Archives

Mainstream Auto Editor encourages slower driving and telecommuting. (http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/aug2007/bw20070814_539070.htm?chan=search)

http://www.cleanmpg.com/photos/data/501/Pumping_Gas.jpgEd Wallace – Businessweek – Aug. 15, 2007

Wouldn't it be great if Congress really could legislate the U.S. out of its current energy problems? When you listen to the recent political debates, raising the fuel efficiency for new vehicles by some far-off future date sounds like a more-than-reasonable idea, provided you aren't in the car business. But the fact is that any proposed legislation of this kind can do absolutely nothing to solve our current or near-term oil problems. Even legislated help, if it were to become effective this week, would do little to help today's working-class Americans deal with the now three-year rise in the price of gasoline at all.

That reality seems to have been overlooked both by those debating (and lobbying) about raising the fuel efficiency of our vehicles to 35 mpg (more or less) and by those reporting it. Say this idea was to become law, and the start date for the improved mileage set at 2020: It would still take another 13 or 14 years after that before these new high-mpg vehicles completely replaced the nation's fleet of motor vehicles. That would mean that any legislation for improved fuel efficiency, if it passed today, could not fulfill its potential to reduce the nation's fuel requirements until at least 2035—or somewhere around the time many experts are predicting that "peak oil" will become a reality.

(For the life of me I can't figure out why General Motors (GM), Ford (F), Toyota (TM), and other automakers are fighting this legislation. Right around the time it would take effect, it probably would be wise not to be selling automobiles whose only propulsion unit is a gasoline-powered V-8.)… http://www.businessweek.com/autos/content/aug2007/bw20070814_539070.htm?chan=search

I love the comments on the comment thread for the article.
Even my 12-year-old Ford Mustang gets better MPG going 90 vs. 60. I test that all the time, and believe me, it really works that way with my V8Sounds like I need to get a 95' mustang so I can get some of that super high FE at 90 mph.

11011011

I like giving people of the doubt. Maybe he meant:

"My 12 year old named Ford Mustang (little "Forda" of the Newport "Mustangs") gets better mileage going 90KPH vs. 60KPH. I test all the time, and believe me it works that way with my customized hybrid powered by V8 juice."

I believe what I want to believe.

ENFORCE SLOWER SPEED LIMITS ON FREEWAYS DURING "RUSH" HOURS?!!!!!!!!!! :confused: :eek:


Um, no.

How about this. Spend the money it takes to increase vehicle capacity, by building bigger/better roads. The increased productivity potential far exceeds the cost of the gas it takes us to get to work.

I don't care how bad your fuel economy is. You can drive a dozen 10 ton poorly maintained trucks, and you get better mpg while moving, than a Honda Fit that's stopped in traffic. Moving = good.

Seriously, more fuel would be saved by highway construction than by raising CAFE to 40mpg. And, it's doable.

. .

back to the original article this thread is about...........

The author mentioed buying on the Internet as an effective of of telecommuting to the mall.............

Hmmmm, what uses less fuel?

- Deliver goods in bulk to the mall in a truck, and have several items picked up by individuals in their cars.

- Deliver goods in bulk to a warehouse, and have those goods separately packaged into more boxes, and delivered to the end-user in a UPS truck, that the dude leaves running at every stop.

I don't have all the answers, but I'm pretty sure that Internet shopping isn't going to keep my kids from getting killed in Iraq, fighting for cheaper oil.

Spend the money it takes to increase vehicle capacity, by building bigger/better roads. Then, go as fast as you want. 100 mph will get rush hour over in about 10 minutes! The increased productivity potential far exceeds the cost of the gas it takes us to get to work.

I don't care how bad your fuel economy is. You can drive a dozen 10 ton poorly maintained trucks, and you get better mpg while moving, than a Honda Fit that's stopped in traffic. Moving = good.

Under your scenario you'd still be stopped in traffic each day during rush hour due to all the accidents caused by people driving in and around cities at 100+ mph. Not many people can drive that fast safely, even with improved roads. Plus not everyone will drive that fast, and the differences in speed between vehicles will spell disaster every morning.

Also consider that a Honda Fit that's stopped in traffic with the engine off uses no gas. The simplest answer is drive the most efficient vehicle you can, and no matter what vehicle you have, drive it efficiently.

55 mph probably saved a lot of lives (not just barrels of oil). I would be all for having it again, but unless (or maybe I should say until) gas goes up to $5 or $6 a gal there will never be political will to do it (at least I don't think so).

I would guess that for each 10 miles more per hour you will have a certain percentage more lives lost which will include babies and small children. Maybe yours.

I don't think building more highways solves things. (Though I think it is true that our infrastructure is neglected-- I think that neglect isn't really involved in the whole area of FE). I think that what is neglected should be fixed, built, etc. because it is safer (witness the bridge accident). I think it would be better to have efficient systems that go both norh-
south and east-west in cities, because highway miles are more efficient than city miles. That's the only good mpg thing I can think of in terms of construction.

Most of us have slowed down-- not sped up-- to get better mileage.


--des



Under your scenario you'd still be stopped in traffic each day during rush hour due to all the accidents caused by people driving in and around cities at 100+ mph. Not many people can drive that fast safely, even with improved roads. Plus not everyone will drive that fast, and the differences in speed between vehicles will spell disaster every morning.

Also consider that a Honda Fit that's stopped in traffic with the engine off uses no gas. The simplest answer is drive the most efficient vehicle you can, and no matter what vehicle you have, drive it efficiently.

edit: think my math was off.
I think the point is that the "gas-hog's" arent the only ones affected by their actions. We all feel the effect of the supply/demand. If people didn't need to use so much then we wouldnt have to pay so much.

ENFORCE SLOWER SPEED LIMITS ON FREEWAYS DURING "RUSH" HOURS?!!!!!!!!!! :confused: :eek:


Um, no.

How about this. Spend the money it takes to increase vehicle capacity, by building bigger/better roads. Then, go as fast as you want. 100 mph will get rush hour over in about 10 minutes! The increased productivity potential far exceeds the cost of the gas it takes us to get to work.

.........Moving = good.

Seriously, more fuel would be saved by highway construction than by raising CAFE to 40mpg. And, it's doable.


As I understand it raising the speed limit is ineffective once the road reaches design capacity. Generally, decreasing the variation in indivudual speeds increases the capacity of the highway. If there is a lot of merging/exiting traffic that has to accelerate/decelerate, lower maximum speeds may increase capacity (and in turn increase average speeds).

I think that moving is good, but while more road construction might increase MPG's I am skeptical that it would save much if any fuel. People choose to live further from work when their commute speeds increase.

...Hmmmm, what uses less fuel?

- Deliver goods in bulk to the mall in a truck, and have several items picked up by individuals in their cars....

Good point.

The description of a large truck delivering good and ideling does sound inefficient, but individuals shopping is probably even worse when you consider the typical vehicle gets 22mpg and in a hurried urban commute, probably worse.

A while back there was a story of Fed Ex or someone else getting a fleet of hybrid trucks, also another story on the policy of right turns only.

I don't know what the best answer is.

_______________________________________

In regards to the thought of enforcing the speed limit during rush hours, many accidents in the Dallas areas are created by speeders....drivers jumping into HOV lanes in the wrong places (they need a barrier), going faster than the pack, then colliding. Haste really makes waste.

The problem with sucking the middle east dry, as amusing
as the idea is, is that they get a huge pile of MONEY in the
meantime and we'd really rather withhold that from them up
front as a better means of hastening the process. Right now
they've got more money than brains over there, and it's being
squandered on stupid crap like Dubai casinos and funding
religious squabbles.
.
_H*

Don't forget the retarded indoor ski resort in Dubai. Our gas money bought it for them. Sucking the Middle East dry is not the answer. Why wait to advance our technology to get off of oil when we already have the means necessary to do it now.

Honestly anon, I really dislike your theory. But it's probably what the auto industry is planning to do.

Don't forget the retarded indoor ski resort in Dubai....

As snow retreats up the Alps and Rocky Mountains from climate change, more ski resorts will resemble the one in Dubai in they will need more snow-making facilities. :(

One thing I like about Anon's theory is that it would support the idea of ending domestic production subsidies. That is, if we withdraw subisidies it just means that the oil companies will wait to extract the oil when it is valuable enough to pay for itself.

There's no sense in paying extra to make something at home when you can buy the same thing cheaper at the market.

Also, I have a silly theory

Agreed, it is pretty silly.



My theory is not fully-formed, but I'm not convinced that using up all the gas in the world is a bad thing. Adapt and improve.



There are many, many people like you, and they drive SUV's and pickup trucks, preferably 4X4's.

One thing your theory ignores is global warming/climate change. While you are busy depleting the world's oil reserves, you are also contributing to catastrophic climate change. Thanks a lot!

As the world's oil is depleted, you wont' be able to afford gassing up your gas hogs, which is also a weak point in your theory.

My Prius uses no gasoline while stopped in traffic jams. That also conflicts with your theory.

Harry

55 mph probably saved a lot of lives (not just barrels of oil). ...........The jury is actually back on that verdict. The 55mph speed limit had zero effect on saving lives, and the raising of the limits to things more reasonable has had no negative effect (in terms on highway deaths per million miles traveled).



.........
Most of us have slowed down-- not sped up-- to get better mileage........

My mention of going 100 mph was an exaggeration, but the idea of slowing down for better mileage is a game of diminishing returns, and after a certain speed, it is a losing game (with the biggest loss coming at stopped, but engine still on).

As an individual, on uncongested roads, yes, you can reduce speed below 70mph, and save gas.

As a group of cars stuck in traffic on the LA freeway, you would SAVE gas by getting everyone through at ANY consistent speed (versus stop/start traffic). This will happen only through highway construction that allows for greater capacity*.

The societal benefit of cars getting to their destination in a reasonable amount of time outweighs the costs of building the roads I fantasize about.





*Assumes we've consigned ourselves to the reality than people will not drive fewer cars, we will only drive more.

The societal benefit of cars getting to their destination in a reasonable amount of time outweighs the costs of building the roads I fantasize about.



Our politicians don't have the backbone to raise gasoline taxes a nickel a gallon. Where are the funds to do all this road work supposed to come from? We aren't even maintaining what we have.

I'm all in favor of raising gasoline taxes to fund road and bridge work, but most politicians are scared to death of this. They won't raise gasoline taxes 5 cents...in spite of the fact that gasoline prices have dropped 15 cents in the last two weeks.

Harry

I can understand your theory about going faster to reach your destination more quickly, but this doesn't apply to the real world at all. Accidents will happen every day, rubber-necking will never end, and there will always be slow drivers in the fast lane. (Personally, I go the actual speed limit, no more no less, and I stay away from the fast lane.)

I've been noticing an increasing amount of bad drivers in Las Vegas that like to practice erratic lane changing, tail gating, and over all dangerously aggressive driving styles. Giving them more speed will just increase the chance of a fatal crash. If they aren't going so fast they might survive the inevitable.

The jury is actually back on that verdict. The 55mph speed limit had zero effect on saving lives, and the raising of the limits to things more reasonable has had no negative effect (in terms on highway deaths per million miles traveled).


Aside from the obvious facts there is less reaction time at higher speeds and G-forces increase with speed, check out what has happened when states have increased their speed limit: http://www.dot.state.ia.us/mvd/ods/2006speedstudy.pdf While it's covering states with a 65mph limit vs. those that have higher speed limits, I suspect it would apply to 55.

...........My Prius uses no gasoline while stopped in traffic jams. That also conflicts with your theory...........Your Prius has a higher TCO than my Jeep Wrangler (which gets a pathetic 14mpg). (if your reason for saving fuel is to save money)

It also has a higher total-amount-of-fuel-used-from-beginning-of-life-to-end-of-life number.* (if your reason for saving fuel is to, um, save fuel)



* http://digg.com/tech_news/Why_Your_Hummer_Consumes_Less_Energy_Than_a_Prius
* http://www.productivity501.com/cost-vs-benefit-revisited/219/
* http://forums.xandros.com/viewtopic.php?t=23282&view=next&sid=b70ffcb7524cc4f8da6fc80320e649ec


I know I come across pretty poorly in online forums. I'm really a nice guy, I just like to play Devil's advocate, sometimes! :) :Banane37:

Whow.. getting kinda hot here ;)

Everyone has there good points, and I think some are made in jest (hard to pull off in type).

Just keep in mind as hot as tensions run with the West -vs- Mid-East, there are still lots of good people over there that are simply victims of corrupt, or misguided ruling class. The bad part hasn't really hit yet. Many of the regions are held up wholly by oil profits and once they go it's gonna look like the Irish Potato famine in the desert! I think some of the countries are seeing this and trying to diversify their national portfolio. As crazy as Dubai looks, I've heard it said more than once that they are hoping to transition from an oil banana-republic to a tourism banana-republic. Worked for Vegas.

Take down the Terrorists, but don't hit that kid standing behind them.

11011011

It also has a higher total-amount-of-fuel-used-from-beginning-of-life-to-end-of-life number.* (if your reason for saving fuel is to, um, save fuel)



* http://digg.com/tech_news/Why_Your_Hummer_Consumes_Less_Energy_Than_a_Prius
* .... (http://www.productivity501.com/cost-vs-benefit-revisited/219/)I know I come across pretty poorly in online forums. I'm really a nice guy, I just like to play Devil's advocate, sometimes! :) :Banane37:

It's well known the linked "Dust to Dust" article you mentioned in the quote above is junk science - no way is a Hummer greener than a Prius.

Edit: Let's try to keep this factual.

Fun stuff going on here. I don't even want to go into that stupid "study" again...it has been beaten to death. Its veracity has been torn apart thoroughly. The assumptions were terrible.

As for speed, the studies commonly cited by advocates of higher limits do show that higher speed limits have not significantly increased deaths per passenger mile. However, that metric does not take into account the improved safety of our vehicles and what the numbers would look like if the limit were still 55. The reality is that accidents are more severe, and we are fortunate that all of our safety equipment is able to compensate. So while more people aren't dead than before, plenty of people are dead who otherwise wouldn't be. (That doesn't mean I necessarily advocate a 55mph limit, myself, just that the safety argument against it tends to be weak.)

You can "prove" anything with statistics. In my opinion, this issue comes down to common sense. I'm a fan of the saying "Fighting for peace is like ****ing for virginity." The same applies here. Burning more fuel so that we can save it makes just as much sense.

And Delta, I don't think he's baiting or advocating anything. A Devils Advocate can be valuable. Nobody needs to get bent out of shape over this.

I'm not clicking on those links, no way, I'm skeered of catching something...

Besides, I know they're nonsense.

My Prius running average right now is 50.8 mpg on my current tank of fuel.

Any Hummer driver come anywhere near that, (within 10 percent) and I'll buy that person a year's worth of gasoline. Safe bet, because very few cars come within 10 percent of a Prius fuel economy, and certainly no Hummer, of any denomination.

Harry

Reduce the speed limit to 35 on side streets, and I think you'll see a lot more people driving golf carts and other battery-electric NEVs. And with the safer roads, also more bicyclists.

. .

I just hope this discussion gets calmer

anon, your theory also ignores the fact that we use petroleum for other things besides motor fuel. Plastics, pharmaceuticals, fertilizers, all sorts of chemicals and lubricants, fabrics.... the list is long. Another thing- you said we can never completely use up all the oil- so how are we gonna run the Middle East dry? What is true in Pennsylvania is true in Saudi Arabia.

By the way, you need to cite your sources for a lot of the information you're claiming as fact. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

There is no permanent solution that doesn't involve getting away from fossil fuels altogether. We need to go electric, plain and simple.

I'd agree that reputable links would help this discussion on some of the assertions made.

Anon - you did a decent job stirring the pot. Some of my thoughts:

- I sold my 96 Cherokee to fund (part of) my HCH2. I did it to save on fuel costs (at 25k mi/year, $3/gal and will rise). I probably could have purchased another Jeep (patriot) and TCO might have even been same/better than the HCH2. I chose the HCH2, which will save me using about 1900 gallons ($5700) in next five years. If the Jeep had a hybrid 4x4 I would probably be in one :)

- I chose to slow down 10mph (just to the speed limit) and this saves fuel for me - I expect it would for anyone who chose to do so. I also realized that I have not much chance for the annual speeding tickets I was getting (court and insurance $) and I spend $ nada on gas station concessions anymore, since I can easily make it to a weekend at Sams club to refill.

- I am pretty sure that it is easier to get into an accident/lose control of your vehicle the faster you go. Seems that race car drivers tend to crash more when not under the 55mph caution - although parking in the pit at 55 is tricky.

peace out

CNW aside, I'll try to support with less flare, some of anon's points.

1) Infinate oil. For the mathematicians out there, I think anons point is thus:

-The price of extracting oil raises exponentially based on the inverse of remaining reserves.
-The global resources available to extract the oil are finite.
-Oil can only be extracted for a profit.

so:
profit = value - cost
P = V - C

Cost = CostConstant to the power of historical reserves divided by remaining remaining reserves.
C = X ^ (H/R) where X & H are constant.

So with C getting bigger and bigger as R gets smaller and smaller (since H & X constant), the only way to keep P positive is to start to inflate V. Eventually the cost will be so high (imagine one-billion-dollars a barrel) that required value would be unattainable based on the globes finite ability to "pay" for it. So the math says that when Humans go extinct, there will still be oil in the ground.

Edit: mistyped MPG... now fixed
2) Faster MPH = Higher MPG.

Change in efficiency equals final efficiency minus initial efficiency.
Ed = Ef - Ei

Change in velocity equals final velocity minus initial velocity
Vd = Vf - Vi

Edit: Text incorrect.. Fixed now... Thanks Earthling
Efficiency equals velocity divided by consumption (MPH/GPH)
E = V/C

So, E goes up inversely to C (if V can be held constant). And E goes up proportionally to V (if C can be held constant). Those are two big iffs. Also E = 0 when V = 0.

So if Vi is 0 than any Vf is will give you both a positive Vd and Ed. But if Vi is say 150 mph than C is sufficiently high that the only way to achieve a positive Ed is by incurring a negative Vd (ie slowing down).

Point is, the premise is true so long as Vi is sufficiently small, and false if Vi is sufficently large. So what you have is a localized maximum. i.e. there is positive Vd that exist that allows Ed to be zero. Once found proper reduction of Vd (newtonion regression) will yield your maximized E. We call this the sweet spot and in most American cars it's about 40-50 mph.

So anon is right, so long as the premises are clearly stated.

11011011

More road construction doesn't save fuel. Roadway capacity is just like any other economic system: people's wants are limitless. The more capacity you build, the more people drive. Believe it or not, this has been mathematically proven to be true. And in the real world you see it over and over again: they build a new freeway to seemingly nowhere, but after 5,6,7 years it's jammed with cars as development fills in around it. If people can get anywhere they want to go at 70 mph, they will. Moving further and further away from their jobs and the retail services they need.

That's a big part of why America uses as much fuel as it does. In the last 20 years a lot of cities have grown by 20-30% in population but 50-100% in developed area. People choose to (and often have to) drive further to get to work, further to get their kids (who used to walk or ride the bus) to school, and further to get to bigger and bigger big box stores that are increasingly separated from areas where people live. That's why we drive twice as many miles per capita as we used to. Even if we were all driving Priuses, that's a waste.

Although congestion reduces fuel economy, it also discourages driving, forcing people to combine trips, drive shorter distances, seek alternatives, or skip some trips altogether. I completely agree that the economic cost of severe congestion is staggering, but the energy cost is actually pretty negligible.

A modest amount of congestion is actually a good thing. The optimal amount of roadway capacity is one which experiences occasional moderate congestion. Any less capacity than that optimal amount, and of course you drop to a highly congested service level that actually reduces the capacity further. Any more capacity than the optimal amount, and the amount of driving increases to fill the available space. That's just throwing billions of taxpayer dollars down the toilet.

I'm not saying severe congestion is a good thing, and I'm not saying we don't need road construction. In fact I completely agree about the urgent need to upgrade and restore our infrastructure. In many areas (including mine) capacity hasn't kept pace with population growth, and we're on a crash course for severe congestion (and places like Seattle are already there) if we don't do some smart expansions here and there to keep the average service level in the optimal range. But in general, wholesale expansion of our freeway system with is NOT going to help our energy problems.

Efficiency equals Consumption divided by velocity (MPH/GPH)
E = V/C



Whoa, Dan.

That seems a gross oversimplification there.

Pushing a vehicle down the road involves rolling resistance of the wheels/tires and air resistance. Air resistance is proportional to speed, and I don't think it's a linear function. Air resistance at 100 mph is not ten times what it is at 10 mph, it's much more than ten times.

Gallons/hour is not constant, but a function of what power is required to maintain the chosen speed along with the efficiency of the motor/drivetrain.

For example, my Prius gets a little over 50 mpg @ 65 mph indicated. In a work zone where I have to drive at 50 mph, the fuel economy goes up to somewhere around 60 mpg.

And as I've already mentioned, one very nice thing about the Prius is that avoids wasting gas while stuck in traffic. That interferes with your equation, as well as Anon's.

Harry

Dan mentioned this concerning Scangage when I was in Houston.

Whoa, Dan.

That seems a gross oversimplification there.

Pushing a vehicle down the road involves rolling resistance of the wheels/tires and air resistance. Air resistance is proportional to speed, and I don't think it's a linear function. Air resistance at 100 mph is not ten times what it is at 10 mph, it's much more than ten times.

Gallons/hour is not constant, but a function of what power is required to maintain the chosen speed along with the efficiency of the motor/drivetrain.

For example, my Prius gets a little over 50 mpg @ 65 mph indicated. In a work zone where I have to drive at 50 mph, the fuel economy goes up to somewhere around 60 mpg.

And as I've already mentioned, one very nice thing about the Prius is that avoids wasting gas while stuck in traffic. That interferes with your equation, as well as Anon's.

HarrySorry I didn't go into the math on that.

MPG is a measure (in my opinion) of efficiency. Therefore E = MPG.

So

MPG = Miles/Gallons.
MPH = Miles/Hour.
GPH = Gallons/Hour.

MPH / GPH = (Miles/Hour) / (Gallons/Hour)

Using our Multiplicative Inverse property of algebra yields:

(Miles/Hour) * (Hours/Gallon)

Associative property yields

(Miles * Hours) / (Gallons * Hours)

Hours cancel out (variation of the associative property)

Miles/Gallon.

Therefore, MPH/GPH can be redefined as MPG. This point is irrefutable. The only question is whether MPG is a measure of efficiency, and I believe, for the sake of this discussion... it is.

Edit:
If you ment that I transposed the text and the equation... opps... I did... now corrected.

11011011

Therefore, MPH/GPH can be redefined as MPG. This point is irrefutable. The only question is whether MPG is a measure of efficiency, and I believe, for the sake of this discussion... it is.



Yes, absolutely.

And all hypermilers know that it is inversely proportional to speed, with some constraints from reasonableness in regard to minimum safe speeds, etc.

Harry

Efficiency equals velocity divided by consumption (MPH/GPH)
E = V/C

So, E goes up inversely to C (if V can be held constant). And E goes up proportionally to V (if C can be held constant). Those are two big iffs. Also E = 0 when V = 0.

So if Vi is 0 than any Vf is will give you both a positive Vd and Ed. But if Vi is say 150 mph than C is sufficiently high that the only way to achieve a positive Ed is by incurring a negative Vd (ie slowing down).

And all hypermilers know that it is inversely proportional to speed, with some constraints from reasonableness in regard to minimum safe speeds, etc.

I hope I covered that in the highlighted section. My point is that in a nonHybrid (which what I assume when preaching to the masses) starting from zero, your MPG will increase to about 1100-1200 RPM, drop, then you shift, it jumps again, then drops, you shift... etc. The graph basically looks like a roller coaster with each peak getting higher than the previous one. The last peak (followed by a continual drop) is usually around 40 and 50 mph. So from 10mph to 45mph going faster helps MPG, from 45mph - 150mph going slower helps MPG. The use of "45" is arbitrary, and may vary (wildly) from car to car.

Now for a hybrid, it's nonlinear, can't be graphed cause x/0 pops in at odd moments causing discontinuity. This happens when the ICE cuts out and GPH goes to zero and MPG goes to x/0 (Infinity).

Sorry to belabor the point and I'll jump off the thread for the rest of today. Last shot here though.

OK.. I'll jump back on board tomorrow.

11011011

Hi Anon:

___Nothing was posted here that would cause me to lock or delete yet but as far as your Jeep’s TCO or whatever metric you used, you are posting far beyond your understanding wrt those items. I cannot say much more then if you dig, you will find the flaws let alone the average Prius driver here purchased his Prius for maybe $23K and is not only far more comfortable and safer but saving far more fuel then what you are driving from day one all the way until it’s traded in or scrapped.

___More roads … We are already at or darn near Peak oil so that problem may just take care of itself? Faster limits? This is where a Prius kicks @$$. The more congested up to an actual stop and they just keep on climbing for those that know how to drive them in that kind of traffic. An Insight and anything with a stick can hold there own as well.

___I know you mentioned 100 mph in jest but even 70 mph is like a bottle of booze to a drunken sailor in terms of throwing fuel out the window. As someone alluded to previously, would any of us like to hit an overpass pillar at 30 or 60 given 55 mph limits you have a chance to slow down to 30. At 70, the 60 mph impact is all that is needed for the troopers to call the morgue.

___Best way is to not drive at all of course but after that, more jobs could be shifted to the back shifts. Ever drive to work or home before and after a 03:00 – 11:00 PM shift? How about driving to work at 11:00 PM for a night shift? Then again, totally new schedules work far better then those we are on currently with some added time off benefit. How about 12 hour shifts with 3 days on and 4 days off and 4 days on with 3 days off the following week. 7 days of travel vs. 10 before in 2 weeks and traffic after 07:00 PM every night is far less congested?

___A bit OT … Dan, I am not sure of your thought process was going with the math. The Ranger w/ a stick rules the road from 15 - 32 and can put 95% of the drivers on the road to shame no matter what they are driving. This includes many hybrid drivers that I have seen on the other boards if they are untrained. Once they have the basics down, they will eat all of us non-hybrid drivers for breakfast, lunch and dinner without breathing hard ;)

___In the heavy stop and crawl stuff, you want to stay as far away from a traditional automatic as you can possibly be. The Prius and FEH will own anything under that scenario if it’s moving even at a touch above a crawl. Middle speed steady state? An Insight, HCH-I/II or small diesel is the cats meow. Above 65, the diesels start walking away from the rest other then the Insight. The numbers make sense when we consider the rest of the world but not here with the numbers everybody pulls day in and day out.

___Ok, off my own soap box ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

I haven't been offended by anything. I think some of this has been written in a little bit of jest. I don't agree with the higher speed theory at all, but for the sake of argument, I would say that there might be a significant proportion of people who believe something like this: I should be able to drive as fast as possible. Drive fast and I can outrun-- this traffic jam, that light, this truck (you name the obstacle). Out running is a favorite American theory in fact, if not worded that way. I also think that since, I think this is true, that more people lurk than post, one can discuss some information. Signal to noise ratio is fairly high in this group, and there is more noise in this thread perhaps...

I think the idea of 100 mph is more an exaggeration than anything. But it is the outrun theory over again.

I really believe we should go to 55 mph. Keep in mind that still means that about half the drivers will be driving 65 or over. (not that this has a chance of any kind...) I think the average highway (near city) speed is 65 around here. It isn't really enforced. I'm guessing many drivers are going over 75.

I agree with a more imaginative approach to dealing with traffic. There are currently a few projects being funded that explore various options. I think we should have more of that. Figure out what kind of things work and support them.

I also agree re: the Jeep. It is a fun car (peppy, top off, off-roads-- though most people don't do that anyway) to drive, but not much more than that.


--des

Hi Anon:

___Nothing was posted here that would cause me to lock or delete yet but as far as your Jeep’s TCO or whatever metric you used, you are beyond you are posting far beyond your understanding. I cannot say much more then if you dig, you will find the flaws let alone the average Prius driver here purchased his Prius for maybe $23K and is not only far more comfortable and safer but saving far more fuel then what you are driving from day one all the way until it’s traded in or scrapped.

___More roads … We are already at or darn near Peak oil so that problem may just take care of itself? Faster limits? This is where a Prius kicks @$$. The more congested up to an actual stop and they just keep on climbing for those that know how to drive them in that kind of traffic. An Insight and anything with a stick can hold there own as well.

___I know you mentioned 100 mph in jest but even 70 mph is like a bottle of booze to a drunken sailor in terms of throwing fuel out the window. As someone alluded to previously, would any of us like to hit an overpass pillar at 30 or 60 given 55 mph limits you have a chance to slow down to 30. At 70, the 60 mph impact is all that is needed for the troopers to call the morgue.

___Best way is to not drive at all of course but after that, more jobs could be shifted to the back shifts. Ever drive to work or home before and after a 03:00 – 11:00 PM shift? How about driving to work at 11:00 PM for a night shift? Then again, totally new schedules work far better then those we are on currently with some added time off benefit. How about 12 hour shifts with 3 days on and 4 days off and 4 days on with 3 days off the following week. 7 days of travel vs. 10 before in 2 weeks and traffic after 07:00 PM every night is far less congested?

___A bit OT … Dan, I am not sure of your thought process was going with the math. The Ranger w/ a stick rules the road from 15 - 32 and can put 95% of the drivers on the road to shame no matter what they are driving. This includes many hybrid drivers that I have seen on the other boards if they are untrained. Once they have the basics down, they will eat all of us non-hybrid drivers for breakfast, lunch and dinner without breathing hard ;)

___In the heavy stop and crawl stuff, you want to stay as far away from a traditional automatic as you can possibly be. The Prius and FEH will own anything under that scenario if it’s moving even at a touch above a crawl. Middle speed steady state? An Insight, HCH-I/II or small diesel is the cats meow. Above 65, the diesels start walking away from the rest other then the Insight. The numbers make sense when we consider the rest of the world but not here with the numbers everybody pulls day in and day out.

___Ok, off my own soap box ;)

___Good Luck

___Wayne

___A bit OT … Dan, I am not sure of your thought process was going with the math. The Ranger w/ a stick rules the road from 15 - 32 and can put 95% of the drivers on the road to shame no matter what they are driving. This includes many hybrid drivers that I have seen on the other boards if they are untrained. Once they have the basics down, they will eat all of us non-hybrid drivers for breakfast, lunch and dinner without breathing hard ;)Sorry for the confusion guys. I wasn't trying to preach Faster = Better, I just hate making any statements of absolutes. The problem I run into is that people I talk to about this stuff, they like to disprove by extreme. So when I say "You get better MPG going slower", they counter with "MPG is horrible at 5 MPH". Eventually the conversation devolves to "Well, not THAT much slower".

So I always try to take the tact that every engine has a sweet-spot. If they are below the sweet spot, then faster is better, if they above than the sweet spot then they need to slow down. Most sweet spots are significantly below peoples average driving speed, but If I argue absolutes, there is usually a easy way to disprove it.

As for the Ranger, I'm amazed Ford hasn't asked to tear that thing apart to see how you got it to tick out those numbers ;)

11011011