I Need A Little Help With This

With the insanely rising cost of gasoline and the indications that there is no end in sight, I've been hearing a lot of talk about reducing the national speed limit to 55 mph. It seems to be universally understood that driving slower conserves fuel and reduces the amount of nasty emissions we're spewing into the atmosphere. Theoretically, it's perfectly understandable but I've never quite been able to subscribe to this philosophy and I'm looking for a little feedback.

If I drive an hour at an average of 65 mph and you drive an hour at 55 mph, you are clearly preserving more fuel than me. That's as simple as you can get. However, most people don't get in cars just to drive around aimlessly. I'm guessing 99.999999% of car trips are made with a destination in mind. With that being said, let's now say that I'm driving at an average of 65 mph to a destination that's 65 miles away. You drive to the same destination at 55 mph. After an hour I have reached my destination but clearly wasted more fuel and did more damage to the environment. Meanwhile, you still have like another 10.5 minutes of fuel-wasting, environment-killing activity while my car isn't doing a damn thing, but I'm the boogey man???

Call me crazy, but I would think the fuel you burn at a higher speed would be directly proportionate to the amount of fuel your saving by not having your car running as long as the other slowpokes. What am I missing here?

Comments

[Mr. Kruger]

What am I missing here?

The time differential is not contingent on the fuel consumption if your going the same distance. Driving 10mph over the speed increases fuel consumption by 20%.

[SL22]

This is Hillary's retarded "solution" to the gas crisis.

Also, yes, Jerloma, you are doing more damage to the environment that way, as Kruger says. I just choose to think that it is negligible.

[soupnazi]

you're not missing anything here--this blanket statement is like all others-full of shit!! Back in the days of the old 55, my 82 Omni got 26 mpg at 55 and 30 mpg at 65. I tested it over and over again until I was ready to kill! Virtually every vehicle has its own efficiency "sweet spot", and those saying otherwise are full of crap!

[Mr. Kruger]

Back in the days of the old 55, my 82 Omni got 26 mpg at 55 and 30 mpg at 65.

Thanks for the laugh.

[Bethany]

Right on!
Let's apply your theory and up the speed limit to 75! I seriously cannot imagine going backward, speed-wise; 55 always feels so dreadfully slow.

From a policy perspective, it seems STUPID to set the speed limit be reflective of gas prices or fuel economy. Speed limits should be based on safe driving speeds. Better policy would to be to provide increased financial incentives for municipalities to increase mass transit, or promotion of and tax incentives for carpooling. Ideally, high gas prices will make hummer-driving assholes rethink their purchases, but probably not, as I truly believe the hummer-drivers are beyond rational thought. Higher gas prices do encourage people to consider fuel economy when purchasing a vehicle (well, everyone except the hummer-driving a**holes), and also deters them from making unnecessary trips. (not that I'm a fan of $4.00/gal!)

If the government really wants to be productive, they could mandate fuel efficiency standards stricter and faster than the current timeline.

Or, if you really want to think-left, nationalize that sector of the market and regulate the prices, much the way the government used to regulate other areas?

[SL22]

Most people that can afford a Hummer can afford the $4 gas. It's not like the have to start putting liquid platinum in it or something.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Kruger got it right -- the relationship between fuel consumption and speed isn't linear. If it was, we could drive 110 everywhere and it wouldn't make a lick of difference.

Here in Ontario -- where gasoline is, on average, $4.83 per American gallon -- organizations of truck drivers have decided to drop their speed a few km/h in order to save on fuel costs. So, I don't think it'd be that unreasonable for people to drop a few miles per hour in order to do the same thing... as long as they're the ones choosing to do so. Let's just hope people have the common sense to do that, though.

[phil]

I think soup has a good point here, and I do recall the argument back in that time that a slower speed, depending on the vehicle, did not make a significant difference in mileage, and also left the vehicle on the road longer. Again, I might defer to Kruger for research about this, because he seems good at it and because it's the lazy thing to do. I should get over that I suppose.

SL22 makes an excellent point that, for the most part, the Hummer people, and their peers, don't really care about the cost of fuel. It isn't an issue for them, more like an annoyance. As Bethany says, they suck. I'm not sure that a surcharge per gallon based on the model of vehicle it's pumped into shouldn't be considered before a lower speed limit. We all know people won't observe the limit anyway. Either approach is really too much government in fact.

The whole oil price issue at present is one of scarcity economics, and appears to be more based on a perceived shortage than a real one. It is an excuse to jack up the price of a barrle, and the price of a gallon at the pump. Any additional tax on the oil companies, as a function of their mega-profits, is just coming back to us as consumers.

The highly inconvenient solution is really to take yourself out of the equation in some manner, either with public transportation or with some kind of alternative vehicle, either a really high mileage internal combustion power plant, a hybrid, or an electric. I have a plan in this regard for myself. It is inevitable that we simply have to get away from oil dependence, and that isn't happening quickly.

I will ask my friend, who is a somewhat disguntled engineer for a Japanese auto maker, what his take is on the speed limit thing, and I'll post his comment.

[Mr. Kruger]

I think the question Vandelay asked was "how does driving slower save gas." I believe he merely wanted to get some facts straightened out- of which a simple google search could have provided the answers but of course he's way too busy for that so I obliged him.
As far as policy is concerned I think Bethany and Phil provide some great ideas. I would add there needs to be a huge initiative put in place by Congress and the Administration to fund and support programs that would develop technologies that use alternative energy sources. Without a big change there isn't going to be any change at this point.

[phil]

Absolutely. There is legislation that has been boiled and re-boiled, and things attached, that have been an effort in that direction. HR 550 was an example of an aggressive position as far as the encouragement of alternate energy. It died in committee. GW has threatened to veto some of these proposals. The limited federal tax support for solar installation, both commercial and residential, is funded by a program which will expire 12/08. The deal is still not done to extend or expand this funding.

Why is this not a no-brainer, guys? Germany, of all places, is way up on this.

[Art Vandelay]

Stupid curves.

[Mr. Kruger]

Why is this not a no-brainer, guys?

Big oil- they own the government- all 3 branches of it.
I'm not sure of the bill number but I do know that in Michigan the State's House Committee on Energy and Technology passed a bill to increase renewable energy production to 10% of the total produced. Not much, but at leasts some states are heading in the right direction. The federal government the other hand, as you noted Phil, has failed miserably in this area.
It's amazing how an issue as important as this and that affects everyone nationally, globally, economically, politically, and environmentally is being spearheaded by a measley few states as everyone in Washington is running away from it as fast as they can.

[phil]

Hopefully others are still checking this thread.

Kruger is spot on. It's all about who is who's pocket. Fuck the nation. Nobody seems to have a vision and is willing to stand up for it, perhaps at some risk of position. The US has claimed to be a world leading environmental champion. Puh-leeze.

By the way, as promised, I had dinner with my friend the automotive engineer. He did say that, generally speaking, MPG is increased with a slower speed at constant velocity. This breaks down going higher and lower.

He also said it is likely that some powerplants and their gearing would not have the same performance, and would do better at a higher speed. Also, if you own a car recommended for premium gasoline, that buying the cheap gas actually may reduce efficiency. If your car is recommended for premium fuel, use it.

He said a lot of other shit that blew way past me. He's a pretty smart guy.