Gas Prices and Driving Speeds

"Specific Fuel Consumption" seems to be the phrase to google for!

I found a technical article here:
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110216/article.html

It even has a graph that (more or less ) illustrates the 'peak torque' effect I was talking about.
http://autospeed.com/cms/gallery/article.html?slideshow=0&a=...

However, it then goes on talk about 'Real World' situations (and I was remembering mid 70's motorcycle engines on a dyno, which is anything but).

I think we might both be wrong on this score. I've only skimmed through that article, but the suggestion seems to be that best fuel economy is achieved, when the throttle is wide-open! (Which often would be when the engine is in the 'wrong gear' and labouring).

Also, thinking about my scenario, of an engine that happened to be running in a more efficient part of its operating range at 70mph than 55mph ... I think it would to be a highly-tuned two stroke engine, of about 125cc (and you don't get many cars with those )

Are the same people drinking $5 Cups of Coffee, Guzzling Red-Bulls, and then filling their suv's with low octane gas and bitching about it.

Now, I am not happy about the $5 a gallon gas in California... But I can not complain until I stop paying $60 a Gallon for Starbucks and RedBull.

You sound like Phil Gramm saying that economic problems are only in our imagination and they we are a nation of whiners.

I've never been in a Starbucks or had a Red Bull, so am I allowed to complain about fuel prices?

That depends if you smoke drink beer or do anythng else that you spend money on and don't complain. Like 3.00 or more for a coke at the movies.

I'm too young to remember open states with no speed limit, but my Mom used to complain about 55mph speed limits. I speed all the time. I pay gas costs and speeding tickets without hesitation. I'm happy with 65, 70, and even 75mph. The quicker we deplete oil reserves, the sooner we will develop a real energy policy and pay the price of energy research. I look forward to the day when there's no remaining fosil fuels.
Jen

I just got back from a trip from Arizona to Yosemite National Park in Central Calif. In Calif. where it was posted 55 or 60, people were going 80-85 mph. I couldn't believe it. At any rate, stopping for gas I noticed that Chevron across the street was selling for $4.59 unleaded and where I was it was $4.09. There were cars getting gas at Chevron. That's 50 cents more a gallon. My vehicle has a 32 gallon tank. That's $16 more dollars to fill at Chevron vs where I was. I guess people still don't care how much they pay for gas.

I once read that even using your headlights during the day consumes your pricey gas

Those of you who are truly interested in fuel economy might want to consider this:

http://www.scangauge.com/

Gee, and only $169... That's like a tank of gas!
BTW - I heard this morning that Congress (in their infinite wisdom) is again discussing a nation-wide 55 mph speed mandate. I just made a trip that included Southern Arizona and West Texas, where the speed limit is 80 (and lightly enforced). If you've ever traveled along these areas of the country, you can imagine doing it at 55 mph! It would take you two days just to go from town to town! I sure hope they don't "dummie up" and reinstitute it!!

Joel

Found this in another forum...it's fitting here...

2% of 1,000,000 gals = 2000 gals, for every billion gallons the US burns that would equal 2,000,000 gallons. For every 100 billion gallons etc, etc etc...

So it's not just about control, or how much longer it's going to take to get from point a to point b, or how much a persons time is worth, it is about conserving energy.....

And no one has mentioned safety, the number of highway fatalities dropped dramatically when the double nickel was in force.... That probably means it's also an insurance company conspiracy....

I would prefer to drive at 70 or 80 mph, but I don't, not because I can't afford to, but because I feel it's the correct thing to do...

To each his own.

We can conjecture all we want about why a mandated 55 mph speed limit would or would not be good. Personally, I believe that Congress should "suggest" a speed limit to the keeper of the keys (the states), without a mandate. The truth is that there is NO fuel shortage - just a hyper-inflated cost of fuel. As I stated, in some southwestern states (and northwestern as well) a 55 mph mandate is absolutely outside of reason. I was stationed in Montana in the '70s, and the speed limit was "Reasonable and Prudent", which (if you've ever been to Montana) is, in fact, reasonable and prudent. Majority of deaths? Single vehicle! Idiots that never experienced 120 mph on a straight highway before - and generally, a G.I.............

Joel

There IS a fuel shortage due to a shortage of refinery capacity. I'd be all for a 60 mph national speed limit, which would mean that most people would stay under 70.

I've noticed my car gets the best mileage around 60mph...that would suit me fine.

I kind of feel sorry for people who are in THAT big of a hurry. No offense meant but REALLY. If you NEED to get there that fast.....FLY. Otherwise, slow down and smell the roses.

***AND*** when you are talking about wasting a limited resource, waste is waste. Once it's gone it is GONE.

Maybe technology will find a solution "in time" and maybe it won't. What if it doesn't? What then? Or what if the only reasonable solution is 3 or 4 times as expensive as petrol ??

Short sighted IS as short sighted DOES.

Two Hundred plus miles of nothing but nothing and straight highway... Highway hypnosis plus

the question is how much is your time worth? I for one am willing to pay a bit extra to get there faster....

I've got lots of it and I'm not in a hurry to get any place. Just enjoying the trip and sights....

Edit: With the stock market and the price of gas, I'll probably have even more time, unless I have to come out of retirement...(Never Happen)

I the one most people pass these days on the highway. I either do the speed limit out of NYC or do 60mph in the city where the speed limit is 50 and 55.

To me folks, it’s about the best mileage I can get for the buck.

Forgive me sir, but there is no shortage of fuel! Shortage = rationing (like 1979). Seems to me if I want fuel, I have no difficulty buying it. Shortage of refining capibility? You bet, but I still maintain that it is a contrived "shortage" by both congress and the oil companies. And, as for speed, 65 would be fine with me. That is where my Hybrid seems to settle in for 48 mpg.........

Joel

Dear Ka,

I have family that I visit upstate. The distance is 200 miles but 275 miles by road. I have driven it in four hours and seventeen minutes but I usually take about five and half hours with breaks to stretch my legs, buy coffee, et hoc genus omne.

If I take an aeroplane, it takes much longer. Although it is true that the flight time is about half an hour, one must first arrive at the aerodrome in time to go through the hurry-up and wait procedure of the inefficient TSA people. Then they want to check your luggage, which they will try to lose or send on a different flight; even if it does go on the same flight, I shall have to wait for it at the other end. (I shall also not be able to bring as much as I like to have for spending a fortnight upstate.) Someone will have to collect me at the other end. I shall then be dependent on their vehicles to move about -- not good. I shall also have to arrange to have someone move my car twice a week while I am away to comply with alternate-side street sweeping by the NYC Department of Sanitation.

Perhaps I forgot to mention that the airlines now want to charge for luggage and soda. If I were a wicked person (of course, I am just a sweetheart and not wicked at all), I might mention how they might keep you on the runway waiting to take off for up to five hours and not let you off the aeroplane. It is a horrible experience.

Now I might imagine someone saying that this just works on short distances -- WRONG! The uncle of a friend of mine died in Florida. We went down to Naples (FL) to take care of his uncle’s house and drive the uncle’s car back to New York City (the nephew inherited the car). We arrived at LaGuardia Airport almost three hours before flight time. The aeroplane was delayed allegedly due to the TSA personnel taking too long to clear the passengers. They had us waiting around a long time before they had any interest in examining our carry-on luggage. My friend and I had already had our check-on luggage looked at individually as our taking a one-way flight to Florida was considered suspicious. The upshot of this was that we missed our connecting flight in Atlanta and had to spend the night there in a hotel. To add insult to injury, the airline (Jet Blue) said they would not pay for the hotel as they had not caused the delay – the TSA had.

When someone suggests I take an aeroplane for convenience or speed, I find the idea nutty. Now Amtrak on the other hand is very nice; however, I still do not want to be dependent on my relatives for moving about when I am upstate.

With best wishes, your friendly Professor of Maths for the survey course, david

P.S. I time my departures from and re-entries into NYC to avoid traffic.

Scanguage rocks! Best money I've ever spent. It absolutely will teach you how to get the best economy out of your car-you can see the effects in real time of how stomping on the gas pedal drags your mileage down, and how slow and easy runs it right back up again. If you get one it's important to calibrate it so the results are accurate. Mine is, after tweaking it for a while. I drive a diesel car so I'm obsessive about mileage anyway.

I'm glad in all the flights I've taken I haven't had an experience you have described. I am taking at trip from Los Angeles to Coeur D’Alene, Idaho next month. A two hour flight vs a two day drive. With the cost of gas, wear and tear on my car, hotels, eating out, etc. etc. For about the same price, maybe less, I would rather take the plane, rent a car and spend an extra four days in Idaho...

I guess you can rationalize it either way...

I also can leave my car in my garage, and take the flyaway to LAX for $6 round trip.

Air travel is changing fast, assuming that you even want to endure the security hassles. Soon you will have trouble finding a seat from/to where you want to go since airlines are severely cutting back on flights. And the cost will be double what you have been used to. We need fast trains, like Europe, which are very fuel efficient per passenger.

I guess that you are right (how often do you hear that?) in that we seem to be getting what we need even though the refineries are operating at 100% of capacity. The price of oil, through commodities trading, is based on near-future expectations of a shortage. The price couldn't go so high if current supply and demand weren't very closely matched.

The economic "slow-down" and some conservation may prevent a shortage for awhile. But unless new refinery capacity is developed, there will eventually have to be rationing. And I think you are correct that oil companies contrive with their supporters in Congress to limit supply by limiting refinery capacity.

Dear DM,

Not only is it a matter of cost but also of creature comforts. Taking Amtrak lets me walk about, plug my laptop into an AC outlet (log into the Factory), sit in a comfortable large seat, and watch the sights on the Hudson River. If the trains were as fast as the ones in Japan and Europe, it would be great. If I did not need my car when upstate, I would take the train more frequently. The club car does charge too much for food and drink but, unlike on aeroplanes, you can bring your comestibles aboard.

david

Nice rant, Dave. Feel better now ??

The speeds are neither new, nor increased, so the fuel consumption of these folks is about what it has always been. When they can't afford it, they'll slow down, or quit driving.

BTW, I was once challenged by a judge about the speed on my 60 mile commute 25 years ago. I was too lazy to check until recently. 80-ish speeds saved 18 minutes over 60 miles.

Dear Ka,

It was hardly a rant. I thought I spoke quite softly given the ordeal I had endured. I used to enjoy flying.

Your brother who never raised his voice, david

Well, I feel better from reading David's missive.

GregPaul

Thank you, Greg. I am happy to have made you feel better.

david

Yes, that kind of WAS the point. One man's ordeal is another man's adventure.

All of life is just one adventure after another.
It is much more enjoyable if you don't fight it.

God grant me the serenity.......and all that.

Dear Ka,

I suppose I must be feeling like Mr. Toad of Toad Hall. Ah yes, the excitment of the open road, although I no longer have my 1975 red VW convertible.

"Come along! Hop up here! We'll go for a jolly ride! The open road! The dusty highway! Come! I'll show you the world! Travel! Scene! Excitement! Ha ha ha!" -- Kenneth Grahame

Flying used be to exciting. I suppose I need to buy a Cessna or fly with Snoopy in his Sopwith Camel. The spectre of commercial flying leaves both Snoopy and Mr. Toad quite cold. No adventure there.

Your brother who appreciates deeply what the gods provide, david

Hard to change bad driving habits! I drive a motorcoach more than 50k miles a year and I see all kinds of bad habits. Fortunately only a very small percentage result in trouble. I have noted a select list of vehicles that repeatedly exhibit aggressive driving behavior. They are, but not limited to, BMW, Ford F-150 and similar, Lincoln navigator, Cadillac Escalade, Ford expedition. Clearly there is some corellation between size/cost of vehicle and appeal to aggressive drivers. These gas guzzlers are amongst the vehicles I always see in the hammer lane, tailgating, weaving, speeding and making jackrabbit starts; and $4 a gallon I am sad to say will not change the habits of the aggressive driver.
It's scary out there!

Sorry for the subject - but I couldn't resist. I agree with you except for one thing.... $6.00 a gallon is WAY to low! You could be looking at 8-10 dollars easy. If you recall, it was Katrina that started the real escalation is the price of gas. Well, all those rigs are busy pumping out oil, and the refinery in N.O. is busy refining the oil - but the price keeps climbing. Meanwhile, oil company CEOs are reaping million dollar bonus packages, and congress sits on their thumbs. I'm not smart enough to have the answer, but I know that a mandated 55mph speed limit ain't it...

Joel

Has a bill to get the oil companies for windfall profits and our President said he would veto any such bill... Just like he did veio the medicare prescripton bill...

We had gas lines. Is that what you want again?

we are afraid of corporate america?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,364846,00.html

Just let them rob us blind and forget it?

Dear AO,

"Fox News" is an oxymoron.

Your brother who watches BBC News, david

www.bbcnews.com

I just googled "windfall oil companies"

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.

Please try again.

GregPaul

(actually: exchange "pre" for "post").

I hate to propose a new government program because I know what some of the responses will be. Some government programs can be good, like the Manhattan Project and NASA. And, so far as energy production, private enterprise is not doing it quickly enough.

The American taxpayers need to have an energy program to develop alternative energy and more oil refining capacity (and more oil production when we have the refining capability). We could use windfall profits taxes from the oil companies----all they are doing with it is buying back their own stock. Or, with the money we are now spending in Iraq, we could build 100 new refineries a year. Right now, we are hostages to whatever the oil companies choose to do, and they are not doing anything that is good for the country.

The U.S. has more coal reserves than Saudi Arabia has oil. It can be refined into petroleum. The Germans did it during WWII and the South Africans are doing it now. It ends up costing $25 per barrel. The only problem is that refining it releases a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere. We need to develop a technology which can refine coal and protect the environment. No oil company is going to spend money doing that.

The biggest villain is politicians.

And as much as some people are going to hate me for pointing this out, there's one part of the political spectrum mostly responsible for impeding the further development of domestic resources.

Figure out which one...

Sure, that's easy. That would be the one that said: Mmmmm....we can stop building additional refineries, which will help push up the price and then blame it on the restrictive rules........and the Americam people are so dumb they will probably believe it.

NEITHER SIDE IS BLAMELESS. All politicians are evil because they ALL are self-serving.

Which side took over about two years ago on promises to "fix" everything? And what have they done? Other than whine about everything?

Vote all the incumbents out....

Here, in the home of NASCAR country, North Carolina, you would think the posted speed limit is more of a "Recommended Minimum Speed".

Which side has had the veto power for the last 7+ years, and can filibuster anything before it even gets to that desk? Which side gave tax CREDITS to the oil companies? Which side blocks change? Which side dug us a hole so deep in 6 years that it will take another 4 years to dig ourselves out?

Everyone is always in a hurry. I'm retired, so I don't have an excuse anymore.