drafting off 18 wheelers doesn't seem to help much

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Black88GTA

Diamond Member
Sep 9, 2003
3,430
0
0
Originally posted by: nweaver
Originally posted by: Black88GTA
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I get significant fuel savings when i put it on cruise and RARELY feather the pedal. I get higher fuel savings when cruising around 85 mph then when "trying" to keep my foot steady @ 65 (both yield me around 30). I get ultra high fuel savings when doing 65 w/ cruise control (about 32+). I haven't tried drafting constantly, but it should help AS LONG as you do cruise control and try not to match the speed (since that involves feathering the pedal).

EDIT: w/ Mazda3 2.3.

my cruise control is stupid and 'floors it' uphill.

when i had a taurus i found that by keeping my foot at a constant position (and ignoring the effect that hills had on my speed) i got better mileage than using cruise.

:laugh: The entire purpose of the cruise control is to keep the car moving at a preset speed. It adjusts the throttle as necessary to do that as driving conditions warrant (altitude, hills, temperature, etc). You need more throttle going uphill to keep a constant speed vs. a flat road.

You may get a tiny bit better mileage keeping your foot position constant, but if you do this, inclines will scrub off your speed and you'll only end up pissing off other drivers behind you when you drop 15 mph going uphill.

It kills me how so many people spend all of their time worrying about squeezing out the absolute highest mpg possible - even pulling dangerous stunts like tailgating 18 wheelers or slowing down considerably on hills, etc. to do so - all in the name of 1-2 more MPG. And everyone seems OK with this. Yet, as soon as someone admits to going 10 mph over the limit, or (god forbid) has a single beer at a party and drives home - the lynch mob is here with their torches and pitchforks, calling for the offender's head.


Drinking and driving should be cause for a lynching. There is a reason, IT KILLS PEOPLE.

Inconveniencing people with poor driving habits is not nice.
Drinking and driving and possibly killing people is just a little up the "not nice" scale from that. If you don't understand why, then please find the nearest vertical dropoff and replicate DaVinci's flying machine.

So you think no deaths ever occur as a result of someone closely tailgating on the expressway, or road rage brought on by another's inconsiderate / rude driving habits? It may only rank as "not nice" in your book, but, whether you admit it or not, people die as a result of these things as well. However, there's no good way to measure the amount of accidents / deaths these cause, so all you will ever find is fuzzy estimates (if any at all) on incidents caused by this.

And the VAST majority of people who have one beer with dinner, or one beer at a party, etc , won't even be over the 0.08 legal limit once they get behind the wheel. Notice I said ONE drink - I'm obviously not advocating pounding down shots and then driving. Of course, there will always be an exception to every rule. I'm sure there probably is someone out there who gets a bit sloppy after one drink, although I've never personally met anyone like that. Even the smallest girls I know can handle one drink without acting any different.

Yet anytime someone posts something along the lines of having even a single drink and driving themselves home, there's always someone who comes out frothing at the mouth about "drunk driving" and how the poster should be hanged for it - and then a bunch of me too-ers and internet tough guys hot on their heels with similar posts. It's not so black-and-white as you make it out to be. There is a huge difference between someone who has one drink and drives, vs. someone who pounds a handle of vodka and gets behind the wheel, although from reading your post, you seem to lump these two very different scenarios in the same category.

And in the case that someone "never drinks" - well, I guess the obvious answer to that is, they shouldn't have to worry about it, right?


Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Black88GTA

:laugh: The entire purpose of the cruise control is to keep the car moving at a preset speed. It adjusts the throttle as necessary to do that as driving conditions warrant (altitude, hills, temperature, etc). You need more throttle going uphill to keep a constant speed vs. a flat road.

no sh!t, sherlock. that doesn't mean it should floor it and drop two gears every time it goes uphill.

On a steep grade, in order to keep the speed constant, sometimes this may be necessary. I have a hard time believing that this is the case on every slight incline though.
 

alimoalem

Diamond Member
Sep 22, 2005
4,025
0
0
Originally posted by: GoatMonkey
What they need to do is make trucks and trailers out of plexiglass so you can see through them when you're tailgating. Of course these trucks would also have to drive around with nothing in the trailer either. Or if you could get Wonder Woman to drive in front of you with her invisible truck that would work too.

if the truck is invisible, how would you know where 10-20ft behind the truck is? :p

and if wonder woman's driving the car, what are the chances you'll only be focusing 10-20ft in front o you ;)
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,393
8,552
126
Originally posted by: Black88GTA
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Black88GTA

:laugh: The entire purpose of the cruise control is to keep the car moving at a preset speed. It adjusts the throttle as necessary to do that as driving conditions warrant (altitude, hills, temperature, etc). You need more throttle going uphill to keep a constant speed vs. a flat road.

no sh!t, sherlock. that doesn't mean it should floor it and drop two gears every time it goes uphill.

On a steep grade, in order to keep the speed constant, sometimes this may be necessary. I have a hard time believing that this is the case on every slight incline though.
[/quote]
it'll do it up standard highway overpasses. no such thing as a steep grade in texas. like i said, it's stupid.
 

nweaver

Diamond Member
Jan 21, 2001
6,813
1
0
Originally posted by: Black88GTA
Originally posted by: nweaver
Originally posted by: Black88GTA
Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: DanTMWTMP
I get significant fuel savings when i put it on cruise and RARELY feather the pedal. I get higher fuel savings when cruising around 85 mph then when "trying" to keep my foot steady @ 65 (both yield me around 30). I get ultra high fuel savings when doing 65 w/ cruise control (about 32+). I haven't tried drafting constantly, but it should help AS LONG as you do cruise control and try not to match the speed (since that involves feathering the pedal).

EDIT: w/ Mazda3 2.3.

my cruise control is stupid and 'floors it' uphill.

when i had a taurus i found that by keeping my foot at a constant position (and ignoring the effect that hills had on my speed) i got better mileage than using cruise.

:laugh: The entire purpose of the cruise control is to keep the car moving at a preset speed. It adjusts the throttle as necessary to do that as driving conditions warrant (altitude, hills, temperature, etc). You need more throttle going uphill to keep a constant speed vs. a flat road.

You may get a tiny bit better mileage keeping your foot position constant, but if you do this, inclines will scrub off your speed and you'll only end up pissing off other drivers behind you when you drop 15 mph going uphill.

It kills me how so many people spend all of their time worrying about squeezing out the absolute highest mpg possible - even pulling dangerous stunts like tailgating 18 wheelers or slowing down considerably on hills, etc. to do so - all in the name of 1-2 more MPG. And everyone seems OK with this. Yet, as soon as someone admits to going 10 mph over the limit, or (god forbid) has a single beer at a party and drives home - the lynch mob is here with their torches and pitchforks, calling for the offender's head.


Drinking and driving should be cause for a lynching. There is a reason, IT KILLS PEOPLE.

Inconveniencing people with poor driving habits is not nice.
Drinking and driving and possibly killing people is just a little up the "not nice" scale from that. If you don't understand why, then please find the nearest vertical dropoff and replicate DaVinci's flying machine.

So you think no deaths ever occur as a result of someone closely tailgating on the expressway, or road rage brought on by another's inconsiderate / rude driving habits? It may only rank as "not nice" in your book, but, whether you admit it or not, people die as a result of these things as well. However, there's no good way to measure the amount of accidents / deaths these cause, so all you will ever find is fuzzy estimates (if any at all) on incidents caused by this.

And the VAST majority of people who have one beer with dinner, or one beer at a party, etc , won't even be over the 0.08 legal limit once they get behind the wheel. Notice I said ONE drink - I'm obviously not advocating pounding down shots and then driving. Of course, there will always be an exception to every rule. I'm sure there probably is someone out there who gets a bit sloppy after one drink, although I've never personally met anyone like that. Even the smallest girls I know can handle one drink without acting any different.

Yet anytime someone posts something along the lines of having even a single drink and driving themselves home, there's always someone who comes out frothing at the mouth about "drunk driving" and how the poster should be hanged for it - and then a bunch of me too-ers and internet tough guys hot on their heels with similar posts. It's not so black-and-white as you make it out to be. There is a huge difference between someone who has one drink and drives, vs. someone who pounds a handle of vodka and gets behind the wheel, although from reading your post, you seem to lump these two very different scenarios in the same category.

And in the case that someone "never drinks" - well, I guess the obvious answer to that is, they shouldn't have to worry about it, right?


Originally posted by: ElFenix
Originally posted by: Black88GTA

:laugh: The entire purpose of the cruise control is to keep the car moving at a preset speed. It adjusts the throttle as necessary to do that as driving conditions warrant (altitude, hills, temperature, etc). You need more throttle going uphill to keep a constant speed vs. a flat road.

no sh!t, sherlock. that doesn't mean it should floor it and drop two gears every time it goes uphill.

On a steep grade, in order to keep the speed constant, sometimes this may be necessary. I have a hard time believing that this is the case on every slight incline though.

I think aggressive driving/speeding/stupid drivers should be severely prosecuted as well. You are right, it's just as bad, that's why I don't speed, and drive pretty conservatively. I also don't talk on my phone. I've got voicemail or a shoulder to pull over on if I think it's important.