Highway Driving Part II

[basketcase]

Some math for Tboy.

It took him x gallons to get from home to the cottage. There is no time element involved. Yes, it would take him longer to get there at a lower speed but the net result was:

Less actual gas used to do the same actual distance

But if you want the math:
assume 161 km - 100 mile - to the cottage (we can use the actual distance if it's provided)

(fuel used = distance divided by mpg)
at 130kph, 3.57 gallons, 1.24h (1h 14min)
at 120kph, 3.125 gallons, 1.34h (1h 20 min)
at 105kph, 2.94 gallons, 1.53h (1h 32min)

fuel saved - 0.63 gallons (2.4 L) - (at $1.35/L that's about $3.25)
extra time spent - 18 min

Yes the time it takes goes up but the ACTUAL fuel used is lower but I guess if you time is that valuable and you will make that 3 bucks during that extra 18 minutes, go ahead.

 

[King Elessar]

tboy is confusing distance travelled with time travelled.
If you lower your MPG over a fixed distance, you will lower your fuel consumption DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE DRIVING FOR A LONGER TIME.
That's all there is to this.

 

[tboy]

tboy is confusing distance travelled with time travelled.
If you lower your MPG over a fixed distance, you will lower your fuel consumption DESPITE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE DRIVING FOR A LONGER TIME.
That's all there is to this.

No, that's NOT all there is to this.

Time is finite for us. Once we've spent x amount of time doing something, there is NO getting it back. Which is why I cannot for the life of me understand how people who work in downtown toronto can sit in traffic for 2+ hrs every morning and 2+ hrs every night simply to own a house in Oshawa or Brooklyn or Barrie. My life is more valuable to me than sitting in a fricking car......

I don't know about you but I'd rather be sitting on the dock fishing, cracking a cold one under a pine tree, or water skiing instead of sitting in a car.

If time wasn't a factor then why stop at 100 kph? Why not go right down to 10 kph?

You see, everyone puts a value on time, so they make adjustments accordingly. Some have a break point of 100 kph x 2 hrs. Some have a break point of 120 kph x 1.6 hrs. It's different for everyone.

Me? Yeah, I'd like those 18 minutes tyvm.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Lets see, I would save $3 for an extra 18 mins time, so thats a little over $9 an hour. I spend $200-$250 for 1 hour with a great SP.

I believe I can afford to spend $9 for 1 hour of my time

 

[King Elessar]

Wayda change the topic.

And, your fuel consumption, both in relative AND absolute terms, will GO UP at 10 kph vs. 100 kph.

If time IS a factor, why stop at 120 kph? Why not drive at 240 kph?

Just admit your statement about fuel consumption was wrong and move on.

 

[sailorsix]

I have posted here B4 that I drive the 407 at a constant speed of just over 100KPH and my mileage has improved more than enough to pay for my transponder and the tolls. By constant speed though I actual mean that I keep a constant pressure on the accelerator and I do not use cruise control anymore. There was an article in The Star or on CNN.com a coupl of weeks ago that discussed those folks who squeeze every MPG that they can by doing things like coasting down hills, drafting big rigs and NOT using cruise as cruise control automatically feeds more gas to the engine to maintain a constant speed when going uphill. They let the car slow down slightly going uphill while maintaining a minimum safe speed.

 

[basketcase]

I would be willing to bet that those 18 minutes would be spent trying to decompress from the battle to keep your speed at 130+. Then again, judging by your posts, you would likely need two weeks to start to relax.

 

[sailorsix]

Back to the road rage incident in Milton...

It sounds like this was two idiot drivers and not one innocent driver dying because of the actions of the other. In this case the gene pool has been improved slightly with the death of one idiot who not only was raging but was doing it without wearing his seat belt...good riddance...at least my OHIP fees are not paying to put his body back together or support him for life as a turnip.

Now if the other driver would all do us a favour and drive into a concrete median head on.

 

[S.C. Joe]

If time IS a factor, why stop at 120 kph? Why not drive at 240 kph?

Cause my car can't go that fast not with 4.10 gears and no overdrive, lol

 

[King Elessar]

So? Put the pedal to the metal! Anyone who drives slower than his vehicle is capable of going is a pussy who doesn't value his time.

 

[S.C. Joe]

Back to the road rage incident in Milton...now some kid has no father, a wife has no husband and another driver-if caught-might be in jail for a few years.

I see nothing good about it.

 

[tboy]

Wayda change the topic.

And, your fuel consumption, both in relative AND absolute terms, will GO UP at 10 kph vs. 100 kph.

If time IS a factor, why stop at 120 kph? Why not drive at 240 kph?

Just admit your statement about fuel consumption was wrong and move on.

Actually, in some civilized countries you CAN drive at 240 kph.......ever heard of a thing called the autobahn?

As for driving at 10 kph, if speed/time isn't a factor, why not just get a smart car or similar? For that matter, you could just get a 1 cyl (forget the name) french car.

See, everyone makes comporomises, for some? The 18 odd minutes are worth it but personally I want to get in, get where I'm going, and get on with it. Too much time is wasted sitting in traffic.

As for being able to maintain the 120? it's easy.....I just don't travel when everyone and their brother is travelling.....For eg: I had a job north of Oshawa last week, so did I travel at rush hour? No, waited till it died down at 10 am and worked until 8. No traffic either way......

As for the cruise control feeding more fuel due to hills etc. You aren't totally correct. Cruise controls have built in "fudge factors" which allow the vehicle to slow down x amount before changing the throttle position. Same as for coasting down hills, it backs off on the throttle and let's the vehicle coast. But I guess you missed my post on finding your vehicle's sweet spot? Where you can maintain a reasonable speed yet get the best fuel economy? There have been plenty of tests done and it is well proven that using a cruise control (on long distances anyways) is much better than manually trying to maintain a speed. But that falls apart when you have congestion and only short runs.....

As for the road rage incident in Milton. Yup, the guy in the SUV was part of the problem. They don't know what started it but supposedly it went on for a long time and 2 different highways.

I posted it originally to highlight my other posts about fucking around on the highways and trying to "teach" anyone a lesson. Best bet is to just let them do their thing and you do yours and stay out of each other's way.

 

[King Elessar]

Actually, in some civilized countries you CAN drive at 240 kph.......ever heard of a thing called the autobahn?

I asked why you didn't drive much faster, since time is a factor for you, not where you could do it legally.

As for driving at 10 kph, if speed/time isn't a factor, why not just get a smart car or similar? For that matter, you could just get a 1 cyl (forget the name) french car.

Why not? If mileage is important, why not indeed!

See, everyone makes comporomises, for some? The 18 odd minutes are worth it but personally I want to get in, get where I'm going, and get on with it. Too much time is wasted sitting in traffic.

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Namely, that you were wrong about possibly using more gas while increasing your MPG.

As for being able to maintain the 120? it's easy.....I just don't travel when everyone and their brother is travelling.....For eg: I had a job north of Oshawa last week, so did I travel at rush hour? No, waited till it died down at 10 am and worked until 8. No traffic either way......

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Namely, that you were wrong about possibly using more gas while increasing your MPG.
And also has nothing to do with anything I posted.

As for the cruise control feeding more fuel due to hills etc. You aren't totally correct. Cruise controls have built in "fudge factors" which allow the vehicle to slow down x amount before changing the throttle position. Same as for coasting down hills, it backs off on the throttle and let's the vehicle coast. But I guess you missed my post on finding your vehicle's sweet spot? Where you can maintain a reasonable speed yet get the best fuel economy? There have been plenty of tests done and it is well proven that using a cruise control (on long distances anyways) is much better than manually trying to maintain a speed. But that falls apart when you have congestion and only short runs.....

Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Namely, that you were wrong about possibly using more gas while increasing your MPG.
And also has nothing to do with anything I posted.

As for the road rage incident in Milton. Yup, the guy in the SUV was part of the problem. They don't know what started it but supposedly it went on for a long time and 2 different highways.

I posted it originally to highlight my other posts about fucking around on the highways and trying to "teach" anyone a lesson. Best bet is to just let them do their thing and you do yours and stay out of each other's way.

Actually, your "best bet" is not to tailgate. Ever. This will keep you out of FAR more trouble.

 

[tboy]

.....
Which has nothing to do with what we were talking about. Namely, that you were wrong about possibly using more gas while increasing your MPG.
Go back and re-read, I never said MPG, I said TOTAL CONSUMPTION vs TIME.

I asked why you didn't drive much faster, since time is a factor for you, not where you could do it legally

I thought you were being rhetorical... To answer your question: because I balance my time/cost in a way that suits me and still be legal in my driving habits. Plus the cost of purchasing a vehicle that can do 240 kph (sustained) is just too high in MY cost/time scale.
.
And also has nothing to do with anything I posted.

Who the fuck cares? You're not the only one I'm responding to on this thread? Just a little arrogant are we? Or are you that self absorbed?


Actually, your "best bet" is not to tailgate. Ever. This will keep you out of FAR more trouble.

I don't and this is what I've been advocating all along. I think you should take a course in reading comp as well.....

People put value on cost of living, area, crime etc as well. Some are willing to travel for the safety of their children. Some find work where they find work and have no choice but to travel sometimes. Some moved to these area, found work, got layed off and had to travel back to TO.

Gas was much cheaper just 4 years ago by about $.70. and the price of homes etc all pay into the cost.

What doesn't make sense to you, doesn't mean shit in the grand scheme of things. It is the individual person and what works for them.

Just like some think everyone on this board is nuts for paying for something they can do for free with their hand........

For Queen Elessar: the following is not pertaining to anything you posted....in case you didn't know that

What's your point exactly? That I SHOULD understand why people do it? All those reasons you mentioned can easily be solved by relocating IMO.

Just because it is good for one person, doesn't make it good for everyone. Hence why I quit the corporate world and went independant. My commute now is about 2.1 seconds and I DON'T take jobs that will make me travel through rush hour and or longer than an hour to get there.

But people DO have to start waking up to the cost (in time) of sitting in traffic. I personally think only an idiot would spend 4 hrs a day but that's just my opinion. If it works for them? So be it.......

As a parent I should think I'd like to spend at least half of those hours with my son or daughter instead of sitting in a car........

 

[King Elessar]

I don't and this is what I've been advocating all along. I think you should take a course in reading comp as well.....

Who said I was advocating going 10 kph? Yet, you were the one who brought it up.
Reading comp yourself?

I did re-read, and you said that despite increased MPG, your total consumption may increase. This is false.

When you quote me, then reply, it seems like you're responding to me. Call me crazy. lol

And you said "your best bet" is not to piss off people driving like maniacs. This is false. Your best bet is not to tailgate. I didn't say you were advocating tailgating, just that you thought tailgating wasn't the worst thing you can do. This is false.

If you want to reply to someone else, don't quote me. Seems pretty simple.

If you don't want things you say to be called out, stop making false statements. Again, pretty simple.

 

[tboy]

You don't have to understand, agree with it or anything of the sort.

I just don't understand why you call anyone who does not subcribe to your way of thinking or logic as an idiot or stupid. But that is just me.

Show me in my post (pertaining to sitting in traffic) where I called anyone an idiot or stupid? I just said "Which is why I cannot for the life of me understand how..."

I just don't understand why you call anyone............

You don't have to understand, agree with, or anything of the sort

 

[tboy]

Who said I was advocating going 10 kph? Yet, you were the one who brought it up.
Reading comp yourself?

I did re-read, and you said that despite increased MPG, your total consumption may increase. This is false.

You forgot to read the part where consumption per hour may increase...DOH

When you quote me, then reply, it seems like you're responding to me. Call me crazy. lol

I can quote you and also respond to other points in the same post.....ok, You're crazy lol.....

And you said "your best bet" is not to piss off people driving like maniacs. This is false. Your best bet is not to tailgate. I didn't say you were advocating tailgating, just that you thought tailgating wasn't the worst thing you can do. This is false.

No, THAT is false. Not tailgating ISN'T your best bet. If you want to be totally safe your best bet is to take public transit.

You are wrong again, Tailgating ISN'T the worst thing you can do, drinking under the influence, dangerous driving, racing, driving on sidewalks, those are far far worse than tailgating.....

If you want to reply to someone else, don't quote me. Seems pretty simple.

I can, will, and do, quote you and others and respond to others in the same post. Since I am a part of the total conversation in this thread, not just you. Obviously you are partaking of "selective reading"

If you don't want things you say to be called out, stop making false statements. Again, pretty simple.

I will stop making false statements if you do the same.....

 

[tboy]

Right there........

It is not just this, it is ANY topic that you have an opinion about. Anyone who does not agree with you is an idiot......

In my opinion, you're wrong (Lol).

For eg: when someone hits their brakes because someone is tailgating them? Yes, IMO they are an idiot.

If someone drinks and drives? Yes IMO they are an idiot.

When someone (in a round about way) wishes cancer on me? They are a FUCKING idiot.

I find it funny though, I disagree with Moraff on any number of points yet he and I ALWAYS have an adult discussion on our various points.

If you go back and read the threads where I've gotten into it with people, it is usually them who start with the dengrating talk first....but you don't and won't see it that way but that is your problem, not mine.....

 

[King Elessar]

"You forgot to read the part where consumption per hour may increase...DOH"
Really? Here you go:
"While your MPG may have been reduced, your actual consumption may have gone up"
Wrong.
DOH

"I can quote you and also respond to other points in the same post"
You're gonna quote me and respond to me, then without saying that you're changing who you're talking to, change who you're talking to?
Okay.
LOL
Just so I know to ignore everything you're typing.

"You are wrong again, Tailgating ISN'T the worst thing you can do, drinking under the influence, dangerous driving, racing, driving on sidewalks, those are far far worse than tailgating....."
And those have WHAT to do with what was being talked about in this thread?
Oh, nothing. I see. Right, you were talking to someone else again. I get it.

"I can, will, and do, quote you and others and respond to others in the same post. Since I am a part of the total conversation in this thread, not just you. Obviously you are partaking of "selective reading""
You should quote those others you're talking to. Or indicate that you're talking to them. And not get confused (as I'm SURE you did) again.
Or, keep acting like an idiot, which I guess is your preferred mode.

"I will stop making false statements if you do the same....."
The next time I do so will be the first.

Stop changing the subject and admit you were wrong. Are you man enough?

 

[S.C. Joe]

This thread has turn in to Terb Rage