We get free fuel..
Last edited by ..teddy..jimmy (2008-07-05 04:40:28)
I used to get free fuel (well, I had to pay the income tax on it (40%) but that's all). Then I stopped getting it free and petrol prices went through the roof...teddy..jimmy wrote:
We get free fuel..
Too bad? I don't like to be late for absolutely everything. If there is no excuse for driving slowly then why drive slowly? If you aren't going at at least the speed limit ... you are just annoying other drivers. Who in turn will then probably get more anxious to overtake you, which will use more revs, which will use more fuel, which will then help fuel prices to continue to rise up.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Wrong. If you're that concerned about being held up, too bad.
Driving slowly is no solution. Low revs? Fine, but you can do 60 in low revs if you are in the right gear.
That blows man..I don't drive yet so it doesn't really have a great impact on me but I'd hate to fork out that extra cash..Bertster7 wrote:
I used to get free fuel (well, I had to pay the income tax on it (40%) but that's all). Then I stopped getting it free and petrol prices went through the roof...teddy..jimmy wrote:
We get free fuel..
In a way it's also quite good that the price per gallon is so high now because atleast it does the environment some justice.
Well maybe you should plan your trips better.kylef wrote:
Too bad? I don't like to be late for absolutely everything.
Where did I say there was no excuse?kylef wrote:
If there is no excuse for driving slowly then why drive slowly?
You know what? Fuck you. I so sick and tired of being tailgated for going at, or a couple of km/h below, the speed limit. I'm so sick of being told too many people are dieing so there are more restrictions on my actions when most people don't obey the law. I'm so sick of people rubbishing drink drivers whilst regularly speeding themselves (at least drink drivers have impaired judgement). I'm so sick and tired of people bitching about speed cameras: if you don't speed, it's not a problem. So fuck you. Fuck everyone else like you. Fuck your parents for not teaching you to be responsible when driving. Fuck your friends for not shaming you into doing the right thing (although they're probably covered under people like you). And fuck the news for always going on about how terrible speed cameras are.kylef wrote:
If you aren't going at at least the speed limit
Where were we? Ah, right:
Too bad. I'm not breaking the law. Be annoyed all you like.kylef wrote:
If you aren't going at at least the speed limit ... you are just annoying other drivers.
I'm ignoring the fuel comments because I made no comments about fuel reduction benefits.
You want to sight one of the scientific studies?Bertster7 wrote:
Air con negligible?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Over here fuel prices have doubled.
Ignoring that, I highly doubt the effect is as great as you're suggesting. Certainly, many of your suggestions are negligible (air-con, for one).
Air con is an immense drain on fuel. I find it hard to believe that everyone doesn't realise what a drain it actually is, since it accounts for an average of 14% of fuel consumption (obviously the percentage varies dependent on the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle - though on some cars it can be nearly 40% - I hired a car once in Greece that couldn't drive uphill with the air con on, that was awkward). The reduction in petrol consumption from lower air resistance due to not having the windows open does not counter this extra consumption, unless travelling quite fast (100mph+).
There have been numerous scientific studies conducted about this and the results are unambiguous. Real world studies by car clubs also demonstrate the same thing.Considering my car gets 11km/litre, I use about 9 litres to drive 100km. That's about 25-40% of my consumption.German car club ADAC calculated how aircon systems can affect fuel consumption. Its test cars found that reducing the car’s temperature from 31C to 22C used between 2.47 and 4.15 litres per 100km.
Engines work around the principle of compression. That's why you add turbos or superchargers to make them go faster. Things that sap compression, like air con does, will have a great impact on performance and the overall efficiency of the system.
3-5km/h slower is no big deal, fine you are cautious. But when you start to going 10-15km/h below the speed limit you are simply causing more havoc, not less. Try going on a motorway doing less that traffic speed - you are being a danger to yourself and others because some people can't calculate their own thinking and braking distance (because they are forced to if they are doing the moving traffic speed and you are doing your limit) - I have seen multiple crashes because of this. Responsible for driving? The idea is to get from A to B as safe as possible, and safe means not annoying other drivers. I don't care about speed cameras - they are there for a reason and the figures are in. They should be kept - I am not suggesting you speed, I am saying stick at the limit. Of course, if traffic speed is higher then stay at the traffic speed - the police can't pull everyone over and give everyone a ticket. If anything, you should be glad of higher moving traffic speed.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You know what? Fuck you. I so sick and tired of being tailgated for going at, or a couple of km/h below, the speed limit. I'm so sick of being told too many people are dieing so there are more restrictions on my actions when most people don't obey the law. I'm so sick of people rubbishing drink drivers whilst regularly speeding themselves (at least drink drivers have impaired judgement). I'm so sick and tired of people bitching about speed cameras: if you don't speed, it's not a problem. So fuck you. Fuck everyone else like you. Fuck your parents for not teaching you to be responsible when driving. Fuck your friends for not shaming you into doing the right thing (although they're probably covered under people like you). And fuck the news for always going on about how terrible speed cameras are.kylef wrote:
If you aren't going at at least the speed limit
Where were we? Ah, right:Too bad. I'm not breaking the law. Be annoyed all you like.kylef wrote:
If you aren't going at at least the speed limit ... you are just annoying other drivers.
You might not be breaking the law, but you are being a danger.
This post was made under the assumption that you can stick to normal traffic speeds and still get the benefit of improved fuel consumption.
If you read the road test you would have seen that the example they test they performed kept the air con on. They wanted to keep driving conditions as normal as possible.zombievampire wrote:
Further, if the air con makes that much difference, how come their total gain is only ~25% max?
Drink drivers should be rubbished. Or are you being sarcastic?zombie vampire wrote:
I'm so sick of people rubbishing drink drivers whilst regularly speeding themselves (at least drink drivers have impaired judgement).
I just CANT save gas with my car...but im ready to pay the price to ride it so...
On a 60km/h road, of course. On roads with high speed limits, however (i.e. 100km/h plus) a 10-20km/h difference isn't that huge (well, 20km/h on 100km/h is, but IIRC the highest speed limit in Australia is 160km/h). Many drivers, due to a combination of their skills and their car's capabilities can't safely drive at those speeds (or, more accurately, can't do so around bends). By going a little slower they prevent themselves from losing control. If you're at the speed limit you should be to the right anyway.kylef wrote:
3-5km/h slower is no big deal, fine you are cautious. But when you start to going 10-15km/h below the speed limit you are simply causing more havoc, not less.
If the can't do that they shouldn't be on the road. I regularly drive below "traffic speed" because other drivers speed, and I'm not willing to get a ticket. Or because I'm sitting behind another car. On the odd occasion when I've let myself drive at traffic speed I've noticed that I still get the same clearance from other drivers: which isn't enough even when I'm not accelarating to their speeds. At least if I'm going slower then when they rear end me because they don't have a basic grasp of physics it might be a little less painful.kylef wrote:
Try going on a motorway doing less that traffic speed - you are being a danger to yourself and others because some people can't calculate their own thinking and braking distance (because they are forced to if they are doing the moving traffic speed and you are doing your limit)
No, driving safe means being predictable and aware. If others drivers get annoyed by the fact that I'm not speeding up as they tailgate me, too bad. So long as you hold your speed and your line (and your speed is appropriate to the lane and not ridiculously below the speed limit) it's their job to drive around you.kylef wrote:
Responsible for driving? The idea is to get from A to B as safe as possible, and safe means not annoying other drivers.
*Ahem*kylef wrote:
I am not suggesting you speed, I am saying stick at the limit.
That, right there, that's you telling me to speed. And it's wrong. And it's why I'm telling you to go fuck yourself. People like you are the reason that traffic often flows over the speed limit. And I'm sick and tired (as I've said) of people tailgating me because I'm doing the limit and they want to go faster. Too bad. If traffic speed is over the limit then stick to the limit.kylef wrote:
Of course, if traffic speed is higher then stay at the traffic speed
And of course whether I get caught is the bigger issuekylef wrote:
the police can't pull everyone over and give everyone a ticket.
Besides which, if they choose to pull somebody over it'll be the guy with P-plates *raises hand*
No thanks.
No, you are by breaking the speed limit. If there's a danger, and one person's breaking the law, and the other isn't, then the one breaking the law is the one creating the danger. I shouldn't have to break the law to be safe.kylef wrote:
You might not be breaking the law, but you are being a danger.
No. I'm saying you don't get the right to attack others for driving unsafely until you do everything in your power to drive safely yourself (a couple of stone throwing adages come to mind).Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
Drink drivers should be rubbished. Or are you being sarcastic?
You are probably referring to fast interstate speeds. But, driving very slow (5-20 MPH) is actually not very fuel efficient. I remember reading something a few years back that US automakers tend to target their designs so that 35 MPH as the most fuel efficient speed. The faster you go above this, the less efficient your mileage ... similarly, the slower you go below this, the less efficient your mileage.paul386 wrote:
drive slow
True. AC can use a lot of gas, however it is important that one also KEEP THEIR WINDOWS UP if fuel efficiency is one's concern. A recent study I just read demonstrated that there is really not much efficiency difference between AC and the drag produced by having one's windows / moon roof open.paul386 wrote:
don't use air conditioner
(Interesting side-note ... my father used to race dragsters. He tells a story of how he lost a race one time, and he said that he would have won if he hadn't forgotten to put the window up).
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Only because that is contrary to everything I've ever heard or read.paul386 wrote:
Accelerating fast may actually be more efficient than accelerating slowly as your engine is more efficient at peak output.
Because at the best of times the speed limit is wrong and they are usually dam right ridiculous.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm so sick and tired of people bitching about speed cameras: if you don't speed, it's not a problem. So fuck you. Fuck everyone else like you. Fuck your parents for not teaching you to be responsible when driving. Fuck your friends for not shaming you into doing the right thing (although they're probably covered under people like you). And fuck the news for always going on about how terrible speed cameras are.
Burwhale the Avenger wrote:
11. In an auto, consider changing into neutral when stopped at lights. ( I dont do this one myself as the one time I forget I'm in neutral, the car will probably rev to 7000rpm before I realise, then put it into gear).
Cruise control ftw. My 1988 Oldsmobile V6 still gets me almost 30mpg on the hwy that way.
On a Top gear episode they mentioned some areas in Britain with increasing amount of speed cameras resulted in more deaths compared to less cameras in some areas that had a decreasing amount of casualties. Zombie are you a cop?DrunkFace wrote:
Because at the best of times the speed limit is wrong and they are usually dam right ridiculous.ZombieVampire! wrote:
I'm so sick and tired of people bitching about speed cameras: if you don't speed, it's not a problem. So fuck you. Fuck everyone else like you. Fuck your parents for not teaching you to be responsible when driving. Fuck your friends for not shaming you into doing the right thing (although they're probably covered under people like you). And fuck the news for always going on about how terrible speed cameras are.
Sorry - I'll rephrase. There is a general accepted limit on most (at least Northern Ireland) roads of a '10%+2' rule. ie if you are doing 30, 35 would be acceptable. This also works at motorway speeds of 70 (79). In that size of gap I don't mind it going the other way, but that's why motorways lanes exist - fast and slow.ZombieVampire! wrote:
On a 60km/h road, of course. On roads with high speed limits, however (i.e. 100km/h plus) a 10-20km/h difference isn't that huge (well, 20km/h on 100km/h is, but IIRC the highest speed limit in Australia is 160km/h). Many drivers, due to a combination of their skills and their car's capabilities can't safely drive at those speeds (or, more accurately, can't do so around bends). By going a little slower they prevent themselves from losing control. If you're at the speed limit you should be to the right anyway.kylef wrote:
3-5km/h slower is no big deal, fine you are cautious. But when you start to going 10-15km/h below the speed limit you are simply causing more havoc, not less.
It's pretty ironic and hypocritical for me to say it, yes, but that's the way it simply is. I'd doubt you would get a ticket for going at traffic speed. (although I can closely relate that you will get a ticket if you do that speed on your own) - typically, at least for me, I'd rather choose the latter of traffic speed because it gets you there quicker. I'm not much a fan of long car journeys - my stomach agrees with that statement also!ZombieVampire! wrote:
If the can't do that they shouldn't be on the road. I regularly drive below "traffic speed" because other drivers speed, and I'm not willing to get a ticket. Or because I'm sitting behind another car. On the odd occasion when I've let myself drive at traffic speed I've noticed that I still get the same clearance from other drivers: which isn't enough even when I'm not accelarating to their speeds. At least if I'm going slower then when they rear end me because they don't have a basic grasp of physics it might be a little less painful.kylef wrote:
Try going on a motorway doing less that traffic speed - you are being a danger to yourself and others because some people can't calculate their own thinking and braking distance (because they are forced to if they are doing the moving traffic speed and you are doing your limit)
I guess P (provisional?) is your equiv. of what we have here of L (learner) and R (restricted {I think}). Max 45, no matter what road. On a motorway - that's dangerous. It simply is. Motorway accidents are the biggest because they are the fastest - and if someone comes up doing 70 (say even 65 because of the conditions in the situation I'm about to say) when you are doing 45, say in the fog - when visibility isn't great, a rear-end is inevitable. And accidents at L/R stage are just havoc on insurance now.ZombieVampire! wrote:
And of course whether I get caught is the bigger issuekylef wrote:
the police can't pull everyone over and give everyone a ticket.
Besides which, if they choose to pull somebody over it'll be the guy with P-plates *raises hand*
No thanks.
You shouldn't, but in most cases you do. I'm not suggesting you go rampantly down a road at the speed you (well, not you as you said you don't stay at traffic speed ... but let's say you do) do when there is a traffic speed when there are no other cars, but you are being less aggravative. I'll give you a story about how my brother pretty much made someone drive inches off a barrier and into the sea. He was sticking to the speed limit - traffic was going a tad higher but he has had penalty points and didn't fancy some more. Anyway, this guy behind him is trying to get past. Traffic speed would permit him to do so, but it is pretty busy. Well he gets stuck behind my brother for about 20 minutes. Until he finally finds the slightest gap, takes his chance and ends up ramming a barrier and very nearly going through it, and down a drop to the sea. Which would have been better to do - speed limit? or traffic limit?ZombieVampire! wrote:
No, you are by breaking the speed limit. If there's a danger, and one person's breaking the law, and the other isn't, then the one breaking the law is the one creating the danger. I shouldn't have to break the law to be safe.kylef wrote:
You might not be breaking the law, but you are being a danger.
im buying a mule.
If you are so sick of people tailgating you maybe you should do the speed limit, or maybe a little over the speed limit.ZombieVampire! wrote:
You know what? Fuck you. I so sick and tired of being tailgated for going at, or a couple of km/h below, the speed limit. I'm so sick of being told too many people are dieing so there are more restrictions on my actions when most people don't obey the law. I'm so sick of people rubbishing drink drivers whilst regularly speeding themselves (at least drink drivers have impaired judgement). I'm so sick and tired of people bitching about speed cameras: if you don't speed, it's not a problem. So fuck you. Fuck everyone else like you. Fuck your parents for not teaching you to be responsible when driving. Fuck your friends for not shaming you into doing the right thing (although they're probably covered under people like you). And fuck the news for always going on about how terrible speed cameras are.
Seriously though, I dont even pay attention to speed limit signs, I know how fast I should be going in different traffic conditions.
You sound like a pussy.
tbh, my car idles at the same RPM at a stop whether I have the AC on or off.OrangeHound wrote:
True. AC can use a lot of gas, however it is important that one also KEEP THEIR WINDOWS UP if fuel efficiency is one's concern. A recent study I just read demonstrated that there is really not much efficiency difference between AC and the drag produced by having one's windows / moon roof open.
(Interesting side-note ... my father used to race dragsters. He tells a story of how he lost a race one time, and he said that he would have won if he hadn't forgotten to put the window up).
I have heard of this also.paul386 wrote:
Accelerating fast may actually be more efficient than accelerating slowly as your engine is more efficient at peak output.
Seems kinda plausible to me. Only because when you accelerate slower you maintain RPM's for longer. Example, 3k or 4k rpms to get to 40 mph for 10 seconds, or 6k rpms for 5 seconds. The RPMS, are higher of course, but your motor works easier at higher rpms.OrangeHound wrote:
Gotta disagree with you on this one. Only because that is contrary to everything I've ever heard or read.
Last edited by Sgt.Gene (2008-07-05 13:34:30)
Driving at too low revs can actually harm your engine. I watched my mum effectively damage her Renault Scenic by constantly driving at <2000 revs - the engine ended up losing a lot of power and couldn't handle going up to higher revs. So it's best to stay in a sort of mid range. Nothing wrong with occasionally going into high revs - like you said, it can be good.Sgt.Gene wrote:
Seems kinda plausible to me. Only because when you accelerate slower you maintain RPM's for longer. Example, 3k or 4k rpms to get to 40 mph for 10 seconds, or 6k rpms for 5 seconds. The RPMS, are higher of course, but your motor works easier at higher rpms.
http://stason.org/TULARC/vehicles/vw-ge … -eith.html
This is 100% true. The higher the gear the more damage you do at lower revs. I think around 2500-3500 in top gear should be good in cars. Yea you may lose a few mpg but that is a lot better not having a car while its in the shop having the engine rebuilt and a few grand in repairs.kylef wrote:
Driving at too low revs can actually harm your engine. I watched my mum effectively damage her Renault Scenic by constantly driving at <2000 revs - the engine ended up losing a lot of power and couldn't handle going up to higher revs. So it's best to stay in a sort of mid range. Nothing wrong with occasionally going into high revs - like you said, it can be good.Sgt.Gene wrote:
Seems kinda plausible to me. Only because when you accelerate slower you maintain RPM's for longer. Example, 3k or 4k rpms to get to 40 mph for 10 seconds, or 6k rpms for 5 seconds. The RPMS, are higher of course, but your motor works easier at higher rpms.
http://stason.org/TULARC/vehicles/vw-ge … -eith.html
What? With a telescope or something?ZombieVampire! wrote:
[You want to sight one of the scientific studies?Bertster7 wrote:
Air con negligible?ZombieVampire! wrote:
Over here fuel prices have doubled.
Ignoring that, I highly doubt the effect is as great as you're suggesting. Certainly, many of your suggestions are negligible (air-con, for one).
Air con is an immense drain on fuel. I find it hard to believe that everyone doesn't realise what a drain it actually is, since it accounts for an average of 14% of fuel consumption (obviously the percentage varies dependent on the overall fuel consumption of the vehicle - though on some cars it can be nearly 40% - I hired a car once in Greece that couldn't drive uphill with the air con on, that was awkward). The reduction in petrol consumption from lower air resistance due to not having the windows open does not counter this extra consumption, unless travelling quite fast (100mph+).
There have been numerous scientific studies conducted about this and the results are unambiguous. Real world studies by car clubs also demonstrate the same thing.Considering my car gets 11km/litre, I use about 9 litres to drive 100km. That's about 25-40% of my consumption.German car club ADAC calculated how aircon systems can affect fuel consumption. Its test cars found that reducing the car’s temperature from 31C to 22C used between 2.47 and 4.15 litres per 100km.
Engines work around the principle of compression. That's why you add turbos or superchargers to make them go faster. Things that sap compression, like air con does, will have a great impact on performance and the overall efficiency of the system.
maybe more companies should have people work from home.
The speed limits are guidelines. You drive at the speed that is safe to drive at. This will depend on the road, the conditions, the vehicle driven and suchlike. Going above the speed limit on the motorway is fine, usually. Then there are many country roads where it is certainly not safe to drive down them at the speed limit (typically 60mph).kylef wrote:
If there is no excuse for driving slowly then why drive slowly? If you aren't going at at least the speed limit ... you are just annoying other drivers.
The point I'm trying to make is that driving below the speed limit is quite understandable in many circumstances.
'Here here' to that.usmarine2 wrote:
maybe more companies should have people work from home.
That's something I've not understood for a long time - it makes economic, as well as environmental, sense to do so.
of course. less on office space rent, less water/electric etc use at an office. it does work, I have seen it work. Not sure why it is not more common.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
'Here here' to that.usmarine2 wrote:
maybe more companies should have people work from home.
That's something I've not understood for a long time - it makes economic, as well as environmental, sense to do so.
Yeah, sorry I mentioned some circumstances in a later post - there are circumstances where it acceptable, but if there are no prevailing circumstances (be it weather or even alcohol) to be driving below the speed limit then why would you?Bertster7 wrote:
The speed limits are guidelines. You drive at the speed that is safe to drive at. This will depend on the road, the conditions, the vehicle driven and suchlike. Going above the speed limit on the motorway is fine, usually. Then there are many country roads where it is certainly not safe to drive down them at the speed limit (typically 60mph).kylef wrote:
If there is no excuse for driving slowly then why drive slowly? If you aren't going at at least the speed limit ... you are just annoying other drivers.
The point I'm trying to make is that driving below the speed limit is quite understandable in many circumstances.
kylef wrote:
'10%+2' rule. ie if you are doing 30, 35 would be acceptable. This also works at motorway speeds of 70 (79). In that size of gap I don't mind it going the other way, but that's why motorways lanes exist - fast and slow.
Took the words out of my mouth for the most part.ZombieVampire! wrote:
Well maybe you should plan your trips better.kylef wrote:
Too bad? I don't like to be late for absolutely everything.Where did I say there was no excuse?kylef wrote:
If there is no excuse for driving slowly then why drive slowly?You know what? Fuck you. I so sick and tired of being tailgated for going at, or a couple of km/h below, the speed limit. I'm so sick of being told too many people are dieing so there are more restrictions on my actions when most people don't obey the law. I'm so sick of people rubbishing drink drivers whilst regularly speeding themselves (at least drink drivers have impaired judgement). I'm so sick and tired of people bitching about speed cameras: if you don't speed, it's not a problem. So fuck you. Fuck everyone else like you. Fuck your parents for not teaching you to be responsible when driving. Fuck your friends for not shaming you into doing the right thing (although they're probably covered under people like you). And fuck the news for always going on about how terrible speed cameras are.kylef wrote:
If you aren't going at at least the speed limit
Where were we? Ah, right:Too bad. I'm not breaking the law. Be annoyed all you like.kylef wrote:
If you aren't going at at least the speed limit ... you are just annoying other drivers.