Linflas
Lifer
- Jan 30, 2001
- 15,395
- 78
- 91
Actually "back in the day" the speed limits in most states were higher than they are today. Then congress stuck their collective noses where they didn't belong and after 15 or so years of people getting used to ignoring a law that no one obeyed they finally got smart and did away with it. What they couldn't do away with was a generation of drivers now used to the idea that breaking the law was not that big a deal, states wedded to an new revenue stream, and insurance companies with a nice new excuse to raise rates.
No.
Air resistance will always increase with speed. You can't get around that. You can make it more efficient at a higher speed, but you cannot make it most efficient at a higher speed.
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
I would like to see the proof of that, as far as I am aware this 55mph thing as being the most efficient speed is not true anymore. On my car computer thing, my most efficient speed is ~70mph.
I suppose Hillary knows best - or at least thinks she does.
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Originally posted by: Eli
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
It takes more energy, but you're also covering more distance. Obviously it would depend on the vehicle..
Babbles
Diamond Member
- Jan 4, 2001
- 8,253
- 14
- 81
Originally posted by: Eli
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
Due to the gear ratios, it doesn't necessarily require more energy to drive at 70mph as opposed to 55mph. Furthermore to use a truck as a sort of benchmark of fuel efficiency is rather silly.
I have a digital computer readout thingy in my car, and I clearly get much better mileage at around 70 as opposed to 55mph.
Hmm, I guess I forgot about the distance covered part, duh.. lolOriginally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Eli
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
Due to the gear ratios, it doesn't necessarily require more energy to drive at 70mph as opposed to 55mph. Furthermore to use a truck as a sort of benchmark of fuel efficiency is rather silly.
I have a digital computer readout thingy in my car, and I clearly get much better mileage at around 70 as opposed to 55mph.
I was thinking simply in terms of engine RPM.
jlee
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2001
- 48,518
- 223
- 106
Originally posted by: Eli
Hmm, I guess I forgot about the distance covered part, duh.. lolOriginally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Eli
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
Due to the gear ratios, it doesn't necessarily require more energy to drive at 70mph as opposed to 55mph. Furthermore to use a truck as a sort of benchmark of fuel efficiency is rather silly.
I have a digital computer readout thingy in my car, and I clearly get much better mileage at around 70 as opposed to 55mph.
I was thinking simply in terms of engine RPM.
Heh - if distance covered wasn't in the equation, I could just let my truck idle in third..
Doesn't matter to me. If it's true that the majority of the cars in America (not necessarily the cars owned by ATOTers) reach peak fuel efficiency at 55 mph then maybe she has a point to some extent. I don't really see a move like this impacting our dependancy on gas that significantly though. Mostly I see it making me five minutes late (later?) for work.
BoomerD
No Lifer
- Feb 26, 2006
- 66,289
- 14,709
- 146
Unfortunately, she's right...driving 55 WILL save gas...and lives, but making the change BACK to 55 would be nearly impossible...Most states fought to get away from 55 for years, and going back will really PO the voters...I remember how much sh!t was raised when they dripped them to 55 back in the early 70's...People wanted to impeach Nixon over that alone! when it was first proposed in 73, then Congress made it official in 74 or 75...
Random Variable
Lifer
- Aug 10, 2001
- 10,420
- 2
- 0
You'll only get better fuel economy dring at 70MPH than at 55 MPH if you're driving in a vacuum.
So will keeping everybody under house arrest, but I'd like to think that people should have the freedom to decide.
Originally posted by: Eli
Hmm, I guess I forgot about the distance covered part, duh.. lolOriginally posted by: Babbles
Originally posted by: Eli
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
Due to the gear ratios, it doesn't necessarily require more energy to drive at 70mph as opposed to 55mph. Furthermore to use a truck as a sort of benchmark of fuel efficiency is rather silly.
I have a digital computer readout thingy in my car, and I clearly get much better mileage at around 70 as opposed to 55mph.
I was thinking simply in terms of engine RPM.
Air resistance increases as a square of speed but distance travelled increases linearly.
If you double speed you square air resistance/energy use and double distance.. theoretically. It varies with gearing.
What I don't understand is why you don't get better highway mileage with taller tires.
Kaervak
Diamond Member
- Jul 18, 2001
- 8,460
- 2
- 81
Originally posted by: Eli
...
I don't really understand this.
It takes more energy to drive at 70MPH vs. 55MPH. Period.
What the reason be to see better fuel economy at 70 vs. 55?
I get 17MPG in my truck at 55-60, and 14 at 70-75.
It's not just the engine. Transmission gearing and vehicle aerodynamics are a big factor. My Saturn SL2 is the most fuel efficient at roughly 70MPH. I've gone through several tanks and different speeds trying to find the most fuel efficient ratio and 70 is it for me with almost all highway driving. Clinton saying 55 is more efficient for all cars, is completely wrong in my case. For trucks/SUVs/Minivans that's very possibly true, but I'd be wasting gas going slower.
If she's really serious about messing with the speed limits, base it on the vehicle's fuel efficieny. Whenever the car is taken in for it's emissions test, it gets dyno'd to find the best highway speed/fuel consumption ratio. Each car gets a window sticker stating the maximum speed the vehicle can travel on highways. Very overly elaborate and more trouble than it's worth, but if she really wants to curb the "Evil Empire's" oil profits there you go.
Another kiddie with a semester of cowboy physics under his belt that thinks he knows everything and that everything is an absolute. You are simply wrong.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter