How do you people speed so easily??

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: Accipiter22
Maybe it's just harder in Massachusetts....I've never been in a group doing more than 75 together. EVER. and EVERYONE I know who's been pulled over doing above 85 has gotten arrested and towed.

they don't call it "taxichusetts" for nothing.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
People do it because they can and get away with a slap on the wrist if they get caught. Speeding wastes fuel (cars are horribly inefficient as it is) causes emissions to increase and is dangerous to the fools that choose to do so as well as victims they may claim if they crash.

If they started arresting speeders on the spot, take their car to the steel mill for bessemer processing (all in front of them) perhaps they would slow down. :laugh:

Ah, so YOU'RE the left-lane-bandit that I swerved around this morning!

(j/k)

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I lose like 1 mpg between 65 and 100. that point is no longer accurate for modern cars.

Don't be fooled.

 

[slvrsol]

you better be in the far right lane if you are going anything less than 80 in socal.

 

[giantpinkbunnyhead]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Speeding wastes fuel (cars are horribly inefficient as it is) causes emissions to increase

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't take any more energy to keep a car moving at 100MPH than it does it does to keep it moving at 50MPH. If you're talking about simply driving fast, rather than 'racing' around (which involves large and repeated accelarations), I don't think it's more inefficient than driving slowly.

/Edit: spidey beat me to it...

Ok, to correct you... if you double your speed, you get a fourfold increase in parasite drag and induced drag. These forms of drag are caused by the shape of your rig... it's cross section, it's mirrors, antennas, whatever. in other words, drag = wind resistance. But the reason this harsh hit is diminished so much is due to the aerodynamics, gearing, and various other factors that car companies have employed. But if you do a one-for-one, all factors equal, comparison test, you'd find very different results than only losing a few mpg between, say, 50 and 100.

Another deceptive statistic is the mpg figure when comparing speeds. a gallons-per-hour would be more appropriate. This is why commercial aviation uses gph instead of mpg. It's a better gauge for engine performance. Say you got 20 mpg at both 50 and at 100 mph. You'd think no extra work is being done... but consider that at 100 mph, you'll burn through 5 gallons of gas in that hour. At 50mph, you'd only burn up 2.5 gallons of gas in that hour. In both cases your engine runs for an hour, but it required double the fuel to maintain the higher speed.

 

[CellarDoor]

The stupid part about speeding is that most of the time you don't end up getting anywhere quicker (unless you are going long distances). I generally drive around 70 in a 65, and 50 in a 45 and most of the people that pass me, I end up seeing at the exit, or the next traffic light. I always wondered if they feel stupid for weaving through traffic, and then seeing the cars they passed right behind them at the light.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I lose like 1 mpg between 65 and 100. that point is no longer accurate for modern cars.

Don't be fooled.

That graph shows milage dropping off at around 60MPH. I'm guessing that's because the bottom of most cars 5th gear is at about 60. If your car is designed to go faster than that, and so has more and wider gears, it will be efficient at higher speeds.

It's not really about the speed, it's about the car.

 

[mwtgg]

I was on I-476 (Blue Route) a week or two ago in the left-most lane doing 80 (in a 55). The cop was sitting there and continued to sit there once I passed him. Although, since that experience, I've been seeing a LOT more cops on the roads. The good thing about PA's highways/interstates, at least in this area, is that there's no room for a shoulder for a cop to hide, so it becomes quite obvious where the cops COULD hide.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I lose like 1 mpg between 65 and 100. that point is no longer accurate for modern cars.

Don't be fooled.

meh, I drive 150 miles to work round trip. I reset the computer each time. I deal with very little traffic. For the gearing of my car, there isn't much difference between 65 and 100.

65 is too low for 6th, 100 is just right for 6th. Either way, the difference in MY car with my commute is negligble.

First hand experinence vs. the intarweb for the freakin win.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I drive 150 miles to work round trip. I reset the computer each time. I deal with very little traffic. For the gearing of my car, there isn't much difference between 65 and 100.

65 is too low for 6th, 100 is just right for 6th. Either way, the difference in MY car with my commute is negligble.

First hand experinence vs. the intarweb for the freakin win.

Safety issues aside, the logistics in the long run will not add up. It's just outside of the engineering design. Cars were just not made to do those kinds of speeds on a long term basis. There are a few that can but I'm betting yours is not one of them.

 

[WENEEDLIGHT]

Originally posted by: rpc64
My friend got out of a 100mph speeding ticket before

mine got a 120 mph speeding ticket

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I drive 150 miles to work round trip. I reset the computer each time. I deal with very little traffic. For the gearing of my car, there isn't much difference between 65 and 100.

65 is too low for 6th, 100 is just right for 6th. Either way, the difference in MY car with my commute is negligble.

First hand experinence vs. the intarweb for the freakin win.

Safety issues aside, the logistics in the long run will not add up. It's just outside of the engineering design. Cars were just not made to do those kinds of speeds on a long term basis. There are a few that can but I'm betting yours is not one of them.

time is money, honey. 90-100 is cruising speed and I'll gladly give up 1-2 mpg.

 

[Rubycon]

Originally posted by: spidey07

time is money, honey. 90-100 is cruising speed and I'll gladly give up 1-2 mpg.

:music:

Just a song before I go,
To whom it may concern.
Travelling twice the speed of sound
It's easy to get burned.

When the shows were over
We had to get back home,
And when we opened up the door
I had to be alone.

She helped me with my suitcase,
She stands before my eyes
Driving me to the airport,
And to the friendly skies.

Going through security
I held her for so long.
She finally looked at me in love,
And she was gone.

Just a song before I go,
A lesson to be learned.
Travelling twice the speed of sound
It's easy to get burned.

:music:

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Speeding wastes fuel (cars are horribly inefficient as it is) causes emissions to increase

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't take any more energy to keep a car moving at 100MPH than it does it does to keep it moving at 50MPH. If you're talking about simply driving fast, rather than 'racing' around (which involves large and repeated accelarations), I don't think it's more inefficient than driving slowly.

/Edit: spidey beat me to it...

Ok, to correct you... if you double your speed, you get a fourfold increase in parasite drag and induced drag. These forms of drag are caused by the shape of your rig... it's cross section, it's mirrors, antennas, whatever. in other words, drag = wind resistance. But the reason this harsh hit is diminished so much is due to the aerodynamics, gearing, and various other factors that car companies have employed. But if you do a one-for-one, all factors equal, comparison test, you'd find very different results than only losing a few mpg between, say, 50 and 100.

Another deceptive statistic is the mpg figure when comparing speeds. a gallons-per-hour would be more appropriate. This is why commercial aviation uses gph instead of mpg. It's a better gauge for engine performance. Say you got 20 mpg at both 50 and at 100 mph. You'd think no extra work is being done... but consider that at 100 mph, you'll burn through 5 gallons of gas in that hour. At 50mph, you'd only burn up 2.5 gallons of gas in that hour. In both cases your engine runs for an hour, but it required double the fuel to maintain the higher speed.

but you went twic as far, and got there twice as fast....😕

 

[newParadigm]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I drive 150 miles to work round trip. I reset the computer each time. I deal with very little traffic. For the gearing of my car, there isn't much difference between 65 and 100.

65 is too low for 6th, 100 is just right for 6th. Either way, the difference in MY car with my commute is negligble.

First hand experinence vs. the intarweb for the freakin win.

Safety issues aside, the logistics in the long run will not add up. It's just outside of the engineering design. Cars were just not made to do those kinds of speeds on a long term basis. There are a few that can but I'm betting yours is not one of them.

6 Speed Mazda 6 Wagon? oooh yeah that can.

 

[spidey07]

Dawn,

As the love of my life and incredibly sharp person you are...

Do the math.

 

[thomsbrain]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I drive 150 miles to work round trip. I reset the computer each time. I deal with very little traffic. For the gearing of my car, there isn't much difference between 65 and 100.

65 is too low for 6th, 100 is just right for 6th. Either way, the difference in MY car with my commute is negligble.

First hand experinence vs. the intarweb for the freakin win.

Safety issues aside, the logistics in the long run will not add up. It's just outside of the engineering design. Cars were just not made to do those kinds of speeds on a long term basis. There are a few that can but I'm betting yours is not one of them.

i drive 80 MPH every chance i get. i once AVERAGED 82 MPH on a 400-mile trip, including stopping for gas and getting caught in a giant traffic jam.

see sig for my car and mileage. oh yeah, i got 26 MPG on that 400-mile blaster. EPA highway for my car: 27 MPG.

 

[IronWing]

Originally posted by: slvrsol
you better be in the far right lane if you are going anything less than 80 in socal.

You've got to be kidding. I just spent time driving through California. Between the trucks moving at 55 and damn near everyone else putting along in the left lane it made for the most frustrating trip I've done in years. By the time I got off I-5 I wanted to find a way to insult each person in California personally for that stupid split 55/70 speed limit.


For those who haven't had the unpleasant experience of trying to get anywhere in Cal, they have this dumbass law that trucks can only go 55 while everybody else gets to go 70. This means that every mile or so a truck going 55 passing another truck pulls out into the left lane slowing everybody down to 55. To make matters worse, this has trained Californians to drive in the left lane no matter how slow they are going.

 

[bunnyfubbles]

If you know your area you can get away with it; there are some bridges or overpasses where cops simply can't camp out and you can hit those stretches at ridiculous speeds just for kicks.

 

[fatpat268]

Originally posted by: newParadigm

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Speeding wastes fuel (cars are horribly inefficient as it is) causes emissions to increase

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't take any more energy to keep a car moving at 100MPH than it does it does to keep it moving at 50MPH. If you're talking about simply driving fast, rather than 'racing' around (which involves large and repeated accelarations), I don't think it's more inefficient than driving slowly.

/Edit: spidey beat me to it...

Ok, to correct you... if you double your speed, you get a fourfold increase in parasite drag and induced drag. These forms of drag are caused by the shape of your rig... it's cross section, it's mirrors, antennas, whatever. in other words, drag = wind resistance. But the reason this harsh hit is diminished so much is due to the aerodynamics, gearing, and various other factors that car companies have employed. But if you do a one-for-one, all factors equal, comparison test, you'd find very different results than only losing a few mpg between, say, 50 and 100.

Another deceptive statistic is the mpg figure when comparing speeds. a gallons-per-hour would be more appropriate. This is why commercial aviation uses gph instead of mpg. It's a better gauge for engine performance. Say you got 20 mpg at both 50 and at 100 mph. You'd think no extra work is being done... but consider that at 100 mph, you'll burn through 5 gallons of gas in that hour. At 50mph, you'd only burn up 2.5 gallons of gas in that hour. In both cases your engine runs for an hour, but it required double the fuel to maintain the higher speed.

but you went twic as far, and got there twice as fast....😕

Exactly. You get there twice as fast, so how many gph your engine uses is irrelevant if it uses twice as much.

 

[rh71]

flow of traffic +5mph or so... when it looks like a good cop-hiding spot... ease off the gas.

 

[OS]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn

Originally posted by: spidey07

meh, I drive 150 miles to work round trip. I reset the computer each time. I deal with very little traffic. For the gearing of my car, there isn't much difference between 65 and 100.

65 is too low for 6th, 100 is just right for 6th. Either way, the difference in MY car with my commute is negligble.

First hand experinence vs. the intarweb for the freakin win.

Safety issues aside, the logistics in the long run will not add up. It's just outside of the engineering design. Cars were just not made to do those kinds of speeds on a long term basis. There are a few that can but I'm betting yours is not one of them.

don't make stuff up

 

[AznAnarchy99]

Originally posted by: giantpinkbunnyhead
Depends where you live I guess. I remember the flow of traffic on the I-5 just north of L.A. frequently being 90 mph, even going into rush hour. Hell even the rigs were doing 80 it seemed. I think it you got dinged for 100 when the flow of traffic was 90, the judge would hardly find it an arrestable offense? Then again, I never got ticketed for more than 93 so I can't comment on that.

I was just on that freeway and i was going 90 but everyone else was still passing me

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
Safety issues aside, the logistics in the long run will not add up. It's just outside of the engineering design. Cars were just not made to do those kinds of speeds on a long term basis. There are a few that can but I'm betting yours is not one of them.

80mph is out of the engineering design? Hundreds of thousands of decades-old cars in perfect running order would like to disagree with you.

If anything's "outside of the engineering design," it's a few minutes of stop-and-go driving, followed by parking the car for a month.

As for safety, I'll agree with you above 10, 15 over the limit in good weather. But 6-8 over is THE safest speed under most conditions.

 

[Christobevii3]

Originally posted by: MS Dawn
People do it because they can and get away with a slap on the wrist if they get caught. Speeding wastes fuel (cars are horribly inefficient as it is) causes emissions to increase and is dangerous to the fools that choose to do so as well as victims they may claim if they crash.

If they started arresting speeders on the spot, take their car to the steel mill for bessemer processing (all in front of them) perhaps they would slow down. :laugh:

Cars are more effecient speeding than stop and go traffic