nose whether or not you believe me, because frankly, if I wanted to lie about something, why would I do it about mileage? On an anonymous internet forum? What have I to gain by being untrue about such a thing? It's no skin off my nose, and no toot on my horn either way.
Yeah actually that is one reason why I think it is misguided to implement a 55 mph speed limit. If the majority of cars that do not get 35 mpg (have to be within range of course) were indeed optimize for 75-95 mph the fact is the demand on hp is not a lot!
Most places have laws about hanging out in the left lane just for kicks. Usually reserved for passing and left turns. Even if the law doesn't require moving to the right, common sense should if you are not within a couple miles per hour of the traffic flow or speed limit, which ever is higher. Yo may pay taxes the same as the next guy, but you don't pay taxes from the grave. People get frustrated when they have to slow down for morons in the fast lane. I followed a string of cars today on a busy 2 lane road (45 MPH). One car in the middle of the string got jumpy and passed in a very dangerous place. Atleast 5 cars in the oncoming lane had to pull off the road to avoid the idiot. The idiot was in the wrong (as was the person in the front that didn't pull over when 5 cars backed up behind him as required by law), but several people could have gotten killed because someone was to stupid to pull over and allow faster traffic to pass. It's not worth getting killed because you are stupid and stuborn.
The Mpg peak depends on the car. Mine (a BMW 740) peaks around the 60s at 23 mpg. but the peak is pretty flat as i still manage 19 mpg at 95-100 (in Europe, relax).
The lowest mpg I get is still a dismal 12mpg crawling in th
e city. I rather use my small scooter in those cases
The drive 55 will only marginally impact the global consumption and does not address city congestions where creeping at 5 mph makes thirstier fuel consumption than any higher speed. One problem is everybody commuting alone in their cars.
The answer is in car-sharing and public transport for commuting, but nobody want such policy, so the problem remain the same. I am in favor of driving less but in better conditions, but who wants to take part into the effort?
I look at it the same way I look at those who saw the sextuplets (or was it septuplets?) that didn't exist. You may actually believe it, you may want to believe it or you just want to be part of something better, I don't know. But when you say something that no one else is reporting and goes against the laws of physics it is very suspect.
if I wanted to lie about something, why would I do it about mileage? On an anonymous internet forum?
Can't answer about mileage, but for the anonymous internet forum is because there is no way to confirm nor deny it. One can say just about anything on an anonymous forum. Heck anyone of us can be just about anything, maybe one of us is even a 12 year old Amish kid sneaking onto the internet at the local library.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Cars peak in MPG at between 40 - 60 most in the lower range. Once you start approaching higher speeds the extra energy required just to push air out of your way increases rapidly. No one is getting better mileage at 85 than at 60, unless they are going up a steep incline at 60 and down one at 85.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The answer is in car-sharing and public transport for commuting,
the only problem with that is that it is only workable on a limited scale. Granted in cities such as Chicago (where I live) commuting within the city and nearby burbs can easily be done using public transportation.
Commuting from the burbs further out can be done with little more difficulty by trains. The problem with that is that you still have to drive to the trains and if your not working in the down town area you can't us it.
Then there is suburb to suburb commuting which is either impossible or very time consuming to do using public transportation. And it is very hard to find people who live near you that work near where you work that work the same hours, so car pooling is difficult.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If your engine is tuned to produce it's best power is the upper range as Hondas are, the engine doesn't have to work as hard even thought the revs are lower. My Civic EX has a much easier time going up hills at 80 than at 60. The gearing is a little tall for a 1.6L. I mean if it were only a matter of rpm all cars would cruise at idle at the speed limit.
If the engine's powerband is such that it is working harder to sustain a 55 mph cruise than a 85 mph one, it's entirely possible to get better MPG at that higher speed. Like I'd be willing to bet my Accord gets better MPG at 55 than 35 since the engine is almost lugging in 5th at that speed. It may get better than 35 MPG at a 55 mpg cruise too. I'm just not gonna be the one to try that out cause that's entirely too slow.
What I do know is that there are no real absolutes. And I do know 55 could not be that "magic" speed where ALL cars get the best mpg. There are too many variables. Additionally, my original point was why should I be compelled to the same speed limit as cars that can't even dream to approach the level of efficiency of my car.
I understand that it is suspect (40 MPG), and I only chieved those figures once - EVER. Otherwise, I have consistently gotten 35-36 MPG at around 75-80 MPH, no stops except to pee at a rest stop. The EPA gets its numbers, and then reduces them by ten percent to account for "real-world" conditions (A/C on, acceleration, varying speed, etc...). I had the A/C off, kept a consistent speed, and drove to the coast (coastal plain of AL is fairly flat). So, if the EPA got 38 MPG (which deductive reasoning said they did, with that 10 % redux), they would've lowered it to 34 MPG by reducing it ten percent (it would be 34.2, but, well, you know.)
On top of that, they don't drive over 60MPH, which is not the maligned "optimum speed" for this car, because of tall gearing in overdrive. I think that if I had gone at that "60MPH" threshold, I would've gotten the 37-38 MPG, because my conditions were similar to those of the EPA (moderate temp, no a/c or windows down, constant speed). With the higher speed (75-80ish), I got even better mileage. If I had gone 85-90, it would have diminished.
This is the best explanation I can, or will give, to back up my 39.96 MPG that I got earlier this year. Hope it makes sense to y'all.
In an SUV, what you have said is entirely true. And for the most part, cars will get better mileage at 60 than 85 (with exception of some tall-geared cars with excellent aerodynamics). At 40, though, many cars won't go into top gear (my auto I4 Accord goes into 5th at a minimum speed of 42 MPH every time).
If by optimum speed you define the speed at which the lowest fuel consumption per distance traveled is attained, then for 99% (probably 100%) of passenger vehicles that is the lowest speed the vehicle can maintain in its tallest gear. By maintain I mean that the motor runs "round," without hesitation or hiccups. The biggest variables are the weight of the vehicle (and its load), its rolling resistance (aerodynamics, tire friction, efficiency of transmission), the number of cylinders in the motor, the transmission gearing and the constancy of the speed. In my 1995 Mazda Protege (2,700 lbs weight including a 200 lb driver, skinny tires, good aerodynamics (Cx around .32), 1.5 liter/4 cylinders, tall 5th gear, cruise on) I will get the best mileage at 48 mph or so (over 45mpg) with the a/c off.
However, that's a poor definition for "optimum speed." It ignores the huge dilation of time that I would suffer from my travels taking 50% longer than traveling at 75 mph. If everybody around the country should have to slow down an average of 33% from their current highway speeds for the sake of "optimum speed," our economic output, leisure time and mental health would all take a severe beating.
If I may cut to the quick: 48/50 mpg at 85 mph. Where are 99% of most cars optimization both mpg AND mpg? I would swag LOWER on both metrics!!! Work backwards!!
If everybody around the country should have to slow down an average of 33% from their current highway speeds for the sake of "optimum speed," our economic output, leisure time and mental health would all take a severe beating.
Not necessarily, As for economic output why would slowing down reduce your work load? Leisure time, maybe you could reduce some of the low quality leisure time like vegetating in front of a TV set. A slower pace might improve mental health (why do we have to be in such a rush?).
Not to mention that if everyone slows down 33% more people will survive to enjoy leisure time and mental health.
Mind you I am not advocating reducing speed, just playing devils advocate.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Actually being in the center of a multi lane road I do believe he was in violation of the rules of the road. Bicycles have to keep to the right to allow traffic to pass on the left.
The safest way for him to get where he wanted to be would be to use the crosswalks. But then he would have to wait through a couple of light cycles to get to the same point as using the left turn lane...
No using the crosswalks he would have gotten there faster. He was at a red light south bound turning left to go east bound. If he would have used the east-west green light to cross the north-south road then when the light turned green he could have crossed the east-west road instead of waiting in the middle of the intersection waiting for traffic to clear.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
I read that as if he was on the right edge of the left turn lane, where he had every right to be. It might have been safer to take the middle of the lane, at least until he was through the intersection.
That biker was staying to the right.... of the left turn lane, which is the lane he needed to use in order to make a legal left turn. Personally, I would have been in the middle of the left turn lane rather than on the side (so that a driver would not have decided to pace me in the turn), then immediately moved to the far right of the roadway at the safest possible time once through the intersection. Rarely will I use the crosswalks at intersections on a bicycle simply because I encounter more traffic conflicts there with oblivious left/right turners than if I use the vehicle lanes while navigating the intersection. I have certainly been called inconsiderate (in not so nice of terms) for doing so, but I always make it to my destination safety without inconveniencing drivers, so I really do not see the conflict other than usurping people's expectations. Whether or not I use the roadway at intersections depends heavily on the speed of traffic flow on them. If I cannot ride the speed of traffic, I will not use the intersection except via crosswalk.
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
I would define "optimum" speed for a vehicle the speed at which a % increase in speed causes a greater net % decrease in fuel economy over a given amount of time. Definitely not the same as optimum fuel economy.
For example, if a vehicle at 65mph returns 32 mpg in one hour and at 70mph returns 31 mpg, then that 7.7% increase in speed results in a 3.1% reduction in fuel economy, so 70 is more efficient than 65. At 75 mph, the fuel economy is 29 mpg. So, the 15.4% increase in speed over 65 results in 9.3% reduction in economy... 75 is still more efficient. At 80 though, the drop is to 24 mpg: 23.1% increase in speed and 25% reduction in economy from 65. Oops... if you want to leverage your time against your fuel economy, then stick with 75! Are you using more fuel than if you were to drive 55 or less? Maybe, but again, you'd have to test it (and, like gee35 put it, who wants or has time to do that?) to know for sure. If it is just about conserving one resource, then max out fuel economy and forget about anything else. In the end, I say time is far more valuable than fuel. Plus, there are all those other mitigating factors that must be considered in a real world instance, so it becomes a moot point to even consider it at all. :P
2018 Subaru Crosstrek, 2014 Audi Q7 TDI, 2013 Subaru Forester, 2013 Ford F250 Lariat D, 1976 Ford F250, 1969 Chevrolet C20, 1969 Ford Econoline 100
For example, if a vehicle at 65mph returns 32 mpg in one hour and at 70mph returns 31 mpg, then that 7.7% increase in speed results in a 3.1% reduction in fuel economy, so 70 is more efficient than 65.
Your logic is a bit off using your example while you are driving 7.7% faster you are using fuel 11.2% faster (2.26 gallons/hour as opposed to 2.03 gallons/hour). 70 is less efficient.
At 75 mph, the fuel economy is 29 mpg. So, the 15.4% increase in speed over 65 results in 9.3% reduction in economy... 75 is still more efficient.
again your logic is off while you are going 15.4% faster you are using fuel 27.3% faster (2.59 gallons/hour as opposed to 2.03 gallons/hour). 75 is less efficient.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
What you say makes sense, but cars with larger Engines and taller gears haven't as steep a mileage decrease with higher speeds than small cars.
Let us say my 740 runs at 2000 RPM at 62mph, my fuel consumption at 80/2500 RPM won't be much much higher because the engine will be revving in a more fuel efficient manner than when at 2000 RPM. In other words, the increase in wind resistance and necessary HP is partially offset by the increase in fuel efficiency of the Engine.
Smaller engined cars can be very efficient at 50 MPH because their tallest gear makes this speed match the Engine sweetspot (around 3000 RPM for Gas Engines)
I am not claiming to use less fuel at 85 than at 70 or 50, but only that the curve vary from models to models, although it is safe to say 50 MPH is the speed most cars will hit higher MPG
>the only problem with that is that it is only workable on a limited scale.
Of course, we can't apply, say, the japanese model where billions are crammed on an area in japan wherease only thousands would live in a similar size area in the US
I am not an Ecofreak and believe the car can complement public transportation. Railway stations should have enough accomodations for cars. Germany use light rail/tramway to cope with suburbs needs, so this could be an alternative.
True we can't demand a tramway station to be next door, but It should be at most within 10 minutes drive in any populated suburb. Can't request drivers to take public transport if is inexistent.
Try to get public transport to go downtown in LA. Car is the only alternative to cars and traffic jams are being sponsored by our friends in the ME
True we can't demand a tramway station to be next door, but It should be at most within 10 minutes drive in any populated suburb.
We have a great commuter train system here in Chicago, one of the best there is. The main issue is parking at many of the stations, perminant spaces have a three year waiting list at some stations and daily pay spots go real fast.
My problem is that I travel from one burb to another, taking public transportation would take 6 times as long as driving.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
>Not necessarily, As for economic output why would slowing down reduce your work load?
Why taking more time doing one same thing would reduce the work load? Answer : let all materialistic guys understand the true meaning of life. If I spend 10 hours on a plane to Asia, why not slowing down to 300 mph instead of 600 and save our resources? It will save me another 10 hours of stupid TV watching ( or children caring). Why not slowing down computers? The Internet is too speedy. Let people spend more time at their desk so that they reallocate their time resource thoughfully.
>Not to mention that if everyone slows down 33% more people will survive to enjoy leisure time and mental health.
I could well say that spending 33% more time on the road is likely to yield 33% more deaths. Can't expect drivers to give additional attention to the road in this conditions. Yawning should be prosecuted as it is likely to become the first accident cause (it is maybe already).
>Mind you I am not advocating reducing speed, just playing devils advocate.
I am also playing another devil's advocate and support some SL increases, but we were forced to agree to disagree anyway. Let us not enter this debate or we are going to get slammed.
Comments
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Key word in your statement is 'if' and since everything I have seen, read and had explained to me would say that you would get less mileage at 80 then at 75 the issue is moot.
Again I seriously doubt he is getting those numbers at 85MPH.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
It's all about how much fuel you use to increase your speed. If I'm only using 3 % more fuel to get 6 % more speed, then I'm going to get better mileage at that higher speed (which I did).
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Now my 03 SI that I just sold, that's another issue. It wouldn't break 30 mpg. And the Mazda Protege was a dog past 80. The engine was tuned for low rpm torque and the gearbox was too short.
Yes, I do drive like a bat-out-of-he** at times. But when that's not possible due to conditions, it's much easier to sustain an 95 mph cruise. As many others will attest.
I actually wished I had taken another car, a 2003 VW Jetta TDI. It (seems) is particularly well suited to longer distance driving and at higher speed ranges. With those same speeds, I swag an mpg of between 48/50 mpg. A steady 85 mph will yield 50 mpg.
On the way home today I am on a four lane road (two lanes in each direction) coming up to a stop light where there is a left turn lane. Sitting on the white line separating the left turn lane from the left lane waiting on a red light is a bicyclist, not a motorcycle or a scooter just a bicycle rider. When the light turns green he pedals his bike to the middle of the intersection and stops to make a left turn. :confuse:
I don't know but maybe he is related to your scooter guy.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Perhaps that is the good news and the bad news of anecdotal data. So for example, I am sure SnakeWeasel gets not more than 34 mpg with his Elantra at 65 mph or whatever he has claimed or posted. It is more than obvious the Elantra is optimized for 65 mph and BELOW. So it might be unconceiveable to him that other cars are "BETTER" optimized. I.E. get better fuel mileage at higher speeds. There are real reasons why Honda year after year wins a lot of different awards.
I'm just amazed the guy was taking his life in his hands by blithely riding so slowly in the left lane. I'm also glad there was no other traffic around besides the scooter, tow truck, and me or things could have gotten dicey very quickly.
And I don't believe those mileage claims of 35 mpg and over at 85+ mph. (Ok, maybe the diesel VWs.) Just the exponentially greater air resistance would severely cut into your fuel economy, no matter the gearing. Plus your revs are higher, because you've got 5 or 6 gears max.
High revs don't necessarily mean worse economy. If the engine isn't working as hard. Once up to speed, it really doesn't take much power to cruise.
I get 35+ in my '04 Camry 4-cylinder 4A, but generally going no faster than 65 mph, which is the top speed limit in VA, MD, PA, and NJ.
The lowest mpg I get is still a dismal 12mpg crawling in th
e city. I rather use my small scooter in those cases
The answer is in car-sharing and public transport for commuting, but nobody want such policy, so the problem remain the same. I am in favor of driving less but in better conditions, but who wants to take part into the effort?
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
if I wanted to lie about something, why would I do it about mileage? On an anonymous internet forum?
Can't answer about mileage, but for the anonymous internet forum is because there is no way to confirm nor deny it. One can say just about anything on an anonymous forum. Heck anyone of us can be just about anything, maybe one of us is even a 12 year old Amish kid sneaking onto the internet at the local library.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
the only problem with that is that it is only workable on a limited scale. Granted in cities such as Chicago (where I live) commuting within the city and nearby burbs can easily be done using public transportation.
Commuting from the burbs further out can be done with little more difficulty by trains. The problem with that is that you still have to drive to the trains and if your not working in the down town area you can't us it.
Then there is suburb to suburb commuting which is either impossible or very time consuming to do using public transportation. And it is very hard to find people who live near you that work near where you work that work the same hours, so car pooling is difficult.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
If the engine's powerband is such that it is working harder to sustain a 55 mph cruise than a 85 mph one, it's entirely possible to get better MPG at that higher speed. Like I'd be willing to bet my Accord gets better MPG at 55 than 35 since the engine is almost lugging in 5th at that speed. It may get better than 35 MPG at a 55 mpg cruise too. I'm just not gonna be the one to try that out cause that's entirely too slow.
What I do know is that there are no real absolutes. And I do know 55 could not be that "magic" speed where ALL cars get the best mpg. There are too many variables.
Additionally, my original point was why should I be compelled to the same speed limit as cars that can't even dream to approach the level of efficiency of my car.
I understand that it is suspect (40 MPG), and I only chieved those figures once - EVER. Otherwise, I have consistently gotten 35-36 MPG at around 75-80 MPH, no stops except to pee at a rest stop. The EPA gets its numbers, and then reduces them by ten percent to account for "real-world" conditions (A/C on, acceleration, varying speed, etc...). I had the A/C off, kept a consistent speed, and drove to the coast (coastal plain of AL is fairly flat). So, if the EPA got 38 MPG (which deductive reasoning said they did, with that 10 % redux), they would've lowered it to 34 MPG by reducing it ten percent (it would be 34.2, but, well, you know.)
On top of that, they don't drive over 60MPH, which is not the maligned "optimum speed" for this car, because of tall gearing in overdrive. I think that if I had gone at that "60MPH" threshold, I would've gotten the 37-38 MPG, because my conditions were similar to those of the EPA (moderate temp, no a/c or windows down, constant speed). With the higher speed (75-80ish), I got even better mileage. If I had gone 85-90, it would have diminished.
This is the best explanation I can, or will give, to back up my 39.96 MPG that I got earlier this year. Hope it makes sense to y'all.
However, that's a poor definition for "optimum speed." It ignores the huge dilation of time that I would suffer from my travels taking 50% longer than traveling at 75 mph. If everybody around the country should have to slow down an average of 33% from their current highway speeds for the sake of "optimum speed," our economic output, leisure time and mental health would all take a severe beating.
Not necessarily, As for economic output why would slowing down reduce your work load? Leisure time, maybe you could reduce some of the low quality leisure time like vegetating in front of a TV set. A slower pace might improve mental health (why do we have to be in such a rush?).
Not to mention that if everyone slows down 33% more people will survive to enjoy leisure time and mental health.
Mind you I am not advocating reducing speed, just playing devils advocate.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
The safest way for him to get where he wanted to be would be to use the crosswalks. But then he would have to wait through a couple of light cycles to get to the same point as using the left turn lane...
No using the crosswalks he would have gotten there faster. He was at a red light south bound turning left to go east bound. If he would have used the east-west green light to cross the north-south road then when the light turned green he could have crossed the east-west road instead of waiting in the middle of the intersection waiting for traffic to clear.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
james
For example, if a vehicle at 65mph returns 32 mpg in one hour and at 70mph returns 31 mpg, then that 7.7% increase in speed results in a 3.1% reduction in fuel economy, so 70 is more efficient than 65. At 75 mph, the fuel economy is 29 mpg. So, the 15.4% increase in speed over 65 results in 9.3% reduction in economy... 75 is still more efficient. At 80 though, the drop is to 24 mpg: 23.1% increase in speed and 25% reduction in economy from 65. Oops... if you want to leverage your time against your fuel economy, then stick with 75! Are you using more fuel than if you were to drive 55 or less? Maybe, but again, you'd have to test it (and, like gee35 put it, who wants or has time to do that?) to know for sure. If it is just about conserving one resource, then max out fuel economy and forget about anything else. In the end, I say time is far more valuable than fuel. Plus, there are all those other mitigating factors that must be considered in a real world instance, so it becomes a moot point to even consider it at all. :P
Your logic is a bit off using your example while you are driving 7.7% faster you are using fuel 11.2% faster (2.26 gallons/hour as opposed to 2.03 gallons/hour). 70 is less efficient.
At 75 mph, the fuel economy is 29 mpg. So, the 15.4% increase in speed over 65 results in 9.3% reduction in economy... 75 is still more efficient.
again your logic is off while you are going 15.4% faster you are using fuel 27.3% faster (2.59 gallons/hour as opposed to 2.03 gallons/hour). 75 is less efficient.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Let us say my 740 runs at 2000 RPM at 62mph, my fuel consumption at 80/2500 RPM won't be much much higher because the engine will be revving in a more fuel efficient manner than when at 2000 RPM.
In other words, the increase in wind resistance and necessary HP is partially offset by the increase in fuel efficiency of the Engine.
Smaller engined cars can be very efficient at 50 MPH because their tallest gear makes this speed match the Engine sweetspot (around 3000 RPM for Gas Engines)
I am not claiming to use less fuel at 85 than at 70 or 50, but only that the curve vary from models to models, although it is safe to say 50 MPH is the speed most cars will hit higher MPG
Of course, we can't apply, say, the japanese model where billions are crammed on an area in japan wherease only thousands would live in a similar size area in the US
I am not an Ecofreak and believe the car can complement public transportation. Railway stations should have enough accomodations for cars. Germany use light rail/tramway to cope with suburbs needs, so this could be an alternative.
True we can't demand a tramway station to be next door, but It should be at most within 10 minutes drive in any populated suburb. Can't request drivers to take public transport if is inexistent.
Try to get public transport to go downtown in LA. Car is the only alternative to cars and traffic jams are being sponsored by our friends in the ME
We have a great commuter train system here in Chicago, one of the best there is. The main issue is parking at many of the stations, perminant spaces have a three year waiting list at some stations and daily pay spots go real fast.
My problem is that I travel from one burb to another, taking public transportation would take 6 times as long as driving.
2011 Hyundai Sonata, 2014 BMW 428i convertible, 2015 Honda CTX700D
Why taking more time doing one same thing would reduce the work load?
Answer : let all materialistic guys understand the true meaning of life.
If I spend 10 hours on a plane to Asia, why not slowing down to 300 mph instead of 600 and save our resources? It will save me another 10 hours of stupid TV watching ( or children caring).
Why not slowing down computers? The Internet is too speedy. Let people spend more time at their desk so that they reallocate their time resource thoughfully.
>Not to mention that if everyone slows down 33% more people will survive to enjoy leisure time and mental health.
I could well say that spending 33% more time on the road is likely to yield 33% more deaths. Can't expect drivers to give additional attention to the road in this conditions. Yawning should be prosecuted as it is likely to become the first accident cause (it is maybe already).
>Mind you I am not advocating reducing speed, just playing devils advocate.
I am also playing another devil's advocate and support some SL increases, but we were forced to agree to disagree anyway. Let us not enter this debate or we are going to get slammed.