|
General » rec.autos.tech » Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed
| Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781702] |
Tue, 18 July 2006 06:33 |
|
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!!!!
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781735 ] |
Tue, 18 July 2006 22:02 |
|
In article <1153197186.676210.324570 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
CoreyWhite [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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!!!!
>
Wow... deja vu all over again...
Dude, weren't you "here" for the first go-round of that concept?
--
Don Bruder - dakidd [at] sonic.net - If your "From:" address isn't on my whitelist,
or the subject of the message doesn't contain the exact text "PopperAndShadow"
somewhere, any message sent to this address will go in the garbage without my
ever knowing it arrived. Sorry... <http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd> for more info
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781743 ] |
Tue, 18 July 2006 23:51 |
|
CoreyWhite [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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!!!!
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 *
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781800 ] |
Wed, 19 July 2006 15:59 |
|
marks542004 [at] yahoo.com 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.
|
|
|
| We are in the wall street journal now!!! [message #781899 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 00:27 |
|
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
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781908 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 02:15 |
|
Don Stauffer wrote:
>
> marks542004 [at] yahoo.com 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 mailto:Paul [at] Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
Live Faust, die Jung.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781912 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 02:36 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 17:15:31 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. <paul [at] hovnanian.com> wrote:
>Don Stauffer wrote:
>>
>> marks542004 [at] yahoo.com 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781921 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 05:07 |
|
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 mailto:Paul [at] Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
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.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781925 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 06:04 |
|
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:07:03 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. <paul [at] hovnanian.com> 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.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781946 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 20:07 |
|
AZ Nomad wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 20:07:03 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. <paul [at] hovnanian.com> 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 mailto:Paul [at] Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
Sleep is for wimps. Happy, healthy, well-rested wimps, but wimps
nonetheless.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781951 ] |
Fri, 21 July 2006 21:38 |
|
>
> 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!
Because it's not your property or time. If you want it to be - buy some
land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
for as long as you want.
If society were to except your twisted logic then the poor should be
allowed to drive as fast as they want the rich should be limited to 35
mph maximum. The rich can afford to dawdle along. And driving for
pleasure would be against the law (speed limit 0 mph) as there is no
monetary value in that at all.
-jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781961 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 04:08 |
|
jim wrote:
>
> >
> > 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!
>
> Because it's not your property or time. If you want it to be - buy some
> land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
> for as long as you want.
If its not your time, then you won't object to the police stopping by
your house and throwing you in jail for 90 days or so. After all, its
not your time.
> If society were to except your twisted logic then the poor should be
> allowed to drive as fast as they want the rich should be limited to 35
> mph maximum. The rich can afford to dawdle along.
From each according to their abilities, to each according to their
needs. Right? Where did that originate? And how has that economic system
been doing lately?
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul [at] Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
Yeah, but you're taking the universe out of context.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781979 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 13:30 |
|
"Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:
>
> jim wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > 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!
> >
> > Because it's not your property or time. If you want it to be - buy some
> > land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
> > for as long as you want.
>
> If its not your time, then you won't object to the police stopping by
> your house and throwing you in jail for 90 days or so. After all, its
> not your time.
You seem to have some trouble with the concept of public and private and
consequently your arguments fail to be on point. As I said if you want
to build your own private road go ahead.
Your original point was that you should be entitled to drive faster
the higher your billing rate. Makes no sense at all - if some one is
actually paying for your travel time then the longer it takes the more
you make. And if no one is paying you then this "billing rate" your
talking about is just a fantasy (one that a pauper could have too). And
just who exactly do you expect is going to pay your "compensation" for
this fantasy billing?
What the government should be doing is giving the public an incentive
to drive slower not faster. A 5 or 10 dollar a gallon tax on gasoline
(cf. cigarettes) would be appropriate. The money could be used to pay
off the national debt. It's about time we started acting responsibly and
paying are own bills instead expecting future generations who won't have
the benefits of cheap oil to pay them.
>
> > If society were to except your twisted logic then the poor should be
> > allowed to drive as fast as they want the rich should be limited to 35
> > mph maximum. The rich can afford to dawdle along.
>
> From each according to their abilities, to each according to their
> needs. Right? Where did that originate?
Yep that's pretty much how all public systems are supposed to work. And
this particular public policy originated with -> once upon a time roads
were privately held (you would have probably loved the middle ages).
>And how has that economic system
> been doing lately?
It looks to me like the highway system is doing OK, but then I wasn't
the one whining for some sort of ill conceived public entitlement.
-jim
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #781999 ] |
Sat, 22 July 2006 21:29 |
|
Don Bruder <dakidd [at] sonic.net> wrote in
news:44bd3e38$0$96203$742ec2ed [at] news.sonic.net:
> In article <1153197186.676210.324570 [at] s13g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> CoreyWhite [at] gmail.com wrote:
>
>> 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!!!!
>>
>
> Wow... deja vu all over again...
>
> Dude, weren't you "here" for the first go-round of that concept?
>
LOL
What happened last time they tried that?
1) Nobody listened, setting the stage for...
2) Fuzzbusters
3) Smokey and the Bandit
--
TeGGeR®
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #782011 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 03:05 |
|
jim wrote:
>
> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:
> >
> > jim wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 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!
> > >
> > > Because it's not your property or time. If you want it to be - buy some
> > > land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
> > > for as long as you want.
> >
> > If its not your time, then you won't object to the police stopping by
> > your house and throwing you in jail for 90 days or so. After all, its
> > not your time.
>
> You seem to have some trouble with the concept of public and private and
> consequently your arguments fail to be on point. As I said if you want
> to build your own private road go ahead.
>
> Your original point was that you should be entitled to drive faster
> the higher your billing rate. Makes no sense at all -
Yes it does. I pay more taxes.
--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Paul [at] Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------ ------
When cryptography is outlawed, bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
-- Etaoin Shrdlu
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #782022 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 06:48 |
|
On Sat, 22 Jul 2006 18:05:33 -0700, Paul Hovnanian P.E. <paul [at] hovnanian.com> wrote:
>jim wrote:
>>
>> "Paul Hovnanian P.E." wrote:
>> >
>> > jim wrote:
>> > >
>> > > >
>> > > > 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!
>> > >
>> > > Because it's not your property or time. If you want it to be - buy some
>> > > land and build a race track on it. Then you can go as fast as you want
>> > > for as long as you want.
>> >
>> > If its not your time, then you won't object to the police stopping by
>> > your house and throwing you in jail for 90 days or so. After all, its
>> > not your time.
>>
>> You seem to have some trouble with the concept of public and private and
>> consequently your arguments fail to be on point. As I said if you want
>> to build your own private road go ahead.
>>
>> Your original point was that you should be entitled to drive faster
>> the higher your billing rate. Makes no sense at all -
>Yes it does. I pay more taxes.
Irrelevent. You don't have the freedom to endanger those with whom you share the
road. This is really basic stuff. Your freedom ends where it infringes
the freedom of somebody else.
|
|
|
| Re: Casey Jones You Better Watch Your Speed [message #782047 ] |
Sun, 23 July 2006 23:12 |
|
CoreyWhite [at] gmail.com wrote:
> 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!!!!
Makes sense to me. And we will be safer IF we vigorously enforce the
speed limit.
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 22:04:23 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.22246 Sekunden |
