Searching \ for '[OT] Website Critique - request for help' in subject line. ()
Make payments with PayPal - it's fast, free and secure! Help us get a faster server
FAQ page: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=website+critique
Search entire site for: 'Website Critique - request for help'.

Exact match. Not showing close matches.
PICList Thread
'[OT] Website Critique - request for help'
2008\04\15@092547 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
So my wife and I are launching a new website regarding the benefits of
driving more slowly, and I'm hoping that you have a little bit of time
to check it out and give me your thoughts, comments, and critiques:

http://www.driveslowly.org

We're not expecting to make any money off it, but I was surprised at
how much I save by going 5-10mph slower than usual, and I wanted to
try out a new webhost and Drupal 5.  If it pays for itself (under $200
per year) I'll consider it successful.  But even if it doesn't I'll
have vetted a hosting service, learned a bit more about Drupal
development, and it'll have been worth it.

So let me know what you think, and feel free to pick apart the numbers
presented, or point out areas where I don't fully explain my
reasoning.  While it's primary audience won't be engineers, I do want
it to pass reasonable scrutiny.

Thanks in advance!

-Adam

--
Drive slowly - save money, gas, the environment, and lives.
http://www.driveslowly.org

2008\04\15@095309 by Neil Cherry

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> So my wife and I are launching a new website regarding the benefits of
> driving more slowly, and I'm hoping that you have a little bit of time
> to check it out and give me your thoughts, comments, and critiques:
>
> http://www.driveslowly.org

> So let me know what you think, and feel free to pick apart the numbers
> presented, or point out areas where I don't fully explain my
> reasoning.  While it's primary audience won't be engineers, I do want
> it to pass reasonable scrutiny.

I saw that site yesterday but I'd like to argue that if I
lower my average speed by 5 mph that I'll probably lose mpg (I
haven't fully tested that theory). Reason being that I don't
travel via the highways but rather as direct a route with as
few stops as possible (there are no highways between home and
work). My avg. speed is probably pretty close to the point
where the car was designed to get the best gas mileage.

I will attest to the validity of the point on using the speed
control. I have a 1996 Saturn wagon with manual transmission.
I just did a measurement on mpg and I get 35.5 mpg. I usually
get between 35 and 36 mpg when measured. I do this to tell me
the health of the car. BTW, I can get up to 38 mpg with highway
travel.

I will try to use the other points (a more full tank, etc) and
see where it gets me.

And before anyone gets too high and mighty, I'm working on
commuting (20 mile, one way). I hope to achieve at least one
week this summer where I commute by bike for 5 days straight.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       spam_OUTncherryTakeThisOuTspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\04\15@101906 by John Gardner

picon face
Looks good. Every bit helps...

best regards, Jack

2008\04\15@103509 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> So my wife and I are launching a new website regarding the
> benefits of
> driving more slowly, and I'm hoping that you have a little
> bit of time
> to check it out and give me your thoughts, comments, and
> critiques:
>
> http://www.driveslowly.org

The following may be of interest:

McMahon empirical formula for pedestrian-car fatalities
(reasonably accurate)

   Pedestrian death rate on impact ~~=     V^2/25 %

V in mph

eg    30 mph    -> 900/25 = 36%
       40 mph    -> 1600/25 = 64%
       50 mph    -> 2500/25 = 100%

Above 50% you die more than once :-)
Statistical mean. Some are lucky and some aren't.
But the 30 mph to 40 mph change is enlightening.
_____________________________

McMahon empirical stopping formula.
Assumption - brakes remove energy at constant rate.
Zero reaction time.
Works well enough to be impressive.

If you can JUST stop in time at Velocity1 then, if you are
travelling faster at Velocity2 your impact speed will be.

Vimpact = sqrt (V2^2 - V1^2)

eg if you are travelling at 30 mph and can JUST stop, if the
car next to you is doing 40 mph, what speed will they hit
the truck / obstacle / pedestrian at?

   Vimpact = (40^2-30^2)^0.5 = 26 mph
   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hard to believe, but close enough to correct.

Both the above are related to the fact that vehicle energy
rises as V^2 but that brakes tend to work at about constant
energy.

Adding reaction times makes the impact velocity figure
worse.
Adding brake fade etc makes it worse as well.

In the stopping example above, if the obstacle is a child
chasing a ball, if the 30 mph car just stops in time, the 40
mph car will kill the child about

    26^2/25 =~~ 25% of the time.



       Russell McMahon




{Original Message removed}

2008\04\15@111744 by Tamas Rudnai

face picon face
> eg if you are travelling at 30 mph and can JUST stop, if the
> car next to you is doing 40 mph, what speed will they hit
> the truck / obstacle / pedestrian at?
>
>   Vimpact = (40^2-30^2)^0.5 = 26 mph
>   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I guess it also depends on many things as well, overall weight of the
vehicle, type of brakes, tyres etc. I am always looking at the drivers
maintaining high speed with small cars as they have less protection but the
matter of fact they can stop earlier than me with my full "armoured" one.
Also my ABS acts as driving on an ice in emergency situations, and I do not
like that at all as I won't be able to stop one day. I will do 30mph, the
other 40 but it will be actually me who will hit that child.

With the site: Looks good and is useful I think. What I was thinking of is
that I could not find info on maintaining steady speed over stop n' go
impacting the fuel consumption which I thing would be interesting to see as
well. Also could be nice to see some studies on relaxed or stress less
driving from a psychiatrist / psychologist.

Tamas



On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Apptech <.....apptechKILLspamspam@spam@paradise.net.nz> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

> {Original Message removed}

2008\04\15@120133 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Adam,

That's a very interesting idea and good web site.

With a very brief look, two items:

1) You say that the force of impact rises "exponentially" with speed.
I assume you mean that it goes up as v^2, which is not exponential.
Exponential would be if it went up as q^(a*v) where q and a are
constants.

2) How do you calculate the savings of driving 10mph slower in your
online calculator? I would think that it would depend on how fast you
are driving to begin with and the characteristics of your vehicle. For
example, there is some gas used even at idle, so there must be some
speed below which you actually get LESS miles per gallon than if you
went faster.

Sean


On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM, M. Adam Davis <stienmanspamKILLspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

>  --

2008\04\15@123539 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
> 2) How do you calculate the savings of driving 10mph
> slower in your
> online calculator? I would think that it would depend on
> how fast you
> are driving to begin with and the characteristics of your
> vehicle. For
> example, there is some gas used even at idle, so there
> must be some
> speed below which you actually get LESS miles per gallon
> than if you
> went faster.


FWIW, energy used to overcome air resistance increases as
the cube of velocity and becomes the predominant energy sink
as speed increases.
Also FWIW very roughly

       Power = 0.5. Rho. Cd. V^2. A. V.

I've put V in in two terms as they come from separate
considerations.
   Rho = air density (about 1.3 kg/m^2)
   Cd = drag coefficient. 1 for a flat plate
   V = velocity
   A = projected frontal area.
Up until and including A you get drag in Newtons (for mksA
units).
The last V turns this into energy rate
The formula is surprisingly good in real life.
Determining Cd is an issue.
Start with 1.0
Good cars are around 0.3? Some seem to think they can get
less or far less.


In good old days autocar tests where they track tested cars
at various speeds and graphed them my recollection is that
the mpg figure always rose with decreasing mph. YMMV.



     Russell McMahon

2008\04\15@144722 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis escribió:
> So my wife and I are launching a new website regarding the benefits of
> driving more slowly, and I'm hoping that you have a little bit of time
> to check it out and give me your thoughts, comments, and critiques:
>
> http://www.driveslowly.org
>
> We're not expecting to make any money off it, but I was surprised at
> how much I save by going 5-10mph slower than usual, and I wanted to
> try out a new webhost and Drupal 5.  If it pays for itself (under $200
> per year) I'll consider it successful.  But even if it doesn't I'll
> have vetted a hosting service, learned a bit more about Drupal
> development, and it'll have been worth it.

Every small step is good.  If we, the 6 thousand million
inhabitants of this world made a small step in reducing
power consumption the environment will rewards us with a
better, more predictable and more sane world.

A better approach I think are the hybrid cars or not so
powerful engines.  I noticed that american cars have two or
three times the volume of whats is common in the rest of the
world (asia, europe, latin america).

A common car engine has a volume that varies from 1.6 to 2.5
litres, which is 98 to 153 cubic inches.  American ones
double that size.  This has an almost direct impact on fuel
consumption.

A common car will consume less about 2 gallons / 7.5 litres
per 60 miles/100Km.  A common-rail engine can consume a
little bit more than a gallon per 60miles/100km.

Driving slow is off course a great approach, but the fact is
that you could drive faster with a more efficient (and not
more expensive) car and produce even better results.

As I said before, every step counts but consider decreasing
the size of the engines is also something to help.


BTW simple but nice site ;)

Good luck with it. If you feel interested check that now
there's drupal 6.2 around ;)


--
------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgiovagnini

2008\04\15@171542 by Richard Prosser

picon face
And then if I'm doing 10mph (16km/hr) less than the speed limit on a
road and have a good tailback of cars behind me, then I'm saving the
country even more gas as I'm reducing their consumption also!

Possibly caravans (trailers) are not so bad after all. :-)


RP


On 16/04/2008, Mauricio Giovagnini <.....maugiovagniniKILLspamspam.....yahoo.com.ar> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

> -

2008\04\15@173108 by Sean Breheny

face picon face
Hi Russell,

I agree with your drag calculations but:

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Apptech <EraseMEapptechspam_OUTspamTakeThisOuTparadise.net.nz> wrote:
>  In good old days autocar tests where they track tested cars
>  at various speeds and graphed them my recollection is that
>  the mpg figure always rose with decreasing mph. YMMV.

It cannot continue to rise as mph goes to zero, so there must be some
point where it stops making sense to drive slower for greater
efficiency.

Sean


>
>
>
>       Russell McMahon
>
>  --
>

2008\04\15@192539 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
>>  In good old days autocar tests where they track tested
>> cars
>>  at various speeds and graphed them my recollection is
>> that
>>  the mpg figure always rose with decreasing mph. YMMV.

> It cannot continue to rise as mph goes to zero, so there
> must be some
> point where it stops making sense to drive slower for
> greater
> efficiency.

Agree in theory.
Practical limit may be lower than matters.

A Jet Boat (invented in NZ in the 1950s by a farmer who
rather had his life changed) is most efficient, by some
numerical measures,  when stationary :-)


       Russell

2008\04\15@202801 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Neil Cherry <ncherryspamspam_OUTcomcast.net> wrote:
>  I saw that site yesterday but I'd like to argue that if I
>  lower my average speed by 5 mph that I'll probably lose mpg (I
>  haven't fully tested that theory). Reason being that I don't
>  travel via the highways but rather as direct a route with as
>  few stops as possible (there are no highways between home and
>  work). My avg. speed is probably pretty close to the point
>  where the car was designed to get the best gas mileage.

It's buried two links away from the front page, but we do have a page
addressing that issue:
http://driveslowly.org/7/speed-limit-efficiency

For most cars, peak efficiency ends up near 55mph.  There's a quick
drop in efficiency if you go faster, and a very mild drop in
efficiency as you go slower until about 25mph, at which point it's a
quick drop again.

So yes, if you're already traveling between 50 and 60 you're probably
not going to get much better than you have now.

{Quote hidden}

Nice!  I am now 30 miles from work and can no longer use the bike as
transportation, but when I could it was a very nice way to stay in
shape and save a chunk of money on car related expenses...

-Adam

2008\04\15@203405 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:17 AM, Tamas Rudnai <@spam@tamas.rudnaiKILLspamspamgmail.com> wrote:
>  With the site: Looks good and is useful I think. What I was thinking of is
>  that I could not find info on maintaining steady speed over stop n' go
>  impacting the fuel consumption which I thing would be interesting to see as
>  well. Also could be nice to see some studies on relaxed or stress less
>  driving from a psychiatrist / psychologist.

My limited reading leads me to believe that the difference between
stop and go is what is described on the sticker as city vs highway.
Maintaining a steady speed will always use less energy than stop and
go because your not using any energy to heat up brakes and overcome
static friction.

Modern hybrids overcome much of that difference by putting the energy
into a battery instead of the brakes, but there's still conversion
efficiency to overcome.

The EPA changed it's mpg rating tests to take into account this and
several other things the car manufacturers were doing to optimize
their engine control units to perform well on the EPA tests, and now
the hybrids aren't getting as high a rating - still better than other
cars, but the slightly more realistic usage test shows just how
much/little cars have improved over the years.

I, too, would like to see more about relaxation and stress.  I find I
have less instances of unhappiness as I travel along, and I have more
time to listen to various podcasts, so for me it's less stressful.

-Adam

2008\04\15@205736 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:00 PM, Sean Breheny <KILLspamshb7KILLspamspamcornell.edu> wrote:
>  1) You say that the force of impact rises "exponentially" with speed.
>  I assume you mean that it goes up as v^2, which is not exponential.
>  Exponential would be if it went up as q^(a*v) where q and a are
>  constants.

You're right, I'll put that in my list of items to fix.

>  2) How do you calculate the savings of driving 10mph slower in your
>  online calculator? I would think that it would depend on how fast you
>  are driving to begin with and the characteristics of your vehicle. For
>  example, there is some gas used even at idle, so there must be some
>  speed below which you actually get LESS miles per gallon than if you
>  went faster.

You know what, it appears I didn't save the article I got that number
from!  Which really galls me, as I suspect it's what got me going on
this subject in the first place.  Now I'm going to have to tear my
computers apart trying to find it - Google isn't helpful.

The upshot was that after some extensive testing, it was determined
that for the average car, they got 4mpg better gas mileage for every
10mph they reduced speed until 60mph.  This included both boxy suvs
and sports cars, oddly enough.

Still, there is some variation, and it's simply an estimate of
possible savings.  But it's significant if it's even half that for a
particularly efficient car.

-Adam

2008\04\15@205948 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Thank you to everyone who looked and responded, your comments are
appreciated!  I didn't respond to everything, but I'mm keeping notes
and will incorporate your ideas.  We're just launching in time for
Earth Day, and we'll certainly  be adding more topics as we go along
(such as more efficient cars, etc).

Driving more slowly is something that a lot of people can do right now
without significant effort, so it's a small, but worthwhile, first
step.

-Adam

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:25 AM, M. Adam Davis <RemoveMEstienmanTakeThisOuTspamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/

Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com

Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/

2008\04\15@212241 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
Whew!  I found it - from money.cnn.com.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/03/26/autos/slow_down_save_gas/

----------Quote----------
Every 10 mph faster reduces fuel economy by about 4 mpg, a figure that
remains fairly constant regardless of vehicle size, Clark said. (It
might seem that a larger vehicle, with more aerodynamic drag, would
see more of an impact. But larger vehicles also tend to have larger,
more powerful engines that can more easily cope with the added load.)
----------Quoted---------

So, while it's dumbed down a bit, it sounds like the physically larger
engines are slightly better at energy efficiency (and they have to be
to avoid the dreaded single digit sticker mpg rating!), which offsets
the larger air resistance.

But again, 4mpg is conveniently round, and the best measure is doing
the testing yourself.  There are a lot of ultra mpg groups that
compete, which I'm going to tap into as well - they may have some
interesting information on car type vs possible savings...

-Adam

On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 8:57 PM, M. Adam Davis <spamBeGonestienmanspamBeGonespamgmail.com> wrote:
{Quote hidden}

--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Moving in southeast Michigan? Buy my house: http://ubasics.com/house/

Interested in electronics? Check out the projects at http://ubasics.com

Building your own house? Check out http://ubasics.com/home/

2008\04\15@214907 by Apptech

face
flavicon
face
Lessee.
On windage alone at cube law the power for 50 and 60 mph are
in the ratio of 50^3:60^3 = 1:1.7 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Even some pretty fierce more linear mechanical rolling
losses make that a substantial amount.

30:40    2.4
40:50    2
50:60    1.7
60:70    1.6

The faster you drive the less you save by slowing down by 10
mph :-)

It would be interesting to model a mix of cube, square,
linear and constant factors and see what mix gave closest to
measured reality and why.

We drive on trips at open road speed limit here - 100 kph.
Just over 60 mph.
Main vehicle for trips is a slightly thirsty turbo
Mitsubishi Chariot 2litre.
About 23 mpg imperial. (~20 mpg US?)
>From the above I'd expect a > 4 mpg gain by travelling at 50
mph.

Would be interesting to see.


{Quote hidden}

       Russell


2008\04\15@214951 by Martin K

face
flavicon
face
Sean Breheny wrote:
> It cannot continue to rise as mph goes to zero, so there must be some
> point where it stops making sense to drive slower for greater
> efficiency.
>
> Sean
>
>
>  
As a point of reference, my hybrid's mileage drops off significantly if
traveling below 15 MPH. Peak MPG occurs around 50-55 MPH in my car.
-
Martin

2008\04\15@222235 by Roger, in Bangkok

face
flavicon
face
FireFox + Zotero will alleviate that pain :-))
http://www.zotero.org/documentation/quick_start_guide

Regards/Roger, in Bangkok

On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 7:57 AM, M. Adam Davis <RemoveMEstienmanspamTakeThisOuTgmail.com> wrote:

{Quote hidden}

2008\04\15@224802 by Neil Cherry

picon face
Sean Breheny wrote:
> Hi Russell,
>
> I agree with your drag calculations but:
>
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Apptech <apptechEraseMEspam.....paradise.net.nz> wrote:
>>  In good old days autocar tests where they track tested cars
>>  at various speeds and graphed them my recollection is that
>>  the mpg figure always rose with decreasing mph. YMMV.
>
> It cannot continue to rise as mph goes to zero, so there must be some
> point where it stops making sense to drive slower for greater
> efficiency.

I'm guessing that it somewhere near the shift point for the highest
gear of the transmission. Mine is close to 45 mph (a 5 spd trans).

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       EraseMEncherryspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\04\15@230716 by Neil Cherry

picon face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 9:52 AM, Neil Cherry <RemoveMEncherryEraseMEspamEraseMEcomcast.net> wrote:
>>  I saw that site yesterday but I'd like to argue that if I
>>  lower my average speed by 5 mph that I'll probably lose mpg (I
>>  haven't fully tested that theory). Reason being that I don't
>>  travel via the highways but rather as direct a route with as
>>  few stops as possible (there are no highways between home and
>>  work). My avg. speed is probably pretty close to the point
>>  where the car was designed to get the best gas mileage.
>
> It's buried two links away from the front page, but we do have a page
> addressing that issue:
> http://driveslowly.org/7/speed-limit-efficiency

Thanks, that's just what I need! Most people don't believe me
when I tell them I get the mileage I get.

> For most cars, peak efficiency ends up near 55mph.  There's a quick
> drop in efficiency if you go faster, and a very mild drop in
> efficiency as you go slower until about 25mph, at which point it's a
> quick drop again.
>
> So yes, if you're already traveling between 50 and 60 you're probably
> not going to get much better than you have now.

Sounds like I might be able to get 38 on the highway over great
distances.

>>  And before anyone gets too high and mighty, I'm working on
>>  commuting (20 mile, one way). I hope to achieve at least one
>>  week this summer where I commute by bike for 5 days straight.
>
> Nice!  I am now 30 miles from work and can no longer use the bike as
> transportation, but when I could it was a very nice way to stay in
> shape and save a chunk of money on car related expenses...

Thirty miles is quite doable if you can maintain your speed on
the bike. I'm good with the trailer. A few more tries and I'll
be able to keep 16+ mph over 20 miles and 1040 ft of climb (that's
more than most of my centuries). I wouldn't try 30 every day
but I've done it in the past (twice a week). Of course NY City is
only ~30 miles away but there is no safe way to get into the
city at that distance.

I hope to do at least one week where I ride into work for five
straight days. That will be a 300+ week as I lead centuries
on Saturdays during the summer.

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       RemoveMEncherryspam_OUTspamKILLspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\04\15@232428 by Herbert Graf

flavicon
face

On Tue, 2008-04-15 at 22:47 -0400, Neil Cherry wrote:
> Sean Breheny wrote:
> > Hi Russell,
> >
> > I agree with your drag calculations but:
> >
> > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 12:35 PM, Apptech <RemoveMEapptechTakeThisOuTspamspamparadise.net.nz> wrote:
> >>  In good old days autocar tests where they track tested cars
> >>  at various speeds and graphed them my recollection is that
> >>  the mpg figure always rose with decreasing mph. YMMV.
> >
> > It cannot continue to rise as mph goes to zero, so there must be some
> > point where it stops making sense to drive slower for greater
> > efficiency.
>
> I'm guessing that it somewhere near the shift point for the highest
> gear of the transmission. Mine is close to 45 mph (a 5 spd trans).

In my experience most vehicles are designed to get maximum efficiency
pretty much near the 75-85km mark. Gearing obviously is a factor, but
it's not necessarily the "shift point" since shift points are not static
but depend on throttle position, load, engine temp, etc. Never mind the
fact that with a standard transmission you are the one choosing the
shift point.

For example, I once had an Olds Delta 88 with a 4 speed automatic, with
a locking torque converter. If you modulated the gas peddle just right
you could get it to shift into 4th (overdrive) and lock the torque
converter at about 68kmh.

I have an OBDII device called "Scan Gauge" which gives me live data on
fuel mileage. On both a 2001 Subaru Legacy (2.5L 4 cyl boxer engine),
and my current 2007 Toyota Matrix (1.8L, inline 4) (both 5 speed stick
shift) my best mileage is when I drive a constant 75-85kmh, any faster
and my average drops, slightly at first, dramatically when I push.

In case anyone is interested, some numbers I've collected on my 07
Matrix:

Best ever fuel economy: drove about 150kms at a steady 85kmh: 5.8L/100km
"Normal" warm weather economy (driving steady, mix of 85 and 110kmh):
~6.3L/100km
"Driving quick on the freeway", warm weather economy (going steady about
120km/h) ~6.8L/100km

Note the "warm weather" factor, in the winter I get consistently
1L/100km worse then these numbers (i.e. I rarely see better then
6.8L/100km in the winter).

TTYL

2008\04\15@234457 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 11:07 PM, Neil Cherry <EraseMEncherryspamspamspamBeGonecomcast.net> wrote:
> > Nice!  I am now 30 miles from work and can no longer use the bike as
> > transportation, but when I could it was a very nice way to stay in
> > shape and save a chunk of money on car related expenses...
>
> Thirty miles is quite doable if you can maintain your speed on
> the bike. I'm good with the trailer. A few more tries and I'll
> be able to keep 16+ mph over 20 miles and 1040 ft of climb (that's
> more than most of my centuries). I wouldn't try 30 every day
> but I've done it in the past (twice a week). Of course NY City is
> only ~30 miles away but there is no safe way to get into the
> city at that distance.
>
> I hope to do at least one week where I ride into work for five
> straight days. That will be a 300+ week as I lead centuries
> on Saturdays during the summer.

It's not an issue of distance - A few years ago I was doing ultra
marathon cycling, and would regularly train for 60 miles at a time,
and race for a few hundred miles.  Time to get the bike out and plan
for a race, but I've got so much other stuff on my plate...

When I was only 10 miles from work I was able to get into good enough
shape to average 18mph each way (often 19-20 one way with the wind and
17-18 the other way against the wind).

But even if I can get up to a 20mph average, which is unlikely, it'll
still be 3 hours of cycling a day, and I can't afford that.  With a 10
mile distance, though, bicycling was nearly as fast as driving.

Plus, no showers at work.  :-P

-Adam

2008\04\16@050451 by Alan B. Pearce

face picon face
>And then if I'm doing 10mph (16km/hr) less than the speed limit on a
>road and have a good tailback of cars behind me, then I'm saving the
>country even more gas as I'm reducing their consumption also!

To which my response is - not necessarily.

My Ford Focus is geared such that I find I have to be in a gear lower than I
would like to travel around 30 and 40 mph areas. I am not sure if it is just
the differential/gear ratios selected, or the engine power curve (turbo
diesel), but unfortunately it does need to be above 2000 rpm to feel that it
is far enough up the power curve.

So if I come up behind you, and need to change down a gear to stay on the
power curve, I doubt you are saving me fuel.

2008\04\16@103847 by Mauricio Giovagnini

flavicon
face
Herbert Graf escribió:
> I have an OBDII device called "Scan Gauge" which gives me live data on
> fuel mileage. On both a 2001 Subaru Legacy (2.5L 4 cyl boxer engine),
> and my current 2007 Toyota Matrix (1.8L, inline 4) (both 5 speed stick
> shift) my best mileage is when I drive a constant 75-85kmh, any faster
> and my average drops, slightly at first, dramatically when I push.
>
> In case anyone is interested, some numbers I've collected on my 07
> Matrix:
>
> Best ever fuel economy: drove about 150kms at a steady 85kmh: 5.8L/100km
> "Normal" warm weather economy (driving steady, mix of 85 and 110kmh):
> ~6.3L/100km
> "Driving quick on the freeway", warm weather economy (going steady about
> 120km/h) ~6.8L/100km
>
> Note the "warm weather" factor, in the winter I get consistently
> 1L/100km worse then these numbers (i.e. I rarely see better then
> 6.8L/100km in the winter).

Yes Herbert I agree.  Your data is in the range to the
averages values that I posted.   Here in Argentina its the
same.  We have similar engines with similar power
consumptions (1.6L to 2.5L engines).

Some vehicles like AUDI A3 Turbo Diesel wiht 1.8L and about
125HP can accomplish a similar fuel consumption at 140km/h



--
------------------------------
Mauricio Giovagnini (Maunix)
http://www.maunix.com.ar
Cordoba, Arg.
LinkedIn Profile: http://www.linkedin.com/in/mgiovagnini

2008\04\18@130600 by Vitaliy

flavicon
face
M. Adam Davis wrote:
> But even if I can get up to a 20mph average, which is unlikely, it'll
> still be 3 hours of cycling a day, and I can't afford that.  With a 10
> mile distance, though, bicycling was nearly as fast as driving.
>
> Plus, no showers at work.  :-P

I was going to ask you both about this last part... how do you manage to not
offend your co-workers with your body odor?

2008\04\18@162701 by Neil Cherry

picon face
Vitaliy wrote:
> M. Adam Davis wrote:
>> But even if I can get up to a 20mph average, which is unlikely, it'll
>> still be 3 hours of cycling a day, and I can't afford that.  With a 10
>> mile distance, though, bicycling was nearly as fast as driving.
>>
>> Plus, no showers at work.  :-P
>
> I was going to ask you both about this last part... how do you manage to not
> offend your co-workers with your body odor?
>

I assume that this was also directed at me. Well one way is to take
a shower. :-) I have access to a shower where I work. But I did
visit one location where they didn't have a shower. I had to take
an alcohol bath. That was cold! I hate cold. I wouldn't recommend it
for rides over 15 miles. One problem that I do experience after my
rides is that once I've stopped I need to wait about an hour to
cool down (literally). I could go and shower but I'll continue`to
sweat for at least one hour. This is not so bad in the winter but
in the summer it means I can completely soak what ever I put on
after a shower.

Oh, to avoid offending my coworkers I avoid my coworkers. :-)

Generally I'll ride in early in the morning and do a quick
wipe down. Then grab something to eat and drink while waiting
to cool down. I can answer emails, prepare documents, review
data, prepare for new tests. Once I've cooled I'll go and shower.
Of course it's nice to have an office to leave things to dry (I'll
rinse the bike cloths as they're usually soaked from riding, even
in the winter).

--
Linux Home Automation         Neil Cherry       RemoveMEncherryKILLspamspamlinuxha.com
http://www.linuxha.com/                         Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/                    My HA Blog
Author of:            Linux Smart Homes For Dummies

2008\04\19@020858 by M. Adam Davis

face picon face
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Vitaliy <spamSTOPspamspamspam_OUTmaksimov.org> wrote:
> M. Adam Davis wrote:
> > But even if I can get up to a 20mph average, which is unlikely, it'll
> > still be 3 hours of cycling a day, and I can't afford that.  With a 10
> > mile distance, though, bicycling was nearly as fast as driving.
> >
> > Plus, no showers at work.  :-P
>
> I was going to ask you both about this last part... how do you manage to not
> offend your co-workers with your body odor?

Well, at my previous place of employment I was only 10 miles away, and
only had one coworker.  Since there was no one else to bother we
didn't try to have quiet conversations, and would comfortably converse
at a distance regardless of whether I cycled in or not (I biked in far
less than I drove in).  There was no shower there either.

But I did have two full sets of clothes at the office, and after
cooling down I'd change.  For meetings I'd avoid riding in - the
clothes were wrinkled, for one thing.  I'd typically change out the
clothing after riding 3-4 times, and my coworker always indicated that
he didn't notice any poor odor, but it was also a very well ventilated
office, so who knows...

I don't think it would work out for me again, though, without a shower
at the office.

-Adam

--
EARTH DAY 2008
Tuesday April 22
Save Money * Save Oil * Save Lives * Save the Planet
http://www.driveslowly.org

More... (looser matching)
- Last day of these posts
- In 2008 , 2009 only
- Today
- New search...