14 replies to this topic

[Jessi]

Realistically, we can't all walk to work, ride our bikes, or even take public transportation all the time. We definitely can't all afford hybrid cars yet either, so even if we don't really want to be buying gas constantly and driving all over the place to work, school, etc, there's only so much we can cut down on some of the, well, "necessities" of everyday modern life.

One thing that can help out some is to just drive a little slower. It'll only take a little bit longer to get where you're going, but can save both energy and some cash while you're at it.

Stay close to around 55mph on the highway. If you go much faster, your fuel efficiency starts to decrease. If you go above 65, it decreases drastically at about 1% fuel efficiency for every mile over you're going.

So when you're going 70-75 on the interstate, keep in mind that you're being 5-10% less fuel efficient than you'd be if you slowed it down some on another path (like by taking a highway with a lower speed limit instead of the interstate, or at the very least, just cutting it down to driving a couple mph under the limit). That's a lot to really add up!

[still learning]

Driving 55 mph instead of 70 (and more) is definitely fuel-saving, but getting enough of us to change our ways enough to matter will be tough as long as there aren't actual gasoline shortages, aren't gas station lines as in the '70's. http://en.wikipedia....1973_oil_crisis  The US nationwide 55 mph speed limit implemented in the 1970's was widely ignored.

A completely unrealistic way of getting people to drive slower would be to make cars more like they were fifty or sixty years ago.  People did tend to drive slower then.  Mostly. Cars then were less comfortable and less reliable and less safe at high speeds.

Make cars so that the interior is too noisy for comfort at high speed?  Keep advances over the old cars in fuel economy and safety and smog emissions but take away high speed comfort? Could be done, but who would buy them if they had a choice?  Take away that choice?  I can imagine the howls of "taking away my freedom" and the like.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

We can reduce mpg consumption, but stay off the highway if you do.
Slow pokes are a hazard. Keep to the surface streets.

[mariaandrea]

Shortpoet-GTD, on 08 February 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

We can reduce mpg consumption, but stay off the highway if you do.
Slow pokes are a hazard. Keep to the surface streets.

Yes, with freeway speeds a 60 to 65 and people always driving at least 5 miles over that, it's not safe to drive too slow and it screws up traffic patterns. If possible, just avoid freeways. I pretty much stay on city streets to get where I'm going around town, with a top speed of 35 and of course know all the shortcuts. That isn't realistic for rural dwellers, of course, but saving errands up to do one big shopping trip and carpooling and staying home a lot was how we kept driving to a minimum when I lived in the country.

[Sandra Piddock]

Another advantage of driving slowly is that you don't need to use the brake pedal so much. That not only saves fuel, it also saves wear and tear on the brake linings. I managed to do a 540 mile run through Spain and only used the brake pedal twice, apart from the times I stopped the car to take a break from driving. I also kept to a reasonable speed, and managed to get 65 mpg with from my deisel car. I was very pleased with that, particularly as I had a full load on.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

I have a manual shift, and that saves on braking too; downshift or put in neutral for a red light.

A fair amount of gas can be saved with proper tire inflation, not carrying around a bunch of extra weight
in the car, tuneup, better spark plugs, air filter.
If traffic is light, use the cruise control to keep speed constant.
If you have ski/bike racks that are not being used, remove them-less drag.
Use a/c less.

[Jessi]

Sandra Piddock, on 09 February 2012 - 12:08 AM, said:

Another advantage of driving slowly is that you don't need to use the brake pedal so much. That not only saves fuel, it also saves wear and tear on the brake linings. I managed to do a 540 mile run through Spain and only used the brake pedal twice, apart from the times I stopped the car to take a break from driving. I also kept to a reasonable speed, and managed to get 65 mpg with from my deisel car. I was very pleased with that, particularly as I had a full load on.

Definitely. I hate watching drivers who stop at a red light, then accelerate quickly, only to have to slam on their brakes again at the next light. Rinse and repeat, and it seems like they're constantly using a ton of fuel to speed up and then braking to cancel it out completely. Bleh.

[sculptor]

a couple years ago, i finally did some more research on my diesel truck
bottom line, peak torque happened at 1800 rpm---just under 60 mph in high gear-------
interstate's here have 70-75 mph speed limits, at 75, i got 15-16 miles per gallon------------at 60, i get a tad over 20 miles per gallon, so for me and my current vehicle, that's a savings of 25%
running below peak torque doesn't save much more---------the best savings were in organizing my trips so i could make less of them
--------------or, better still, just not using the vehicles
long ago and far away(during the winter when i left my last factory job), i didn't bother to shovel the vehicles out of the snow, and just used skis for a weekly trip into town(6 miles) to get groceries and mail---------on the way home, i'd stop by the local café and treat myself to a breakfast of 2 eggs, 2 pieces of bacon or sausages, 2 pieces of rye toast, and coffee ,,,all for about $1.50-----------then heated the cottage with wood, and cut my oil and/or gas consumption down to a couple bucks a month-------------

most of us tend to use and consume much more than we really need
it's good for the soul to just stop
stop
every once in a while
like fasting and meditating,
it allows time away from the action to contemplate the paths of our lives

[MakingCents]

Fuel speed economy depends on the car.  MOre than the speed what matters is the consistency.  Every time you hit gas/brake/gas you are reducing fuel economy.  Set your car at a speed that you can more than likely use cruise control and you'll use your fuel the wisest.

[joeldgreat]

It may saved a little but surely if you do these tips of mine, it would save you even more. I had written an article about it, so I can re-post it here without any quote (source : http://expertscolumn...ciency-measures )


1.    Park and Wait (Anti-Idling) Program. This program encourages motorist to commit to turn off their engines while waiting for more than 30 seconds and limit engine warming for 30 seconds.

“Idling is a bad habit! Breath easier, turn-off your engine”

2.    Park and Fly Program. For domestic flight passengers with vehicles on a day or overnight trip, facilities are available at the airport where they can park and fly to and from their destination and drive back home with their cars.
“Aim high for fuel conservation”
3.    Carpooling Program. A carpool consists of three or more people that commute to work or other destinations in a private vehicle in which members work out their own arrangements on who and how often, schedules and payments for gas and maintenance.

“The Cash-cut rate”

4.    Park and Ride Program. Offers transport options that encourage the use of public transport such as buses and trains to help lessen traffic congestion at the same time provide seamless journey for the travelling public. Accessible or strategic sites were provided near the stations of the public transport for the vehicle owners to park their units and ride to and from their destinations using the identified transportation means.

“Drive less, arrive fresh!!!”
5.    Park and Pick Program. This encourages vehicles, particularly taxis, to park only at designated places or sites. They will not be allowed to just roam around commercial complexes and mall areas to pick-up passengers. Passengers, on the other hand, should proceed only to designated places for their taxi ride.

“We will QUEUE you up”

6.    CarLess Day Program. Don’t be Careless, Go Carless. When are we Careless? It is when we are not conscious of the environmental impact we create while using our cars. However, we leave a smaller ecological footprint if we share our cars with others on our way to work and vice versa. This fuel conservation measure aims to encourage commuters to burn calories instead of fossil fuel, reduce traffic congestions and air pollution, and leave the car at home one day a week. The motorist will avail instead of the public transport or may rideshare during their carless day.

“my carless day is Friday”

7.    Park and Walk Program. Walking instead of riding is another option to save on fuel and let the vehicle owner realize that walking a distance is more healthful option that will result to less vehicle emission; promotion of healthy disposition of the body; and for a healthy Mother earth. A short distant walk is a better alternative than a heavy consumption of fuel for a short trip. This program is implemented in shopping complexes were vehicle owners are encourage to park their vehicles in a available parking spaces. While roaming around the commercial complex, owners are encouraged to walk extra distance through bridgeways and walkpaths. Riding a certain distance within the vicinity of the commercial complex is a big NO! Not only does it create traffic congestion – it even consumes extra fuel and emits smoke.

“I walk an extra distance for conservation”

[mariaandrea]

This thread reminds me of another driving technique called hypermiling. Some of the techniques are pretty extreme and some are illegal, but people who practice it claim they save lots and lots of fuel. They do things like minimizing braking, no idling, using drag from other vehicles, running in neutral... I sometimes do a few things like putting the car in neutral going down long, steep hills (we have a lot of them here) and trying to minimize braking. But, I pay attention to the traffic around me, and the guy in this article doesn't. It's long, but interesting:

http://motherjones.c...ccord-beat-punk

[Shortpoet-GTD]

mariaandrea, on 13 February 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

This thread reminds me of another driving technique called hypermiling.

Extremely bad idea for anyone thinking of doing this.
Your sight is blocked by the truck, so you can't see what's in front of that truck.

With fuel so high, many  companies run their tires too long to save money, and if it blows (and I've seen
it several times) you've got no where to go if traffic is heavy and you can't swerve to miss the
shredding rubber as it hits your windshield. Summertime heat is brutal on tires.

Not to mention the rocks in the threads that can crack your windshield thrown at high speeds
and drivers pushed too hard=tired/nodding off.

[MakingCents]

hypermiling is insanely dangerous!  But I do do some things from that article.  I put the car in neutral if I'm coming up on a red light IF THERE ARE NO CARS BEHIND ME and let the car gradual slow hoping for the light to turn green before I actually have to brake.  It's also important to accelerate slowly and brake slowly.  

joeldgreat, on 12 February 2012 - 11:58 PM, said:

5.    Park and Pick Program. This encourages vehicles, particularly taxis, to park only at designated places or sites. They will not be allowed to just roam around commercial complexes and mall areas to pick-up passengers. Passengers, on the other hand, should proceed only to designated places for their taxi ride.

“We will QUEUE you up”

Now THIS is a great idea

[jasserEnv]

All of these inefficiencies of the modern gas engine are why I would like to move to an electric car. With these cars at least, you lose less from braking after accelerating because of the regenerative braking in these cars. However, wind resistance will always be there regardless of the energy source for the car so driving more slowly is certainly a good idea in all cases. I am just not convinced that modern fast-paced culture will accept moving at a slower pace. Although it would cause riots in the streets, mandating slower speeds might actually push more people to public transit were it possible to legislate.

[Shortpoet-GTD]

jasserEnv, on 13 February 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

mandating slower speeds might actually push more people to public transit were it possible to legislate.

From 2009.
"Americans are using public transportation in huge numbers, but the cost of maintaining public bus and rail systems is
making it difficult to keep up with higher demand.

The American Public Transportation Association reported that last year, Americans relied on public transit in the largest
numbers in 50 years, taking over 10 million trips on the nation's public bus and rail systems.

Public transit in cities around the country face budget cuts, meaning higher fares and shorter operation hours."
http://www.pbs.org/n...rains_face.html
One city -example-2011

"Cuts in state aid and dwindling revenue from NFTA owned properties have left the transportation authority with a
15 million dollar budget gap. The Board of Commissioners has approved several deep cuts in personnel and service routes.

- 50 positions are being eliminated. 20 of those positions come from the NFTA's police force.
- 81 bus service routes will be eliminated.
- 14 other routes will see reductions in service."
http://billhicksisde...on-service.html
Most states are slashing their public transportation budgets.
(Search legislative budget cuts-public transportation and it will bring up state after state cutting their
public transportation budgets.)
It may save them a few bucks but is that the whole story? I don't think so. They are in the pockets of big
oil, so they want us to DRIVE everywhere.
From 2012-
"When the House Ways and Means Committee voted to divert all gas tax revenue away from transit projects,
severing transit’s only dedicated source of federal funds, they were essentially throwing transit riders under the bus.
While the House’s official stance is that their proposal still somehow guarantees funding for transit,
it really does anything but.
Francisca Porchas, lead coordinator for the advocacy organization Transit Riders for Public Transportation.
“For regular bus riders, it’s going to mean completely pulling the rug out from under them.”
Over the past three years, there’s been an onslaught of fare hikes, service cuts, and layoffs at American transit agencies,
even as ridership hit record highs.
Some 97,000 employees in the transit and ground transportation industry lost their jobs in 2009 alone."
http://dc.streetsblo...specially-hard/