|
Green Party lunacy
"Redonda" wrote in message ... In my Honda with its 2 litre, 12-valve, computer-controlled fuel-injection I can reach 80mph on a motorway with very little throttle movement and then ease off the gas until I'm just feathering the pedal to maintain that speed. In this way I get better fuel consumption than in the urban cycle. There's no public road in this septic isle that will allow me to use full throttle at maximum torque. In town traffic I can do the same, ie keep in a higher gear at lower revs/speed (20mph in 5th gear) and still be able to accelerate smoothly with just a twitch of my right toes. The only thing that adversely affects consumption is driving in London (and other major cities in the rush-hour) where the stop/go/stop conditions force me to use 1st gear most of the time. Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. |
Green Party lunacy
W K wrote:
snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). -- Phil ,,,^.".^,,, --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004 |
Green Party lunacy
"Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). No science then. Just figures that you think you remember. What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Do you have any idea. |
Green Party lunacy
W K wrote:
"Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). No science then. Just figures that you think you remember. What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Do you have any idea. Enlighten me. -- Phil ,,,^.".^,,, --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004 |
Green Party lunacy
"MeatballTurbo" wrote in message
t... In article , says... "Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). No science then. Just figures that you think you remember. What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Define modern define standard? Can you be anymore vague? Are we talking Smart car or Maybach (both modern Mercedes cars)? Are we talking fully loaded, or single driver occupant? See level or on the M62 over the pennines? Also: when the engine is cold just after starting (viscous engine oil, richer fuel/air mixture) or after it's been running a while and the temperature has stablised. Let's take the definition of modern car to be: - Ford Focus 1.6i Zetec (petrol) and 1.8 TDCi (diesel), manual - both 100 hp - warm engine: cooling system at normal operating temperature - one person in car, no luggage - at approx sea level - no head-/tail-wind - figures for steady 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70 mph |
Green Party lunacy
"Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: "Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). No science then. Just figures that you think you remember. What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Do you have any idea. Enlighten me. I don't actually know. YOU made an assertion that pollution would be greater at 20 than at 40 or 50. If that assertion has any basis of truth, you could do with telling us. |
Green Party lunacy
"MeatballTurbo" wrote in message WK What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Define modern define standard? Can you be anymore vague? Are we talking Smart car or Maybach (both modern Mercedes cars)? Are we talking fully loaded, or single driver occupant? Any facts at all would be useful. See level or on the M62 over the pennines? It was related to london |
Green Party lunacy
Redonda wrote:
W K wrote: "Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). No science then. Just figures that you think you remember. What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Do you have any idea. Enlighten me. That's the whole point! Without actually measuring, nobody seems to have a clue whether fuel consumption will be more or less in different gears or revs. The best I can do personally is to apply my scientific knowledge to the situation, but I don't state things like they are facts when I don't have any! Anyone feel like fitting some sort of flow rate thingy to their fuel line? |
Green Party lunacy
W K wrote:
"Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: "Redonda" wrote in message ... W K wrote: snip Ah, I see. Made up figures then with no facts. No, not 'made up' figures. Just *my* personal experience in 37 years of driving including road rallying (in the '60s and '70s with the RAF Motor Sport Association), 7 1/2 ton trucks and small van deliveries (multi-drop and long distance). When I've worked for companies with fleets of similar vehicles I was always able to get better mpg than all the other drivers by using some of the techniques employed by drivers in the old Mobil Economy Run (does anyone know if the MER - or its equivalent - still takes place?). No science then. Just figures that you think you remember. What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Do you have any idea. Enlighten me. I don't actually know. YOU made an assertion that pollution would be greater at 20 than at 40 or 50. If that assertion has any basis of truth, you could do with telling us. I doubt there are any facts behind that comment. Try this for a laugh, swim 10 lengths as fast as you can, then 10 lengths quite slowly. Which one do you think you've used most energy for? Which has produced more heat "pollution"? I know cars are very different, but you still have the basic mechanics of pushing an object through a fluid at speed. |
Green Party lunacy
"W K" wrote in message
... I don't actually know. YOU made an assertion that pollution would be greater at 20 than at 40 or 50. If that assertion has any basis of truth, you could do with telling us. http://www.naei.org.uk/other/vehicle_emissions_v2.xls ought to be the place to look, but it is not as extensive, nor clear as the london-research speed data used to be, which showed pollution per km is best around 45mph (except NOx) |
Green Party lunacy
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... I don't actually know. YOU made an assertion that pollution would be greater at 20 than at 40 or 50. If that assertion has any basis of truth, you could do with telling us. http://www.naei.org.uk/other/vehicle_emissions_v2.xls ought to be the place to look, but it is not as extensive, nor clear as the I presume thats from the TRL. Rather a complex thing to trawl through, I'll get my calculator out, or ask my mate Paul. london-research speed data used to be, which showed pollution per km is best around 45mph (except NOx) Perhaps because in london, any road where you are going less than 40 is horrendously stop start. |
Green Party lunacy
W K ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Enlighten me. I don't actually know. YOU made an assertion that pollution would be greater at 20 than at 40 or 50. If that assertion has any basis of truth, you could do with telling us. The easiest way to get an approximation would be to look at the old-style fuel economy figures - urban, constant 56 are probably close enough to what we want for this. The constant 56 figures were always WAY better than the urban ones. That's a good indication that there's a lot less pollution at free-moving speed. |
Green Party lunacy
scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : Try this for a laugh, swim 10 lengths as fast as you can, then 10 lengths quite slowly. Which one do you think you've used most energy for? I know cars are very different Erm, yes. but you still have the basic mechanics of pushing an object through a fluid at speed. I don't often drive through "fluid", and my car has more than one gear. A fairer example would be cycling. Cycle ten miles, on the flat, at a certain pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a low gear. Now cycle ten miles, on the flat, at the same pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a higher but still comfortable gear. See the point yet? If you're cruising (low throttle opening) in a car in a highish gear, at low revs, that's bound to emit less pollution for a given journey than similar revs in a lower gear at lower speed - because those revs are being used for far less time. Assuming the engine's running fairly light loads, the emissions per minute will be close enough to equal to make no difference, but if you do the journey in half the time.... |
Green Party lunacy
"W K" wrote in message
... london-research speed data used to be, which showed pollution per km is best around 45mph (except NOx) Perhaps because in london, any road where you are going less than 40 is horrendously stop start. Even supposing that the research was London specific, where could you average 38mph and be horrendously stop start? |
Green Party lunacy
"Adrian" wrote in message . 1.4... W K ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : What is the fuel consumption of a modern, standard CAR at 20, 30 and 40? Enlighten me. I don't actually know. YOU made an assertion that pollution would be greater at 20 than at 40 or 50. If that assertion has any basis of truth, you could do with telling us. The easiest way to get an approximation would be to look at the old-style fuel economy figures - urban, constant 56 are probably close enough to what we want for this. The constant 56 figures were always WAY better than the urban ones. That's a good indication that there's a lot less pollution at free-moving speed. Complete ********. The urban figures simulate stop-start driving, the steady 56 _did_ not. |
Green Party lunacy
"Adrian" wrote in message . 1.4... scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Try this for a laugh, swim 10 lengths as fast as you can, then 10 lengths quite slowly. Which one do you think you've used most energy for? I know cars are very different Erm, yes. but you still have the basic mechanics of pushing an object through a fluid at speed. I don't often drive through "fluid", and my car has more than one gear. A fairer example would be cycling. Cycle ten miles, on the flat, at a certain pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a low gear. Now cycle ten miles, on the flat, at the same pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a higher but still comfortable gear. See the point yet? Yes, the second is far far better for you. There will be lower forces on legs and muscles. If you're cruising (low throttle opening) in a car in a highish gear, at low revs, that's bound to emit less pollution for a given journey than similar revs in a lower gear at lower speed - because those revs are being used for far less time. This assumes the same throttle position. In all but the slowest of speeds (see below), this will not be the case. Assuming the engine's running fairly light loads, the emissions per minute will be close enough to equal to make no difference, but if you do the journey in half the time.... The speed where this happens is far from obvious. As I stated elsewhere, the only place I have seen such things discusses was by people who loved their monstorous 4x4s |
Green Party lunacy
W K ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : As I stated elsewhere, the only place I have seen such things discusses was by people who loved their monstorous 4x4s *Bzzzzt* I can't stand "monstrous 4x4s" |
Green Party lunacy
Adrian wrote:
scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : Try this for a laugh, swim 10 lengths as fast as you can, then 10 lengths quite slowly. Which one do you think you've used most energy for? I know cars are very different Erm, yes. but you still have the basic mechanics of pushing an object through a fluid at speed. I don't often drive through "fluid", Really? Mastered the art of driving through solids or in a vacuum have you? ;-) and my car has more than one gear. A fairer example would be cycling. Cycle ten miles, on the flat, at a certain pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a low gear. Now cycle ten miles, on the flat, at the same pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a higher but still comfortable gear. See the point yet? Yes, if I go fast cycling I get hot and knackered. I get there quicker but I've used more energy. If I take it slowly I don't get hot and hence don't give off as much "heat" pollution. On my bike I can get to about 20mph for a few minutes at a time, if I drop that to 15mph I can go for *much* longer. If you're cruising (low throttle opening) in a car in a highish gear, at low revs, that's bound to emit less pollution for a given journey than similar revs in a lower gear at lower speed - because those revs are being used for far less time. Yes, but you'll be using less petrol. A lower speed = less power from the engine. This = less pollution. Assuming the engine's running fairly light loads, the emissions per minute will be close enough to equal to make no difference, How do you work that one out? If I'm using more power to go faster, surely I need to be using more petrol? As air resistance increases with speed squared, the amount of petrol used goes up quite quickly once you get to higher speeds. |
Green Party lunacy
"Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... london-research speed data used to be, which showed pollution per km is best around 45mph (except NOx) Perhaps because in london, any road where you are going less than 40 is horrendously stop start. Even supposing that the research was London specific, where could you average 38mph and be horrendously stop start? A580 within the M60 could well fit the bill. Are there many roads within london where you can do an average 38? I was going to say 30. I'd still be interested how they got the information. |
Green Party lunacy
scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : I don't often drive through "fluid", Really? Mastered the art of driving through solids or in a vacuum have you? ;-) How hard IS it raining where you are? It's quite sunny here. A fairer example would be cycling. Cycle ten miles, on the flat, at a certain pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a low gear. Now cycle ten miles, on the flat, at the same pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a higher but still comfortable gear. Yes, if I go fast cycling I get hot and knackered. As I said, in a *comfortable* gear. On my bike I can get to about 20mph for a few minutes at a time, if I drop that to 15mph I can go for *much* longer. So let's assume a very low gear and walking speed, and 10-15mph. If you're cruising (low throttle opening) in a car in a highish gear, at low revs, that's bound to emit less pollution for a given journey than similar revs in a lower gear at lower speed - because those revs are being used for far less time. Yes, but you'll be using less petrol. A lower speed = less power from the engine. This = less pollution. But the engine's turning at the same speed for both. I explicitly said that. Yes, there's a certain amount more load in the higher gear, but I also explicitly stated that we weren't talking about a high load situation akin to your 20mph on your bike. How do you work that one out? If I'm using more power to go faster, surely I need to be using more petrol? As air resistance increases with speed squared, the amount of petrol used goes up quite quickly once you get to higher speeds. Which is cancelled out by the higher efficiency of being in a higher gear. Obviously, there's a point where that's not true, but almost any car will sit at 40mph or so with virtually no throttle. Try it. |
Green Party lunacy
"Adrian" wrote in message . 1.4... W K ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : As I stated elsewhere, the only place I have seen such things discusses was by people who loved their monstorous 4x4s *Bzzzzt* I can't stand "monstrous 4x4s" Discussed by people who seemed to be quoting actual figures or research. |
Green Party lunacy
"W K" wrote in message
... "Nick Finnigan" wrote in message ... "W K" wrote in message ... london-research speed data used to be, which showed pollution per km is best around 45mph (except NOx) Perhaps because in london, any road where you are going less than 40 is horrendously stop start. Even supposing that the research was London specific, where could you average 38mph and be horrendously stop start? Are there many roads within london where you can do an average 38? I don't know. I was going to say 30. I'd still be interested how they got the information. Unfortunately, www.london-research.co.uk seems to have disappeared of the face of the world. |
Green Party lunacy
scott wrote:
How do you work that one out? If I'm using more power to go faster, surely I need to be using more petrol? As air resistance increases with speed squared, the amount of petrol used goes up quite quickly once you get to higher speeds. As I've said before, it depends on the car/engine. My top speed is 130mph (not had it above 120 - but still plenty of puff left), so at motorway speeds it's running around 4000rpm (80-ish) with virtually no throttle applied. A smaller engined car will usually not have much in hand at those speeds - notice what happens when a small car starts to overtake at the bottom of a hill. It will usually run out of power and drop back. Same in town. Smaller engined car drivers are up and down the gearbox to make progress at speeds varying from 10 to 30mph where I can stay *comfortably* in 3rd gear through all that range without creating huge gaps or having to brake sharply. So. Whose engine is working harder? -- Phil ,,,^.".^,,, --- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.648 / Virus Database: 415 - Release Date: 31/03/2004 |
Green Party lunacy
Adrian wrote:
scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : I don't often drive through "fluid", Really? Mastered the art of driving through solids or in a vacuum have you? ;-) How hard IS it raining where you are? It's quite sunny here. Eh? I assume you realise that air is a fluid and I'm missing something obvious here... A fairer example would be cycling. Cycle ten miles, on the flat, at a certain pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a low gear. Now cycle ten miles, on the flat, at the same pedal cadence (engine rpm) in a higher but still comfortable gear. Yes, if I go fast cycling I get hot and knackered. As I said, in a *comfortable* gear. On my bike I can get to about 20mph for a few minutes at a time, if I drop that to 15mph I can go for *much* longer. So let's assume a very low gear and walking speed, and 10-15mph. If you're cruising (low throttle opening) in a car in a highish gear, at low revs, that's bound to emit less pollution for a given journey than similar revs in a lower gear at lower speed - because those revs are being used for far less time. Yes, but you'll be using less petrol. A lower speed = less power from the engine. This = less pollution. But the engine's turning at the same speed for both. I explicitly said that. Yes, there's a certain amount more load in the higher gear, but I also explicitly stated that we weren't talking about a high load situation akin to your 20mph on your bike. Well fair enough, but there will still be more power being generated at higher speeds. THe power required = force required times speed. The times speed bit sorts out the "you'll be going for a shorter time" argument, so it's purely down to the force. If the force were constant for all speeds, then the pollution for a give journey would be constant no matter how fast you went. The force however increases with speed so the faster you go the more energy is used. This is the same for travelling through any fluid (ie force proportional to speed^2). How do you work that one out? If I'm using more power to go faster, surely I need to be using more petrol? As air resistance increases with speed squared, the amount of petrol used goes up quite quickly once you get to higher speeds. Which is cancelled out by the higher efficiency of being in a higher gear. Obviously, there's a point where that's not true, but almost any car will sit at 40mph or so with virtually no throttle. Try it. Ah, the efficiency of the engine, I'm glad you mention that! What's the efficiency in the two situations you describe then? How does that compare with the difference in power/force at two different speeds? (Hint: the efficiency of petrol engines varies by very little across their working range, eg compared to humans...) |
Green Party lunacy
Redonda wrote:
scott wrote: How do you work that one out? If I'm using more power to go faster, surely I need to be using more petrol? As air resistance increases with speed squared, the amount of petrol used goes up quite quickly once you get to higher speeds. As I've said before, it depends on the car/engine. My top speed is 130mph (not had it above 120 - but still plenty of puff left), so at motorway speeds it's running around 4000rpm (80-ish) with virtually no throttle applied. A smaller engined car will usually not have much in hand at those speeds - notice what happens when a small car starts to overtake at the bottom of a hill. It will usually run out of power and drop back. Same in town. Smaller engined car drivers are up and down the gearbox to make progress at speeds varying from 10 to 30mph where I can stay *comfortably* in 3rd gear through all that range without creating huge gaps or having to brake sharply. So. Whose engine is working harder? Well assuming both drive the same speed, the bigger car is probably generating more power as it has to shift more weight around. Assuming both engines are equally efficient, the bigger car is therefore generating more pollution. At constant speeds the power will be closer matched, although the bigger car probably has more drag, so again, bigger car makes more pollution. |
Green Party lunacy
scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying : So. Whose engine is working harder? Well assuming both drive the same speed, the bigger car is probably generating more power as it has to shift more weight around. Yet the bigger engine may well be running at much lower load. Assuming both engines are equally efficient, the bigger car is therefore generating more pollution. At constant speeds the power will be closer matched, although the bigger car probably has more drag, so again, bigger car makes more pollution. Not so. It's far easier to make a large car more aerodynamic than a short one, both in terms of pure aerodynamics and in terms of packaging. Frontal area comes into play via CdA, but there's not that huge a difference between the frontal area of a short car and a long one where both are required to offer similar interior space, as the long car doesn't have to be as tall. In short, it's impossible to say. |
Green Party lunacy
On 6 Apr 2004 08:23:45 GMT, Adrian
wrote (more or less): scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : So. Whose engine is working harder? Well assuming both drive the same speed, the bigger car is probably generating more power as it has to shift more weight around. Yet the bigger engine may well be running at much lower load. Assuming both engines are equally efficient, the bigger car is therefore generating more pollution. At constant speeds the power will be closer matched, although the bigger car probably has more drag, so again, bigger car makes more pollution. Not so. It's far easier to make a large car more aerodynamic than a short one, both in terms of pure aerodynamics and in terms of packaging. Frontal area comes into play via CdA, but there's not that huge a difference between the frontal area of a short car and a long one where both are required to offer similar interior space, as the long car doesn't have to be as tall. In short, it's impossible to say. Of course, aerodynamics don't come into play until high speeds are reached. (IIRC air resistance dominates over rolling resistance from about 60mph) At low and medium speeds, rooling resistance is more significant. In which weight /does/ play a significant part. Cheers, Euan Gawnsoft: http://www.gawnsoft.co.sr Symbian/Epoc wiki: http://html.dnsalias.net:1122 Smalltalk links (harvested from comp.lang.smalltalk) http://html.dnsalias.net/gawnsoft/smalltalk |
Green Party lunacy
Adrian wrote:
scott ) gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying : So. Whose engine is working harder? Well assuming both drive the same speed, the bigger car is probably generating more power as it has to shift more weight around. Yet the bigger engine may well be running at much lower load. What do you mean by "load"? In absolute terms, the heavier car's engine will always be developing more power to make it move the same as a lighter car. If you mean what % of maximum power though, that is going to depend on the power to weight ratio of the car. I thought this was about pollution and emissions, in which case I think the raw amount of fuel burnt would be the main factor. Just look at the fuel economy factors for little cars and big cars! Assuming both engines are equally efficient, the bigger car is therefore generating more pollution. At constant speeds the power will be closer matched, although the bigger car probably has more drag, so again, bigger car makes more pollution. Not so. It's far easier to make a large car more aerodynamic than a short one, both in terms of pure aerodynamics and in terms of packaging. Frontal area comes into play via CdA, but there's not that huge a difference between the frontal area of a short car and a long one where both are required to offer similar interior space, as the long car doesn't have to be as tall. In short, it's impossible to say. I agree, you'd have to measure the drag on two cars, you can't say that all big cars create more drag than smaller cars or vice versa. Longer cars do tend to have a bigger frontal area though IMO, otherwise they'd look silly like a stretch-mini or something! More importantly though, anytime you want to accelerate the lighter car will always use less power. |
Green Party lunacy
scott wrote:
How do you work that one out? If I'm using more power to go faster, surely I need to be using more petrol? That depends how much more power you're using and how much faster you're going. As air resistance increases with speed squared, the amount of petrol used goes up quite quickly once you get to higher speeds. Assuming you're measuring by distance, the amount of energy used to overcome air resistance is proportional to speed squared. However there are other factors to consider. The amount needed to accelerate a car is proportional to the speed you're accelerating to (minus the speed you're accelerating from) and IIRC rolling resistance is proportional to the distance travelled. Then there's the energy needed to keep the engine turning (which is proportional to the time taken, so you use more if you go more slowly. However, the characteristics of engines vary widely - for each design, efficiency varies differently according to speed, load, and how hard you accelerate them. Until you know how they do, you won't be able to determine anything much. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 02:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk