If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
Work = Force X Distance. So obviously it takes more force to drive
faster in a car, and the same distance is traveled regardless of how fast you are going. So if we reduce the speed limits we will save money and gas!!!! |
Ads |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
We are in the wall street journal now!!!
States Boost Speed Limits On Major Highways Moves Come Despite Concerns Over Safety, High Gas Prices; 80 Miles Per Hour in Texas By STEPHANIE CHEN, The Wall Street Journal With gasoline prices approaching an average of $3 a gallon and Middle East strife escalating, it might seem like a bad time to encourage drivers to burn even more fuel. But speed limits on stretches of freeways around the country are rising -- just in time for summer road trips. States around the country, including Texas and Michigan, have recently increased speed limits on hundreds of miles of interstate highways and freeways. Other states are expected to follow soon. Near Detroit, drivers long confronted by signs telling them to go no more than 55 miles per hour or 65 mph are seeing new signs with 70 mph speed limits. By November, cruising at 70 mph will be allowed on nearly 200 miles of road, including parts of Interstate 75 and M-59, a major suburban route. Texas has begun erecting 80 mph signs along 521 miles of I-10 and I-20 in 10 rural western counties, giving them the highest speed limit in the U.S. In September, Virginia is likely to boost the speed limit on I-85 near the North Carolina border to 70 mph from 65 mph. Driving faster may get people to their destinations more quickly, but it can also add to the rising cost of owning a car. The Department of Energy estimates that every five miles per hour a person drives above 60 mph costs an extra 20 cents a gallon, for a fuel-efficiency loss of 7% to 23%, depending on the type of car and gas. That's because higher speeds increase aerodynamic drag on a car, requiring more horsepower. Over a year, it costs roughly an additional $180 in gas to drive 75 mph instead of 60 mph, according to the Environmental and Energy Study Institute, which promotes energy efficiency and renewable energy. Bruce Jones, director of the Minnesota Center for Automotive Research at Minnesota State University in Mankato, calculates from federal data that driving 75 mph, rather than 65, would increase gas expenses by about $121 a year for a 2006 Pontiac G6 sedan and $217 for a Hummer. But lawmakers in Texas, Michigan and other states say that raising speed limits will make roads safer by restoring credibility to speed-limit signs and making driving speeds more uniform. While transportation engineers acknowledge that raising speed limits hurts fuel efficiency, they contend that careful studies of traffic flow and driver behavior show that many speed limits are actually too low. Most drivers who exceed these low speed limits are doing it safely. "In Texas, they are already going [80 mph] anyway," says Carlos Lopez, director of traffic operations at the Texas Department of Transportation. "People are driving where they feel comfortable." John Stinson, a home remodeler who lives in Mount Clemens, Mich., says the new 70 mph speed limit on the Van Dyke Expressway gives him an extra "cushion" during his commutes of as much as 200 miles throughout southeastern Michigan. "There won't be the slow people holding everyone up and the fast people weaving in and out," he says. It has long been thought that higher speed limits lead to more road fatalities. But the link has been disputed. Many modern roads are built to accommodate vehicles moving at faster speeds, and many drivers are now protected by front and side airbags. In 2005, the number of injuries per mile on the U.S. interstate-highway system fell to the lowest level since it was established by President Eisenhower in 1956, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. But Russ Retting, a senior transportation engineer at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, a research group funded by auto insurers, says fatality rates were 17% higher in states that raised speed limits from 1995 to 1999 than in states that didn't. "It's difficult to generalize information out of all the noise," says Karl Zimmerman, an assistant research engineer at Texas Transportation Institute, part of Texas A&M University, adding that many crashes are caused by weather, driver inattentiveness and road conditions that aren't connected to speed limits. Recent speed-limit increases in Indiana, Iowa, Michigan and Texas are the latest in a string of jumps dating back to the 1995 repeal of the nationwide 55 mph speed limit, mandated by Congress in 1974. More than a dozen states quickly gave drivers the freedom to push the pedal closer to the metal, especially in Western and Midwestern states with less congestion, scattered populations and wide, straight interstates. A total of 31 states now have a maximum speed limit of at least 70 mph, according to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Shaunee Lynch, spokeswoman for the Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, says the state agency hopes that lawmakers will agree early next year to raise the speed limit to 70 mph from the current 65 mph to keep up with surrounding states that already let drivers go that fast. Drivers aren't happy when signs at the border warn them to slow down, she says. In Louisiana, state Sen. Joe McPherson says he plans to revive his unsuccessful bill that would have raised the speed limit on Louisiana interstates to 75 mph from 70 mph and on limited-access freeways to 70 mph from 65 mph. "If 35 mph is more fuel-efficient than 55 mph, then why don't we all just drive 35 mph?" he says in response to fuel-efficiency critics. State lawmakers typically set statewide speed limits, with transportation officials determining which stretches of roads can safely handle faster-moving traffic. It isn't clear if the urge to increase speed limits on interstates will trickle down to smaller roads and streets, usually controlled by local officials. Speed limits for cars and trucks can vary, with Illinois restricting truck drivers to no more than 55 mph -- or 10 mph slower than the maximum interstate-highway speed for cars. A bid to increase the speed limit for trucks to 65 mph was vetoed by the Illinois governor in 2004. In Michigan, the speed limit for trucks will be raised to 65 mph by November -- but that still keeps them slower than cars. It is too soon to tell whether some speed demons will see rising speed limits as an excuse to go even faster. But Michigan transportation officials are encouraged by the results of boosting the speed limit on Interstate 69 near Flint to 70 mph last August. When the speed limit was 55 mph, about 1.8% of all vehicles zipped along at more than 80 mph. That fell to 1% after the change. July 20, 2006 |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
Don Stauffer wrote:
> > wrote: > > > > > It takes more energy to accelerate a mass to a higher speed. > > Air friction may require more energy to maintain that speed. > > Faster speed = shorter time for same distance. > > > > shorter time = fuel saved > > > > so go real real fast and save gas. > > > > * there is a flaw in this argument * > > > > Unfdortunately, the speed only changes specific fuel consumption > (gallons per hour) by first power of speed. Driving twice as fast > changes time spend only in half. Horsepower required, and hence fuel > consumption per unit time, goes up as CUBE of speed. Therefore, fuel > consumption on a miles traveled basis goes up as square of speed. > Simple algebra. Drive twice as fast to go somewhere and fuel > consumption due to air resistance doubles. Of course, the NET milage > does not double because there ARE first power type frictions, there is > the amount needed to generate kinetic energy, etc. > > So one must use calculus to compute INCREMENTAL change. In general, on a > per mile basis, i.e, mpg, it takes about 17% higher fuel consumption in > average car to drive 70 vs 60. Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour. It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster. -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ Live Faust, die Jung. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:15:31 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>Don Stauffer wrote: >> >> wrote: >> >> > >> > It takes more energy to accelerate a mass to a higher speed. >> > Air friction may require more energy to maintain that speed. >> > Faster speed = shorter time for same distance. >> > >> > shorter time = fuel saved >> > >> > so go real real fast and save gas. >> > >> > * there is a flaw in this argument * >> > >> >> Unfdortunately, the speed only changes specific fuel consumption >> (gallons per hour) by first power of speed. Driving twice as fast >> changes time spend only in half. Horsepower required, and hence fuel >> consumption per unit time, goes up as CUBE of speed. Therefore, fuel >> consumption on a miles traveled basis goes up as square of speed. >> Simple algebra. Drive twice as fast to go somewhere and fuel >> consumption due to air resistance doubles. Of course, the NET milage >> does not double because there ARE first power type frictions, there is >> the amount needed to generate kinetic energy, etc. >> >> So one must use calculus to compute INCREMENTAL change. In general, on a >> per mile basis, i.e, mpg, it takes about 17% higher fuel consumption in >> average car to drive 70 vs 60. >Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour. >It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more >then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster. That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
AZ Nomad wrote:
> [snip] > > >Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour. > >It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more > >then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster. > > That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do. Huh? Where'd you get that figure? Its the difference between the time saved and the fuel burned. If I spend 5 hours a week commuting but cut that in half by driving twice as fast, I might double my fuel cost. That's $45 more. But if I save 2.5 hours at $200 per hour, I'm still money ahead. Someone would have to make $18 an hour to break even with the above example. Poor people should drive slowly, rich people fast. Please keep right as I pass. -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ Real programmers don't draw flowcharts. Flowcharts are, after all, the illiterate's form of documentation. Cavemen drew flowcharts; look how much good it did them. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:07:03 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote:
>AZ Nomad wrote: >> >[snip] >> >> >Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour. >> >It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more >> >then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster. >> >> That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do. >Huh? Where'd you get that figure? Most people work 40 hours a week. If they spend 6 hours driving or 5, they get paid the same. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
AZ Nomad wrote:
> > On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:07:03 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. > wrote: > > >AZ Nomad wrote: > >> > >[snip] > >> > >> >Someone else calculated the cost of their gasoline consumption per hour. > >> >It came to something like $9.00 per hour. If one's billing rate is more > >> >then an order of magnitude higher than this, it still pays to go faster. > >> > >> That's only true if you have 168 billable hours per week to do. > > >Huh? Where'd you get that figure? > > Most people work 40 hours a week. If they spend 6 hours driving or > 5, they get paid the same. Time over 40 hours per week usually goes for 1.5 times the standard rate. At any rate, why does society feel it can take my property or my time without compensating me? If they want me to slow down, show me the money! -- Paul Hovnanian ------------------------------------------------------------------ Sleep is for wimps. Happy, healthy, well-rested wimps, but wimps nonetheless. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TAN: Speed Limits (was Ten Items or Less at Trader Joe's In Sunnyvale) | Don Klipstein | Driving | 0 | May 27th 06 06:00 AM |
LIDAR Trial this Week | [email protected] | Driving | 17 | April 9th 06 02:44 AM |
Why you should never buy a car without a tachometer | Ted B. | Driving | 112 | September 19th 05 04:09 AM |
Speed Bumps Ineffective at Slowing Street Traffic | Scott en Aztlán | Driving | 7 | September 3rd 05 03:48 AM |
What exactly is "left lane blocking"? | Magnulus | Driving | 406 | April 8th 05 03:49 AM |