Loaded-Gun.Com - Anti-Social.Com's Rejects!
General Category => Discontempt => Topic started by: Zoomie on May 27, 2009, 10:40:12 PM
-
I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to my dearest and closest Cheese Brother for my previous line of rhetoric in the case of his assertion on TSi that driving faster than the posted speed limit will not get you to your destination any faster or economically.
Having put a Garmin Nuvi GPS unit in my vehicle, I can now track my travel time vs. speed, and this particular model even tracks my fuel economy. I have learned that driving 78mph from my home in The Gurnie to Steeleye's house in Falls Church, VA only gains me approximately 4 minutes over driving the posted speed limit, while causing my cost to drive the 57 miles to rise by $8.
I am most sincerely sorry for calling you a fat nerd (or whatever it was I called you).
OTOH I'll still drive somewhere between 75 and 85mph because that's what everyone else is doing and I don't want to get rear ended by some Guatemalan in a carpet layer's truck.
Thank you for your attention.
PS: Funniest thing I ever saw today, a Sikh driving a jacked up F150 V10 monster truck. The paint job matched his turban. But then his beard matched the tires...
-
Having put a Garmin Nuvi GPS unit in my vehicle, I can now track my travel time vs. speed, and this particular model even tracks my fuel economy. I have learned that driving 78mph from my home in The Gurnie to Steeleye's house in Falls Church, VA only gains me approximately 4 minutes over driving the posted speed limit, while causing my cost to drive the 57 miles to rise by $8.
I accept your apology for calling me names.
Math was always on my side, anyway.
Now, when are you going to apologize for making the persian attack my sack?
-
Dude she's totally autonomous. You think I could make her do anything? Or stop her? Same goes for the Greek.
-
The original argument was just time saved. From only the perspective of time saved, I still think the argument is a loser. I would always choose to speed and save the 1 minute based on the original argument.
Once you turn it into an economic question and factor in fuel economy, it always makes sense to drive slower. The sweet spot for maximum fuel economy varies depending on the vehicle, but typically lies somewhere between 45-55 MPH. By the time you include other variables in the equation, like the cost of a ticket or accident resulting from speeding, plus the increase in insurance costs based on those two factors, you'd find that it definitely does not make economic sense to speed.
-
Actually, Emp, my recollection is that the original argument had a foundation of time-saved, but was weighed AGAINST potential time lost if receiving a ticket. It wouldn't be much of a CBA, otherwise.
fuel economy is an excellent angle as well, and I appreciate my oldest (in time with the cheese) cheese brother for including it as an angle.
-
I still think going slower than the rest of traffic is more dangerous than going slightly faster than it.
Every time I feel like dilly dallying and doing like 60 on 95 it's one near miss after another. It's like my car has suddenly become invisible.
-
Ok, I'm outta here ...
-
Your original post was time only. I went back and checked. :) I'm the dick that took it down the path of what your odds of getting caught speeding were and how much it would cost you in terms of time.
It does make more sense to evaluate the issue in economic terms. You could solve it as an optimization problem for the ideal amount to speed/not speed.
You'd need the following information as a starting point:
Odds of getting caught speeding as a function of speed in excess of the limit
Cost of speeding infraction for the ranges of speeding
Odds of being in accident as a function of speed
Average cost of repairs/court costs/etc. for being involved in an accident as a function of speed
Average fuel cost as a function of speed
Some sort of economic value you assign to your time
You could estimate how many miles you drive per year on the highway and in residential areas and calculate based on zone type. Or you could subdivide the problem further: 25 mph zones, 35 mph zones, etc.
I bet I could turn this problem into a master's thesis at least, maybe a doctoral thesis.
-
hmmm, what kind of tyres is the transport running ? and the psi. no, im not really asking. just saw a thread i had not posted on.
-
I bet I could turn this problem into a master's thesis at least, maybe a doctoral thesis.
Add in location for all of those functions, too. the value will be different depending on your specific position at any given time.
-
They'd be included in calculating the average fuel cost as a function of speed. Tire pressure is a significant factor in fuel economy. :D
-
I bet I could turn this problem into a master's thesis at least, maybe a doctoral thesis.
Add in location for all of those functions, too. the value will be different depending on your specific position at any given time.
Yeah, the odds of being caught speeding and the odds of being in an accident would be dependent on locality.
Other variables would be dependent on type of car you chose to use.
-
You will also need a standard octane level for the fuel.
-
You will also need a standard octane level for the fuel.
I would assume that the manufacturer's recommendation would be followed. I'd lump that variable in with the average fuel cost as a function of speed. All of the variables relating to the particular car would be expressed through that variable, really.
I really like optimization. I think it's the only thing I studied in grad school that I actually liked.
-
Speed kills dude. I stick to 30mph all the time.
hehehehe
-
OK now I have to start an apology thread for getting this off the ground again...
-
Yeah, since I'm pretty much guaranteed to run any math related thread into the ground.
-
Emp, you're welcome to run with this as a PhD topic, if you'll give me a credit in the thesis.
-
how much money would it cost to haul lucas across texas, as opposed to Kyle
-
compared to the weight of a car, Kyle and I are not significant.
-
Going 75 miles an hour gives you 4 miles every three minutes.
80 4 every three.
90 3 every two.
On long trips it does make a difference.
-
compared to the weight of a car, Kyle and I are not significant.
I beg to differ on that point, the size of the passenger does make a difference. It might not be noticable for 1 person in a car, but put 4 250lb+ people in a car and you'll notice a difference...
-
Yeah, but under didn't want to put FOUR of me in the car. Just one of me.
-
The aerodynamics benefits from the compressed suspension would/might void some of the fuel consumpition issues.
and unrelated, but 'cause i wana...
(http://wcuk.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/225629_fat_guy_in_car.jpg)
-
Not likely.
The engine still has to do more work to move that extra 1000lbs.
-
Not if you funnel the flatulance into the manifold.
-
*peeks into thread*
*leaves again*
-
You will also need a standard octane level for the fuel.
US standard octane levels are lower than the rest of the world.
-
*peeks into thread*
*leaves again*
-
Yeah, I wouldnt waste your time either...
-
US standard octane levels are lower than the rest of the world.
I learnt something.
-
I'd ask what that difference was, but I'm hiding from this thread ...
-
Big boom,little boom stuff.
-
Octane is a measurement of resistance to detonation - how much you can compress the gas/air mixture without it exploding. Higher octane means you can compress it more. You use high octane fuels in high performance engines because you can get better compression ratios and therefore more power.
You should use the minimum octane rating that your user manual says. If you use higher octane fuel, you don't get any benefit from using it and you're just throwing extra money down the drain. If you use lower octane fuel than your engine was designed for, you'll likely see a degradation in power and might develop problems with engine knocking.
The US rates octane slightly different than the rest of the world, which accounts for some of the difference in octane ratings at the pump. It's no surprise, considering that we insist on measuring everything differently.
-
Does the USA have transparency in ethonol % ?
-
Most gas stations have signs indicated that the fuel can be up to X% ethanol. A couple of states mandate 10%. It's probably safe to assume that they use the highest posted % of ethanol because it's cheaper.
I really think the US is fucked up on the ethanol issue. Corn based ethanol production is a stupid idea. I'll probably make a thread on that later.
-
Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.
The aerodynamics benefits from the compressed suspension would/might void some of the fuel consumpition issues.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all the extra weight matter a lot more for acceleration than anything else? If you were driving 100 miles in a straight line, on a flat surface, I'm not sure the extra weight would make that much of a difference.
-
That much of a difference ? ~shrug. I have no clue.
I'm just playing the "fool who throws in a line every now and then" on this thread. As long as I dont go off topic, I think it's okay.
Checking the consumption of real trucks ( not what americans call trucks ) on the highway cycle should give an answer.
-
Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.
Find the place in the US where you can grow cane in the quantities that you can grow corn, and you'll have a winner.
Even then, switchgrass is the winner in cost/benefit comparisons on ethanol production. And that's where the corn lobby steps in.
-
*peeks into thread*
*leaves again*
-
Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.
The aerodynamics benefits from the compressed suspension would/might void some of the fuel consumpition issues.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all the extra weight matter a lot more for acceleration than anything else? If you were driving 100 miles in a straight line, on a flat surface, I'm not sure the extra weight would make that much of a difference.
To maintain momentum at a particular weight requires a particular amount of fuel, add or remove weight will adjust the amount of fuel used to maintain that momentum.
Yeah, isn't it much easier to produce cane or sugar beet-based ethanol? I heard something like that, but the corn lobby is too powerful apparently.
Find the place in the US where you can grow cane in the quantities that you can grow corn, and you'll have a winner.
Even then, switchgrass is the winner in cost/benefit comparisons on ethanol production. And that's where the corn lobby steps in.
I'd imagine places like Florida or some of those Gulf states would be suitable for growing sugar cane. And from what I can tell, sugar cane is probably more efficient in its land use than corn.
-
I'd imagine places like Florida or some of those Gulf states would be suitable for growing sugar cane. And from what I can tell, sugar cane is probably more efficient in its land use than corn.
But that's nothing, comparatively.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grain_Belt)
-
Well, the strip of land between the Great Dividing Range and the Pacific Ocean in northern Queensland is where we grow sugar cane, and it aint a whole lot of space, but somehow manages to produce far more sugar than we need.
So I'm thinking that a comparatively small amount of land could produce enough sugar to produce a lot of ethanol.
That said, ethanol is fine in theory, but you dont get the same bang for your buck energy wise from ethanol as from straight petrol.
-
There are also other countries that grow tons of sugarcane. If the USA didn't use quotas and tariffs to protect the corn industry, it would make a lot more sense to, you know, use that free market thingy people always go on and on about.
Ethanol doesn't make sense as a long term solution anyway. We really need to address the one car one person live 50 miles from work mentality that governs much of the US. That's really not sustainable long-term, unless someone is going to invent the personal fusion reactor sometime soon.
-
This I agree with. Ethanol isnt a sustainable long term fuel, neither is LPG, CNG, bio diesel or coal derived fuels. Hydrogen is, but theres 2 real problems with it.
The reason I drive a large car with a comparatively large engine is that I live 12 kilometres from work, so the cost to me isnt something I cant sustain. In other words, because I can. There's very little public transport going out that way in the morning, so I drive.
If I lived 40-50 kilometres from work, I'd be driving something small, and probably turbo diesel. If I lived closer to where I work, say within 2 kilometres, I'd walk.
-
There are also other countries that grow tons of sugarcane. If the USA didn't use quotas and tariffs to protect the corn industry, it would make a lot more sense to, you know, use that free market thingy people always go on and on about.
That assumes that the other countries will be working on a free market principle as well.
Most of the countries that grow cane in Central & South America are AT LEAST very socialist. The Brazilian government has some pretty retarded taxation on their ethanol fuel production and - I think I remember the guys in POA telling me this - severe restrictions on the amount of raw cane that can be shipped out of country.
-
Sugar cane is a decent idea...if you place the refinery near the crop.
-
Sugar cane is a decent idea...if you place the refinery near the crop.
Brazil's set up works fine.
I guess this is a situation where "near" is subjective, allowing you to redefine it at will.
-
There are also other countries that grow tons of sugarcane. If the USA didn't use quotas and tariffs to protect the corn industry, it would make a lot more sense to, you know, use that free market thingy people always go on and on about.
That assumes that the other countries will be working on a free market principle as well.
Most of the countries that grow cane in Central & South America are AT LEAST very socialist. The Brazilian government has some pretty retarded taxation on their ethanol fuel production and - I think I remember the guys in POA telling me this - severe restrictions on the amount of raw cane that can be shipped out of country.
I don't really know enough about how Central & South America are implementing their reforms to argue one way or another about how they do business.
If the US market was open to sugarcane and/or ethanol produced elsewhere, I would be willing to bet that another country would be more than happy to do business. We do business with plenty of countries that don't like us in a variety of other markets, after all.
-
Sugar cane is a decent idea...if you place the refinery near the crop.
Brazil's set up works fine.
I guess this is a situation where "near" is subjective, allowing you to redefine it at will.
My thinking is : Close enough to not void any enviro/fiscal benefits.
-
(http://img.chan4chan.com/img/2009-02-27/1235759162547.jpg)
-
(http://i136.photobucket.com/albums/q165/smilingbooger/Kittehs/cat_evilkitty.jpg)