Buzzword
New member
Um, that's pretty much what we've BEEN doing, and look where it's gotten us.
Also...
why not write in paragraphs
like
an
adult
complete with punctuation
instead
of
like
e.e. cummings?
toldailytopic: The oil crisis. What are some ideas that might help us be less depende
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
Um, that's pretty much what we've BEEN doing, and look where it's gotten us.
Also...
why not write in paragraphs
like
an
adult
complete with punctuation
instead
of
like
e.e. cummings?
Hi Ktoyou. I'd agree that acceleration is important, but I don't know of a single study that fails to note cars exceeding 65 mph aren't significantly worse in terms of consumption. And driving the interstate regularly, at the posted limit, I see SUVs and older cars blowing by on a consistent basis.
To borrow from Car Talk: "Because wind resistance increases dramatically with speed, for every mile per hour over 55 that you drive, your fuel economy goes down by 2 percent. In other words, you'll get about half the mileage driving at 70 mph compared to 50 mph!"
We also need smarter roads and stop lights. There's nothing more frustrating than sitting at a light for no good reason.
As for natural gas, you should look into what our reserves are like. It's a bit more than a short term fix. We could run on it for a few generations and less expensively than our petrol fix.
Couldn't agree with you more on R&D. :e4e:
To borrow from Car Talk: "Because wind resistance increases dramatically with speed, for every mile per hour over 55 that you drive, your fuel economy goes down by 2 percent. In other words, you'll get about half the mileage driving at 70 mph compared to 50 mph!"
We also need smarter roads and stop lights. There's nothing more frustrating than sitting at a light for no good reason.
As for natural gas, you should look into what our reserves are like. It's a bit more than a short term fix. We could run on it for a few generations and less expensively than our petrol fix.
Couldn't agree with you more on R&D. :e4e:
ragTagblues
New member
How is that ever a sensible suggestion?
Hi TH,
I know for certain cars can be made that will do better than 50 miles to the gallon at 65mph. We do not have them and cannot test them because American automakers do not believe people would buy them.
My point is top speed is not the desire of most drivers, but acceleration is. We need to wean people off the acceleration kick.
As to aerodynamics, which I know little about, the new cars, which all look like beetles to me are that way for that purpose. How fast does fuel consumption rise, I am not sure. I do agree it is a factor. We had the 55mph law, maybe it was better then and maybe we are now able to get the same result at 65mph?
I have used propane, which is heavier than white gas, it does seem to have raised with petrol costs, why would that be the case and would a consumer trade on the idea?
I know for certain cars can be made that will do better than 50 miles to the gallon at 65mph. We do not have them and cannot test them because American automakers do not believe people would buy them.
My point is top speed is not the desire of most drivers, but acceleration is. We need to wean people off the acceleration kick.
As to aerodynamics, which I know little about, the new cars, which all look like beetles to me are that way for that purpose. How fast does fuel consumption rise, I am not sure. I do agree it is a factor. We had the 55mph law, maybe it was better then and maybe we are now able to get the same result at 65mph?
I have used propane, which is heavier than white gas, it does seem to have raised with petrol costs, why would that be the case and would a consumer trade on the idea?
ragTagblues
New member
Really?
"Well Oill be"....
Geddit?
:noid:
:denver:
You are to transparent by far you old gas bag . . . .
lain:
ragTagblues
New member
Okay just to further the cause for motorcycle engines . . .
The average motorcycle has more aerodynamic drag then any of these-
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=e...=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=667
This due to all of the nooks and crannies that wind can catch in.
If the engine can go at far better economy then a car engine, imagine how much better it would be with a light aerodynamic shell type thing around it!
The average motorcycle has more aerodynamic drag then any of these-
http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=e...=UTF-8&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&biw=1366&bih=667
This due to all of the nooks and crannies that wind can catch in.
If the engine can go at far better economy then a car engine, imagine how much better it would be with a light aerodynamic shell type thing around it!
Or sitting on a freeway that has turned into a parking lot, 0 miles/hr=0miles/gal
Great idea and very easily implemented BUT
The tree huggers won't like it.
CNG and LPG are both fossil fuels, they come outa the ground so just like my coal fired steam truck idea the global warmers would have a hissy fit and carbon tax you into oblivion.
The hemp idea seems to have the most legs since the hemp takes the CO2 out when it grows so it's neutral. And hemp doesn't need to compete with food cause it will grow in soils that corn wouldn't like.
I'm not fighting you on acceleration, only noting that anyone on any interstate or just driving about in general can note the overwhelmingly large number of cars that haven't been designed to get great gas mileage at speeds in excess of 65 driving much faster than that. Collectively that's a huge hit that isn't needed, isn't safe, and can impact our dependence on foreign oil. We should take cues from the Prius as well. It actually gets better mileage in city than on the interstate in part because its breaking system takes energy from the process to use in accelerating out of a stop.
65 is the highest I've seen a car get optimal performance. Here's a good article on efficiency and speed.
I think the answers to the propane question are mostly market and partly about where you are in relation to the primary sources.
:chuckle:
They'd like it better than the non alternatives as a stop gap. And we can sell the idea across political lines as a measure to make ourselves energy independent.
And probably cut back on the whole acceleration problem.
lain:
Until we have a viable hydrogen fuel cell the electrics will be a curiosity. Too much lead for the batts and they don't last long enough. We need electrics in the cities but only the dedicated city dweller will buy one.
The funny thing is that you see someone blow by you at 80 and they wind up right in front of you at the traffic jam.
Using LPG or CNG requires converting your veihcle @ around $5,000.
Hemp will make you fuel that you can pour right into yer car sans modification If you're E-85 ready.
Yeah but going slower means it will take longer to get to your destination which means longer drive times which means more gas used.
Roundabouts FTW!
*waits for AB and ragtag*
No, goofi. Read the article. It's about fuel consumption and percentages.Yeah but going slower means it will take longer to get to your destination which means longer drive times which means more gas used.
Great. Now THAT song is going to be stuck in my head for the rest of the day. :mmph:
Funny, just heard a piece on the radio today about how natural gas drilling is messing up the environment and drinking water in PA. Yes. Please can I have some more of that? :think:
liberal.
some other dude
New member
I'll bet they were talking about hydraulic fracturing. Yep - It's definitely got some downsides.
:up: I'd rather buy oil from corrupt Arab leaders than get fuel from a food source.
Yep they were.
We can sell hemp across party lines as well.
CNG and LPG are already out there and people can choose them as it makes economic sense, until people choosing them drives up heating costs to a breakover point.
Hemp doesn't compete with anything.
You can't get high off the energy version of hemp, and a methenol molecule is the same no matter where you got it from.And probably cut back on the whole acceleration problem.
I get you TH. Look at all the adds that make it a point to advertise how fast their car will go to 65mph. It seems to me most fuel loss comes from city driving, with all the stop and go driving. My idea would be to develop better electric cars.
As to the speed, I would not doubt that 55mph is most conservative. Another point; take two cars with same engine and weight, one with an automatic, the other with a manual 5 speed. Say they both have five gears. Now the automatic has to power itself, one waste, the other, one is able to go into high gear and maintain a speed of 50mph, while the automatic will downshift. I think it is baloney that the average car would lug at 50mph in high gear.
If 55mph is a good standard, then maybe we could bring back some angles; I do not like the round bug-shaped cars! The reason I always hear about the need for the bug shape is aerodynamics. There should be little difference in the shape of a car at 55mph? Now if the bug is justified, it has to be that it is able to go faster with the same wind resistance as my old car.
For a while I was considering buying a Corvette; why, not for speed, just for the looks, a basic blue one priced down. The new Cadillac with good looks, well fair looks has an engine over 500 HP, who needs it, but it's pretty. I would consider a little MG type car with a 1200 CC engine if they made one. The last nice looking economy car was the Honda CRX, which the least powerful engine would get 45 mile to a gallon at 60 mph, we had one so I know it would get that on the highway. Why not something like that, but improved today?
As to the speed, I would not doubt that 55mph is most conservative. Another point; take two cars with same engine and weight, one with an automatic, the other with a manual 5 speed. Say they both have five gears. Now the automatic has to power itself, one waste, the other, one is able to go into high gear and maintain a speed of 50mph, while the automatic will downshift. I think it is baloney that the average car would lug at 50mph in high gear.
If 55mph is a good standard, then maybe we could bring back some angles; I do not like the round bug-shaped cars! The reason I always hear about the need for the bug shape is aerodynamics. There should be little difference in the shape of a car at 55mph? Now if the bug is justified, it has to be that it is able to go faster with the same wind resistance as my old car.
For a while I was considering buying a Corvette; why, not for speed, just for the looks, a basic blue one priced down. The new Cadillac with good looks, well fair looks has an engine over 500 HP, who needs it, but it's pretty. I would consider a little MG type car with a 1200 CC engine if they made one. The last nice looking economy car was the Honda CRX, which the least powerful engine would get 45 mile to a gallon at 60 mph, we had one so I know it would get that on the highway. Why not something like that, but improved today?
- Status