Highway Driving Part II

[tboy]

For all you 'tards that thinks it's cool to hit your brakes in front of someone for no reason.....

http://www.torontosun.com/News/TorontoAndGTA/2008/07/08/6096946.html

Albeit this isn't exactly the same situation as someone following too close, but none the less, a prime example of why this is NEVER a good idea......

 

[tboy]

exactly. now the driver who tapped his breaks is probably going to be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Hopefully, they don't even know exactly what kind of car it was so they probably don't have a plate number.

Either way, someone was killed for no reason whatsoever......

 

[Tower]

If the guy was going to get killed, should've slammed into the rear of the braker. Who knows, maybe both would have survived if they were wearing their seatbelts under that scenario.

 

[tboy]

If the guy was going to get killed, should've slammed into the rear of the braker. Who knows, maybe both would have survived if they were wearing their seatbelts under that scenario.

Hey, there's another thread on here about a guy who got caught 3 times for not wearing his seatbelt and now his insurance dropped him......I think I'll post a link to this thread in that one......

 

[The Crunge]

I also read today that adjusting your speed from 120 k/hr to 100 k/hr will result in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, which offsets a big chunk of the price increases that we are dealing with (not to mention improving safety and reducing road rage). Think of that. Doing 100 k/hr on the 401 or 400? Fat chance. Cause it is sooooo important to get to the cottage 10 minutes sooner.

 

[tboy]

I also read today that adjusting your speed from 120 k/hr to 100 k/hr will result in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, which offsets a big chunk of the price increases that we are dealing with (not to mention improving safety and reducing road rage). Think of that. Doing 100 k/hr on the 401 or 400? Fat chance. Cause it is sooooo important to get to the cottage 10 minutes sooner.

This is another topic entirely but that savings is dependant upon the way your particular vehicle is designed. Many vehicles produce their maximum (ie: most efficient) horsepower at x rpms. If those rpms are outside the power band at 100 kph, your efficiency will go down. I found that my truck gets maximum efficiency at just under 120 where the engine is slightly below 2000 rpms.

anyone who cant handle their car at 120 should not be on the road. I've seen way too many morons on the highway who cant even stay in the middle of the lane they're in or who cant follow the curves on the highway without having to make major course corrections.

A perfect example of why some people just shouldn't be on the road. (perfect example is people who drive 70 or 80 kph on the highway).

 

[thewheelman]

they do know what car it was. they announced over the radio they were looking for a grey pontiac.

But the infamous Wooley Cam reported it as a "red" Pontiac, and he is never wrong....is he???

Still... I predict they will have the guy by morning.

 

[billybobjoesue]

I also read today that adjusting your speed from 120 k/hr to 100 k/hr will result in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, which offsets a big chunk of the price increases that we are dealing with (not to mention improving safety and reducing road rage). Think of that. Doing 100 k/hr on the 401 or 400? Fat chance. Cause it is sooooo important to get to the cottage 10 minutes sooner.

I've been doing an experiment while driving to the cottage (Near North Bay). I used to drive 130+ kmph and got 27-28 mile per gallon... (sorry, too old to use l/100km...LOL). Two weeks ago I drove no faster than 120, and got 32 mpg. Last week I tried to limit my speed to 105 (not totally successful) but my mileage went up to 34 mpg.

Corrolary effects of slowing down is much less stress on me, and not following too close.

Win, win, win

 

[Perry Mason]

Hey billybobjoe, who are you going to sue?

Perry

 

[tboy]

I've been doing an experiment while driving to the cottage (Near North Bay). I used to drive 130+ kmph and got 27-28 mile per gallon... (sorry, too old to use l/100km...LOL). Two weeks ago I drove no faster than 120, and got 32 mpg. Last week I tried to limit my speed to 105 (not totally successful) but my mileage went up to 34 mpg.

Corrolary effects of slowing down is much less stress on me, and not following too close.

Win, win, win

Next time you try this, while calculating your mpg, figure out how many gallons you actually burned. While your MPG may have been reduced, your actual consumption may have gone up. (which equates to how much fuel you burned per hour x how much longer it took you to get there).

This comes from the marine environment where you calculate gallons per hour instead of miles per gallon (my boat gets 2.3 gallons per mile at full throttle lol)

 

[Moraff]

I also read today that adjusting your speed from 120 k/hr to 100 k/hr will result in a 20% reduction in fuel consumption, which offsets a big chunk of the price increases that we are dealing with (not to mention improving safety and reducing road rage). Think of that. Doing 100 k/hr on the 401 or 400? Fat chance. Cause it is sooooo important to get to the cottage 10 minutes sooner.

In my commute between Hamilton and Miss. I notice a big difference between trying to maintain 120 (which means moving between about 90 and 125 depending on left lane hoggers/bad timing for pass (I'm coming up on slower traffic but left lane is occupied)) and trying to drive around 105.

My fuel consumption rate gets even better when I put it on cruise control and just drive.

Way less stressful to.


Another reason to slow down (at least for me), the best I've been able to do timewise driving at 120 instead of 105 is about 3.5 minutes. Doesn't seem to be worth the added stress and cost in gas to me.

 

[Moraff]

This is another topic entirely but that savings is dependant upon the way your particular vehicle is designed. Many vehicles produce their maximum (ie: most efficient) horsepower at x rpms. If those rpms are outside the power band at 100 kph, your efficiency will go down. I found that my truck gets maximum efficiency at just under 120 where the engine is slightly below 2000 rpms.

Do they post that info anywhere for specific makes/years of cars? Be useful to know where the "sweet spots" were on my car's speed vs mpg curve.

 

[Doug]

While the thread has gone towards fuel saving and away from the original topic, it all comes down to respect for other people. As I've aged, gracefully thank you, I find that my driving has slowed down to just a tad over or under the speed limit, where suitable, and with the general flow where necessary on the 400 series roads. Going with the flow seems to be the safest approach, and one driving style personally recommended by an officer friend of mine. He didn't say "speed with the rest", but just said go with the flow. This also seems to save gas if you keep a nice steady foot on the gas, and not always use the cruise control. Fewer stops for coffee,and an acceptance that some folks will drive faster, others slower, results in a calmer drive for me. No, I'd NEVER stamp on the brakes to retaliate. Believe me, I've seen lots of road rage, none directed towards me thankfullly, and lots of other crazy driving stunts, since I drive 45k a year. So far I have over 1M km accident free and intend to stay accident free, but it requires concentration and forgiveness of others' bad habits. I value my life!

Doug

 

[thewheelman]

Do they post that info anywhere for specific makes/years of cars? Be useful to know where the "sweet spots" were on my car's speed vs mpg curve.

There used to be brochures at the Licensing Offices...

Highway mileage ratings are calculated @ 80kph for all cars. Not very realistic....

 

[S.C. Joe]

and for the other "tards" that think SUV's are the safest thing out there...

I rather have a G6, ha ha.

 

[tboy]

Do they post that info anywhere for specific makes/years of cars? Be useful to know where the "sweet spots" were on my car's speed vs mpg curve.

If you can find the specs on your particular vehicle you can find this out for yourself. Typically when a maker prints the specs on an engine you'll see things like: 240 ft lbs of torque at 3400 rpm 180 hp at 4100 rpm etc.

Those are the numbers that will tell you the peak efficiency of your vehicle. So for the above vehicle, you will get maximum efficiency at 4100 rpm, no matter what speed you're travelling at. This is where the engine makes maximum use of the fuel.

For eg: like I said, my truck gets the best performance at around 2000 rpms. I set my cruise to keep the truck at that rpm (which is about 118) and it just purrs up all but the steepest hills with no change in throttle position or engine rpms. Now my truck produces max hp at 5000 rpm but that isn't the "sweet spot". The trick is to find where the engine is producing enough hp to pull your vehicle up a hill without any change in engine rpm or throttle position.

BTW: this will change depending on how many people and or luggage you have in the vehicle too.

 

[King Elessar]

Next time you try this, while calculating your mpg, figure out how many gallons you actually burned. While your MPG may have been reduced, your actual consumption may have gone up. (which equates to how much fuel you burned per hour x how much longer it took you to get there).

This comes from the marine environment where you calculate gallons per hour instead of miles per gallon (my boat gets 2.3 gallons per mile at full throttle lol)

Huh? No. Math = fail.
Divide the number of miles travelled by the MPG you're getting. That's your consumption in gallons. Note that the time travelled doesn't enter into that equation.
If you're talking about "gallons per hour" that's different.
For car consumption, you need to know miles travelled and MPG. That's all.

 

[hunter001]

Huh? No. Math = fail.
Divide the number of miles travelled by the MPG you're getting. That's your consumption in gallons. Note that the time travelled doesn't enter into that equation.
If you're talking about "gallons per hour" that's different.
For car consumption, you need to know miles travelled and MPG. That's all.

True and he was calling others "'tards".

 

[tboy]

Huh? No. Math = fail.
Divide the number of miles travelled by the MPG you're getting. That's your consumption in gallons. Note that the time travelled doesn't enter into that equation.
If you're talking about "gallons per hour" that's different.
For car consumption, you need to know miles travelled and MPG. That's all.

LOL, but if you take a look at the example given, he wasn't including distance travelled or the total fuel consumed, only the rate of consumption in MPG....

Now if he had said: WHen I travel to the cottage at 120 kph I burn 23 gallons of fuel, at 110 I burn 20 gallons of fuel etc then your argument (insult) would hold true. But he didn't. He is only using the rate of consumption as a comparison. Time DOES enter into the equation when you don't include total distance travelled.

Put it in simple terms: Say he burned 20 gallons going to the cottage at 100 kph and it took him 2 hrs. Say he burned 21 gallons of fuel at 120 kph and it took him 1.6 hrs. So at 100 kph he was burning 10 gallons per hour. At 120 he was burning 10.5 gallons per hour but since he only was running his vehicle for 1.6 hrs, that equates to 16.8 gallons burned. Since time IS a factor in his calculations (kms per HOUR) it should be considered....

So yeah hunter, you're the king of those 'tards.....or should I say Queen of the 'tards?

 

[King Elessar]

LOL, but if you take a look at the example given, he wasn't including distance travelled or the total fuel consumed, only the rate of consumption in MPG....

"I've been doing an experiment while driving to the cottage (Near North Bay). I used to drive 130+ kmph and got 27-28 mile per gallon... (sorry, too old to use l/100km...LOL). Two weeks ago I drove no faster than 120, and got 32 mpg. Last week I tried to limit my speed to 105 (not totally successful) but my mileage went up to 34 mpg."
He stated that his distance travelled was a constant, so it is not necessary to state what that distance is.
If you drop your MPG, and drive the same number of miles, your consumption will drop. This is a mathematical fact. Your statement was false.

Now if he had said: WHen I travel to the cottage at 120 kph I burn 23 gallons of fuel, at 110 I burn 20 gallons of fuel etc then your argument (insult) would hold true. But he didn't. He is only using the rate of consumption as a comparison. Time DOES enter into the equation when you don't include total distance travelled.

The statement was that his MPG dropped when he reduced his speed between two fixed points - that is, over a common distance.
This equates to lowered fuel consumption.
This is not what you said, and are saying, which was (and still is) false.