|
General » rec.autos.driving » Sloth Kills Fuel Economy
| Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791853] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 15:54 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791857 ] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 16:35 |
|
In article <9kb9p3pnhjm5hjprockqi98dvgv9srh4h2 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven the way normal
> people drive and still get great fuel economy, we're all going to be
> WORSE off than we would have been if hybrids had never existed.
First, you assume these people didn't drive that way before, they
probably did. Second, I know those things are not all that much slower
than average cars from the early-mid 80s if the driver is willing to put
his foot down.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791858 ] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 16:56 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791861 ] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 17:07 |
|
On Jan 21, 7:54 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> As we all know, drivers of Priusen and other hybrids often drive and
> accelerate more slowly than other drivers in an effort to maximize
> their own fuel economy. But what effect does this Slothy behavior have
> on the rest of us?
>
> The first effect is needless congestion, caused when vehicles stuck
> behind the Sloth bunch up while waiting for an opportunity to get past
> the obstruction. The wave of braking that ensues creates a large wake
> of stop-and-go turbulence in the traffic flow. This has a negative
> impact on the fuel economy of every vehicle that gets caught up in it.
> In effect, the fuel economy gains enjoyed by the Sloth Prius driver
> come at the expense of fuel economy LOSSES suffered by dozens or even
> hundreds of other drivers, Thus, the net effect of the Prius on the
> fuel economy of the overall automotive fleet may very well be
> NEGATIVE! In other words, we as a country use MORE oil because of
> hybrids than we would if there were no hybrids at all!!
>
> Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven the way normal
> people drive and still get great fuel economy, we're all going to be
> WORSE off than we would have been if hybrids had never existed.
>
> How ironic is that?
hahaha. That is the dumbest thing i ever heard, you moron.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791880 ] |
Mon, 21 January 2008 21:03 |
|
In article <cLOdnRjKl5pMJgnanZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d [at] comcast.com>, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com (Brent P) writes:
> In article <9kb9p3pnhjm5hjprockqi98dvgv9srh4h2 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
>> Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven the way normal
>> people drive and still get great fuel economy, we're all going to be
>> WORSE off than we would have been if hybrids had never existed.
>
> First, you assume these people didn't drive that way before, they
> probably did. Second, I know those things are not all that much slower
> than average cars from the early-mid 80s if the driver is willing to put
> his foot down.
True. In certain intersections in my area the darned lights stay green
for only a few seconds, so I'm very conscious of getting going promptly. I've
run into far more sloths NOT in Prii who make everybody sit through an extra
light cycle than sloths IN Prii.
But if you think about it, people have been telling us for decades not
to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy. If they were
really serious about that, they'd fix the light timings....
- Sharon
"Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791886 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 00:18 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 09:35:45 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>
>>In article <9kb9p3pnhjm5hjprockqi98dvgv9srh4h2 [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven the way normal
>>>people drive and still get great fuel economy, we're all going to be
>>>WORSE off than we would have been if hybrids had never existed.
>>
>>First, you assume these people didn't drive that way before, they
>>probably did.
>
>
> Some might have, but some get caught up in the "rolling video game" in
> the middle of the Prius dashboard. They get sucked in and become
> obsessed with "beating the high score" (i.e. improving their fuel
> economy). A guy I used to work with is a prime example. He bought a
> Prius because he has a ridiculous 100+ mile daily commute (from Lake
> Forest up to Torrance and back) and he wanted to a) save money on gas,
> and b) be able to use the carpool lanes on the 405. He wasn't a
> particularly slow driver before, but the Prius made him a "Sloth
> Convert."
>
>
>>Second, I know those things are not all that much slower
>>than average cars from the early-mid 80s if the driver is willing to put
>>his foot down.
>
>
> That's the whole problem: putting their foot down means the gasoline
> engine has to kick in to assist, causing fuel economy to nosedive.
> That's why these people accelerate so Slothily.
The obvious solution would be to rely more heavily on the electric motor
for acceleration, but that would involve more battery capacity. I for
one can't wait until the state of the electrical energy storage art
improves to the point that serial hybrids with more aggressive regen
braking become practical.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791890 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 00:44 |
|
In article <9kb9p3pnhjm5hjprockqi98dvgv9srh4h2 [at] 4ax.com>,
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> As we all know, drivers of Priusen and other hybrids often drive and
> accelerate more slowly than other drivers in an effort to maximize
> their own fuel economy. But what effect does this Slothy behavior have
> on the rest of us?
>
> The first effect is needless congestion, caused when vehicles stuck
> behind the Sloth bunch up while waiting for an opportunity to get past
> the obstruction. The wave of braking that ensues creates a large wake
> of stop-and-go turbulence in the traffic flow. This has a negative
> impact on the fuel economy of every vehicle that gets caught up in it.
> In effect, the fuel economy gains enjoyed by the Sloth Prius driver
> come at the expense of fuel economy LOSSES suffered by dozens or even
> hundreds of other drivers, Thus, the net effect of the Prius on the
> fuel economy of the overall automotive fleet may very well be
> NEGATIVE! In other words, we as a country use MORE oil because of
> hybrids than we would if there were no hybrids at all!!
>
> Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven the way normal
> people drive and still get great fuel economy, we're all going to be
> WORSE off than we would have been if hybrids had never existed.
>
> How ironic is that?
I think all the people that used to have brown Volvo wagons with PBS
bumper stickers now drive a Prius.
My Audi A3 is heavy as a truck but very aerodynamic. Speed has no
impact on the milage as long as I'm not slamming on the brakes for Prius
blockades. I'm actually carpooling so I can get better milage per
person than the solo Prius driver watching the console computer.
--
I don't read Google's spam. Reply with another service.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791906 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 02:24 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791907 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 02:26 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791910 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 02:31 |
|
In article <j2hap3p96hebtl40b2deleto267ijverbj [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 18:18:39 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>
>>> That's the whole problem: putting their foot down means the gasoline
>>> engine has to kick in to assist, causing fuel economy to nosedive.
>>> That's why these people accelerate so Slothily.
>>
>>The obvious solution would be to rely more heavily on the electric motor
>>for acceleration, but that would involve more battery capacity. I for
>>one can't wait until the state of the electrical energy storage art
>>improves to the point that serial hybrids with more aggressive regen
>>braking become practical.
>
> Have you ever seen the documentary "Who Killed the Electric Car?" It's
> all about the EV-1 and the forces that yanked it off the market. In
> one scene, they show an EV-1 drag racing against what appears to be a
> Nissan 300ZX as well as another car - and BEATING THEM BOTH.
Somehow I think that drag race would be as slanted as this idea that the
EV-1 was forced off the market by anything other than its own weight. Are
we going to see a film about the sinister forces that killed the chrysler
turbine car? Both were feasibility studies, both came to a sad end of the
cars being crushed. Thank government.
> This Tesla car that's coming out later this year is also very quick -
> Corvette quick.
The problem is, driving an electric like that might mean not getting home
;)
> It really makes one wonder why the Prius is so much
> Slothier, even with a gasoline "booster" engine.
Low horsepower engines and motors.... plus it really isn't that slow....
I had one that was keeping pretty good pace with the torqueless wonder car
one day and I was pushing it fairly hard.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791920 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 03:16 |
|
In article <EP2sCRWtlEkz [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
Sharon <freySPAMMERSDIE [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
> But if you think about it, people have been telling us for decades not
>to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
They're wrong. In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
economy than slotheration.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791946 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 05:25 |
|
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> writes:
[balloon-footed hybrid drivers lower everyone else's mileage]
> Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven
> the way normal people drive and still get great fuel
> economy, we're all going to be WORSE off than we would
> have been if hybrids had never existed.
If such hybrids were to hit the market, there'd be no change.
Why not? One, because it's unintuitive to expect to get good
fuel economy even though you mash the accelerator. Most people
would think, "well, if I can get good mileage even when I drive
with a lead foot, I could get even *better* mileage by driving
like an old person on Valium."
And two, the sort of people who drive hybrids are often self-
righteous enough to deliberately force those behind them to
accelerate sluggishly and drive slowly, even if they didn't
need to do so themselves. I see that mindset up here in the
mountains all the time, with hippies plodding along and refus-
ing to use the turnouts so that faster traffic can pass them.
They're *protecting the environment,* you see.
Ever noticed that Priuses often sport left-wing bumper stickers?
And that on hybrids and non-hybrids alike, left-wing bumper
stickers are far more common than those espousing right-wing
causes and ideas?
Well, psycologically speaking, there's a very small delta between
"My beliefs are so important that I should tell everyone about
them" and "My beliefs are so important that I have the right to
impose them on everyone else."
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791947 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 05:34 |
|
Kevin McMurtrie <mcmurtri [at] dslextreme.com> writes:
> I think all the people that used to have brown Volvo wagons
> with PBS bumper stickers now drive a Prius.
Sure. They're of the same sociopolitical demographic as
those who drove VW buses in the Sixties, Seventies and
Eighties, and Volvos or Stuporu station wagons in the
Nineties. I refer to them collectively (heh) as the
Save the Whales crowd or the Birkenstock Set.
Symbols, both of ideas and of group membership, are very
important to these people. And the Prius isn't just an
automobile to them; it's a fashion accessory.
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791949 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 05:42 |
|
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> writes:
> This Tesla car that's coming out later this year is also
> very quick - Corvette quick. It really makes one wonder
> why the Prius is so much Slothier, even with a gasoline
> "booster" engine.
I don't think it's the car that's the problem. The problem
is many of the people who drive them.
You know that restaurant on the west side of Hwy. 17 at the
summit? I passed by there one time doing 65, just as an
early-model Prius was pulling out of the parking lot onto
the highway. In no time, it was right alongside me. That
got my attention.
The Prius has 150 horsepower altogether. That may not sound
like much, but it's what the early 240Zs had. The Prius weighs
about 400 lbs. more than the early Z, but it's still far from
underpowered. It's just a question of how the person behind
the wheel chooses to drive it.
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of heir parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791953 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 06:19 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791955 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 06:28 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791959 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 06:49 |
|
On Jan 21, 8:54 am, Scott in SoCal <scottenazt... [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
> As we all know, drivers of Priusen and other hybrids often drive and
> accelerate more slowly than other drivers in an effort to maximize
> their own fuel economy. But what effect does this Slothy behavior have
> on the rest of us?
>
> The first effect is needless congestion, caused when vehicles stuck
> behind the Sloth bunch up while waiting for an opportunity to get past
> the obstruction. The wave of braking that ensues creates a large wake
> of stop-and-go turbulence in the traffic flow. This has a negative
> impact on the fuel economy of every vehicle that gets caught up in it.
> In effect, the fuel economy gains enjoyed by the Sloth Prius driver
> come at the expense of fuel economy LOSSES suffered by dozens or even
> hundreds of other drivers, Thus, the net effect of the Prius on the
> fuel economy of the overall automotive fleet may very well be
> NEGATIVE! In other words, we as a country use MORE oil because of
> hybrids than we would if there were no hybrids at all!!
>
> Until someone comes up with a hybrid that can be driven the way normal
> people drive and still get great fuel economy, we're all going to be
> WORSE off than we would have been if hybrids had never existed.
If traffic is in such a state that nobody can pass one car, nobody is
going anywhere that quickly anyway.
Stop whining about other drivers being "in your way". Their position
is superior to yours, deal with it like an adult for a change.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791960 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 06:55 |
|
Matthew T. Russotto wrote:
> In article <EP2sCRWtlEkz [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
> Sharon <freySPAMMERSDIE [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
>> But if you think about it, people have been telling us for decades not
>> to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
> They're wrong. In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
> acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
> economy than slotheration.
What about vehicles with turbo(s)?
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791962 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 07:24 |
|
In article <ndvap3pd2g89bnpgcfud8354ceoha90esp [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 04:25:29 -0000, geoffm [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>
>>If such hybrids were to hit the market, there'd be no change.
>>Why not? One, because it's unintuitive to expect to get good
>>fuel economy even though you mash the accelerator. Most people
>>would think, "well, if I can get good mileage even when I drive
>>with a lead foot, I could get even *better* mileage by driving
>>like an old person on Valium."
>
>>And two, the sort of people who drive hybrids are often self-
>>righteous enough to deliberately force those behind them to
>>accelerate sluggishly and drive slowly, even if they didn't
>>need to do so themselves.
>
> If that's true, then our only hope will be self-driving cars that take
> the control away from the control freaks.
What evidence do you have of that being likely? Given US politics it will
be the control freaks using the self-driving cars to control us.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791971 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 13:38 |
|
On Jan 21, 9:16 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <EP2sCRWtl... [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>
> Sharon <freySPAMMERS... [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
> > But if you think about it, people have been telling us for decades not
> >to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
>
> They're wrong. In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
> acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
> economy than slotheration.
Uh huh... up to 2000 rpm...
http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/ar ticle.html
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/motorweektranscript.shtml
http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/fuel_economy.htm
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
http://www.forbesautos.com/slideshows/advice/toptens/2007/hy permiler-ten_7.html?thisSpeed=6000
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791977 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 15:29 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #791980 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 16:16 |
|
On Jan 22, 7:38=A0am, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 21, 9:16 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> wrote:
>
> > In article <EP2sCRWtl... [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>
> > Sharon <freySPAMMERS... [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
> > > =A0 =A0But if you think about it, people have been telling us for deca=
des not
> > >to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
>
> > They're wrong. =A0In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
> > acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
> > economy than slotheration.
>
> Uh huh... up to 2000 rpm...
>
> http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/ar ticle.html
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/motorweektranscript.shtml
>
> http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/fuel_economy.htm
>
> http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
>
> http://www.forbesautos.com/slideshows/advice/toptens/2007/hy permiler-...
> =A0-----
>
> - gpsman
I checked a couple of your "cites" and never saw that 200 RPM magic
number presented.
That said, yes, wide (but not WOT or close enough that WOT fuel
enrichment kicks in) throttle openings and low-ish RPM are generally
most efficient. Generally most SI engines are most efficient in terms
of BSFC near their torque peak, but you don't want to invoke the
"performance" rich fuel curve.
nate
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792009 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 20:21 |
|
In article <r1vbp39laj0r3cv2cp4hlm7apf49trbmhg [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:24:23 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS [at] yahoo.com
> (Brent P) wrote:
>
>>> If that's true, then our only hope will be self-driving cars that take
>>> the control away from the control freaks.
>>
>>What evidence do you have of that being likely?
>
> The Metrolink trains I ride to work reach speeds of 90 MPH; some on
> the east coast go even faster. Airplanes fly at hundreds of MPH. I
> haven't heard of even the most rabid Claybrookian dog ever attempting
> to limit the speed of these vehicles to 55 MPH.
When I see a 90mph bus, then you'll have something close to workable
anology. I could easily counter with chicago area's metra which maybe
averages 25mph on some lines. Or chicago's 'L' that probably runs slower
than it did 1896.
> Clearly under the right circumstances higher speeds will be
> permissible. As long as the safety record holds up, common sense will
> win out over Claybrook/Nader idiocy.
What makes you think it will ever be tried? They'll scream about
pedestrian safety or that because of 'physics' the computer can't stop
the car fast enough, yadda yadda yadda.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792015 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 23:07 |
|
In article <gehap3d4s0pjhvs6spobbbspmf2rovpien [at] 4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> writes:
> I'm not saying that only Prius drivers are Sloths, nor that all Prius
> drivers are Sloths (although most are, IME). I'm merely pointing out
> the irony of a car that is supposed to *improve* the overall fuel
> efficiency of the fleet yet has the exact opposite effect.
Maybe the 47 - 60mpg that Priuses get makes up for the waste in traffic
blockades. :-)
Seriously, it's the drivers, at least here in the D.C area. When I was
a leadfoot in the Dakota I was running over the same sloths that I'm now
running over in the Prius. And getting 47mpg (winter, 50 in summer) while
doing it. I've also found that I can set cruise control to 75mph on the freeway
and get the same mpg. So there's no reason for driving slow in the Prius.
- Sharon
"Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792016 ] |
Tue, 22 January 2008 23:15 |
|
In article <13pat26mkdov788 [at] corp.supernews.com>, geoffm [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
> I don't think it's the car that's the problem. The problem
> is many of the people who drive them.
>
> You know that restaurant on the west side of Hwy. 17 at the
> summit? I passed by there one time doing 65, just as an
> early-model Prius was pulling out of the parking lot onto
> the highway. In no time, it was right alongside me. That
> got my attention.
>
> The Prius has 150 horsepower altogether. That may not sound
> like much, but it's what the early 240Zs had. The Prius weighs
> about 400 lbs. more than the early Z, but it's still far from
> underpowered. It's just a question of how the person behind
> the wheel chooses to drive it.
Indeed. There's a cloverleaf on my morning commute from a slow-posted
street to a 55mph-posted street. Every now and then I get stuck behind a sloth
(not in a Prius) trying to get onto the faster street. I have no problem
pulling around them into the middle lane and accelerating so that the cars
behind me don't have to brake.
I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
permitting).
- Sharon
"Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792018 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 00:03 |
|
Sharon wrote:
> In article <13pat26mkdov788 [at] corp.supernews.com>, geoffm [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
>>I don't think it's the car that's the problem. The problem
>>is many of the people who drive them.
>>
>>You know that restaurant on the west side of Hwy. 17 at the
>>summit? I passed by there one time doing 65, just as an
>>early-model Prius was pulling out of the parking lot onto
>>the highway. In no time, it was right alongside me. That
>>got my attention.
>>
>>The Prius has 150 horsepower altogether. That may not sound
>>like much, but it's what the early 240Zs had. The Prius weighs
>>about 400 lbs. more than the early Z, but it's still far from
>>underpowered. It's just a question of how the person behind
>>the wheel chooses to drive it.
>
>
> Indeed. There's a cloverleaf on my morning commute from a slow-posted
> street to a 55mph-posted street. Every now and then I get stuck behind a sloth
> (not in a Prius) trying to get onto the faster street. I have no problem
> pulling around them into the middle lane and accelerating so that the cars
> behind me don't have to brake.
> I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
> rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
> get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
> permitting).
>
> - Sharon
> "Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"
Aaaaaannnnnnd.... she's got it. We could realize real savings by simply
allowing people to maintain a steady speed on the highway. I just got
home from work (which is not far from Sharon's office, IIRC) and at
least three times I found myself tooling along in the right lane and I'd
come up behind a whole phalanx of Sloth, have to disengage cruise, drop
5-10 MPH, change three lanes to the left, reaccelerate, pass maybe 5-6
cars, change three lanes back to the right.
If everyone were playing by the Rules (tm) theoretically I would never
have to change more than one lane at a time, and slowing and
reaccelerating would be greatly reduced. The Prius and other hybrids
attempt to get some of this back through regen braking, but the best
solution of all would be to simply not slow only to reaccelerate to
begin with.
It's also counter to fuel economy for the highways to be so clogged with
traffic that it's actually quicker to take surface streets, with red
lights, stop sighs, etc.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792019 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 01:00 |
|
On Jan 21, 9:16 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
wrote:
> In article <EP2sCRWtl... [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>
> Sharon <freySPAMMERS... [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
> > But if you think about it, people have been telling us for decades not
> >to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
>
> They're wrong. In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
> acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
> economy than slotheration.
> --
> There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
> result in a fully-depreciated one.
What do you base this on? This is not the case on the fuel-injected
spark-ignition car I recently got rid of, and does not seem to be the
case on the fuel-injected spark-ignition truck I'm driving these days.
My previous car was a slushomatic Grand Am that I basically fell into,
so I took it even with the slushbox (which was ultimately one of the
main reasons I didn't like the car). On that car if you were anywhere
near WOT, basically if you depressed the accelerator more than half
way, the car would not shift until up around 5000RPM. Driving it like
that was a serious boon to the mileage, which I can relate to since
that is the way that I drove that care most of the time.
On my truck I can control the RPM independently of the throttle during
acceleration by shifting, up to 5th gear of course. Still, I would be
surprised to learn that I got better mileage near WOT than I do with
about half throttle during acceleration. Again, when I shift will be
a factor there.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792021 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 01:08 |
|
Scott in SoCal <scottenaztlan [at] yahoo.com> writes:
> I haven't heard of even the most rabid Claybrookian dog ever
> attempting to limit the speed of these vehicles to 55 MPH.
It was as of the 1975 model year, IIRC, when the speedometers
of cars sold in the U.S. were required to have 55 MPH highlighted
and to top out at 85. At the time, I wondered why Claybrook and
her ilk didn't go whole-hog and mandate that speedometers go no
higher than 55. That would've been her mindset taken to its
logical conclusion.
I used to have a Toyota pickup that had an 85 MPH speedometer.
There's something disconcerting about driving at freeway speeds
and not having the tach and speedo needles be more or less
parallel. The ones on my truck were divergent, like Marty
Feldman's eyes.
Geoff
--
"Historically, the best way to convert liberals is to
have them move out of their parents' home, get a job,
and start paying taxes." -- Ann Coulter
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792022 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 01:13 |
|
On Jan 22, 10:16=A0am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 22, 7:38=A0am, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jan 21, 9:16 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
> > wrote:
>
> > > In article <EP2sCRWtl... [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>
> > > Sharon <freySPAMMERS... [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
> > > > =A0 =A0But if you think about it, people have been telling us for de=
cades not
> > > >to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
>
> > > They're wrong. =A0In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
> > > acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
> > > economy than slotheration.
>
> > Uh huh... up to 2000 rpm...
>
> > http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/ar ticle.html
>
> >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/motorweektranscript.shtml
>
> >http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/fuel_economy.htm
>
> >http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
>
> > http://www.forbesautos.com/slideshows/advice/toptens/2007/hy permiler-...
> > =A0-----
>
> > - gpsman
>
> I checked a couple of your "cites" and never saw that 200 RPM magic
> number presented.
>
> That said, yes, wide (but not WOT or close enough that WOT fuel
> enrichment kicks in) throttle openings and low-ish RPM are generally
> most efficient. =A0Generally most SI engines are most efficient in terms
> of BSFC near their torque peak, but you don't want to invoke the
> "performance" rich fuel curve.
>
> nate- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
The 2000 RPM reference is from here http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/fu=
el_economy.htm
and refers to a British study, and agrees with the pedal down theory.
Thing is, you need to switch gears at 2000 RPM. Most cars out there
are slushomatics, and putting the pedal anywhere near the floor is
going to cause very high RPM shifts. Still, I find all this very
interesting as I try not to drive slushomatics and would not have
thought near WOT is as efficient as half throttle or so.
Here are a couple setbacks to this theory, for me and my vehicle:
1) My truck is unhappy under 1500 RPM. Shifting at 2000 RPM on any
sort of an incline and I'll start to decelerate.
2) Under 2000 RPM, where there isn't really any power being made yet,
the truck accelerates no faster at WOT than it does at half throttle.
This makes it hard for me to understand how it's burning less gas at
or near WOT.
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792030 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 01:58 |
|
DanKMTB [at] gmail.com wrote:
> On Jan 22, 10:16 am, N8N <njna... [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Jan 22, 7:38 am, gpsman <gps... [at] driversmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Jan 21, 9:16 pm, russo... [at] grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto)
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>In article <EP2sCRWtl... [at] eisner.encompasserve.org>,
>>
>>>>Sharon <freySPAMMERS... [at] eisner.decus.org> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> But if you think about it, people have been telling us for decades not
>>>>>to make jackrabbit starts in order to get better fuel economy.
>>
>>>>They're wrong. In modern fuel-injected spark-ignition cars, brisk
>>>>acceleration (just below WOT -- wide-open-throttle) gets better fuel
>>>>economy than slotheration.
>>
>>>Uh huh... up to 2000 rpm...
>>
>>> http://www.edmunds.com/advice/fueleconomy/articles/106842/ar ticle.html
>>
>>>http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/motorweektranscript.shtml
>>
>>>http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/fuel_economy.htm
>>
>>>http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/driveHabits.shtml
>>
>>> http://www.forbesautos.com/slideshows/advice/toptens/2007/hy permiler-...
>>> -----
>>
>>>- gpsman
>>
>>I checked a couple of your "cites" and never saw that 200 RPM magic
>>number presented.
>>
>>That said, yes, wide (but not WOT or close enough that WOT fuel
>>enrichment kicks in) throttle openings and low-ish RPM are generally
>>most efficient. Generally most SI engines are most efficient in terms
>>of BSFC near their torque peak, but you don't want to invoke the
>>"performance" rich fuel curve.
>>
>>nate- Hide quoted text -
>>
>>- Show quoted text -
>
>
> The 2000 RPM reference is from here http://www.drivingfast.net/techniques/fuel_economy.htm
> and refers to a British study, and agrees with the pedal down theory.
> Thing is, you need to switch gears at 2000 RPM. Most cars out there
> are slushomatics, and putting the pedal anywhere near the floor is
> going to cause very high RPM shifts. Still, I find all this very
> interesting as I try not to drive slushomatics and would not have
> thought near WOT is as efficient as half throttle or so.
>
> Here are a couple setbacks to this theory, for me and my vehicle:
> 1) My truck is unhappy under 1500 RPM. Shifting at 2000 RPM on any
> sort of an incline and I'll start to decelerate.
> 2) Under 2000 RPM, where there isn't really any power being made yet,
> the truck accelerates no faster at WOT than it does at half throttle.
> This makes it hard for me to understand how it's burning less gas at
> or near WOT.
the thing about these "rules" is that they are simply guidelines and
generalizations, and you really do have to find out what works and
doesn't work for your car. I have the same issue in the Fabulous
BeaterPorsche; with its huge 2.7 liter thumper of a four cylinder, it is
similarly unhappy under 2000 RPM and the whole car resonates if you
attempt to get any significant acceleration below that point. Add to
the mix that rod bearings are a known weakness of that engine design,
and there's not much incentive to deliberately lug that engine.
Compare and contrast with my Ford pickup, with the 300 I-6 - you can lug
that sucker down to 1000 RPM and it doesn't really seem to care. In
fact, there's no incentive to *ever* rev it over 4K... not that the
slushie would let you. Then again, the best way to conserve fuel with
that beast is to simply not drive it unless you need to haul something
big/heavy... it drinks gas, period, no matter how you drive it (and you
do have to drive it pretty aggressively not to be an impediment to
traffic in my area; "brisk pickup" is not one of the phrases ever used
to describe it.)
It would figure that the one link I didn't click on was the one that was
actually pertinent...
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792035 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:26 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792036 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:35 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792038 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:39 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792039 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:39 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:03:19 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>Sharon wrote:
>
>
>>> I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
>>>rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
>>>get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
>>>permitting).
>>
>>Aaaaaannnnnnd.... she's got it. We could realize real savings by simply
>>allowing people to maintain a steady speed on the highway.
>
>
> Exactly!
>
>
>>I just got
>>home from work (which is not far from Sharon's office, IIRC) and at
>>least three times I found myself tooling along in the right lane and I'd
>>come up behind a whole phalanx of Sloth, have to disengage cruise, drop
>>5-10 MPH, change three lanes to the left, reaccelerate, pass maybe 5-6
>>cars, change three lanes back to the right.
>
>
> I can understand the lane changing part, but why did you have to
> disengage your CC and slow down? I *never* slow down when passing
> unless another vehicle in the left lane is preventing me from changing
> lanes in time.
There ya go. traffic is so heavy it's not always possible to avoid
being paced by other traffic. I could often *see* the sloth barricade,
but often I'd have to slow to let the idiot to my left ooze past me so I
could slip in behind him. The other alternative would be to gun it and
slip in front (assuming that he's not tailgating the driver in front of
him) but a) I don't like passing people on the right if I can avoid it
and b) other drivers tend to interpret everything they don't like as an
asshole move, e.g. I've had an irate, redneck-looking driver tell me to
pull over so he could "kick my ass" after I had the audacity to honk
after he forced me off the road - we came through two different
tollbooths at the same plaza at about the same time, but I accelerated
faster than he and he came up on my left and aimed right for my driver's
door, and then yelled out the window "you're supposed to yield,
asshole!" - and then proceeded to cut me off twice after merging onto
the highway as I repeatedly changed lanes to the left to get around him.
This is not atypical for DC-area traffic. And you wonder why I'm an
antisocial, grouchy bastard.
nate
> Usually when I come upon slower traffic in my lane I
> simply signal and merge left without slowing down at all. If anything
> I'll speed up a little, either to keep the speed differential
> reasonable (i.e. to avoid micro-passing) or to clear the lane prior to
> the arrival of faster traffic from the rear.
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792040 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:48 |
|
On Jan 22, 5:03 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Sharon wrote:
> > In article <13pat26mkdov... [at] corp.supernews.com>, geo... [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>
> >>I don't think it's the car that's the problem. The problem
> >>is many of the people who drive them.
>
> >>You know that restaurant on the west side of Hwy. 17 at the
> >>summit? I passed by there one time doing 65, just as an
> >>early-model Prius was pulling out of the parking lot onto
> >>the highway. In no time, it was right alongside me. That
> >>got my attention.
>
> >>The Prius has 150 horsepower altogether. That may not sound
> >>like much, but it's what the early 240Zs had. The Prius weighs
> >>about 400 lbs. more than the early Z, but it's still far from
> >>underpowered. It's just a question of how the person behind
> >>the wheel chooses to drive it.
>
> > Indeed. There's a cloverleaf on my morning commute from a slow-posted
> > street to a 55mph-posted street. Every now and then I get stuck behind a sloth
> > (not in a Prius) trying to get onto the faster street. I have no problem
> > pulling around them into the middle lane and accelerating so that the cars
> > behind me don't have to brake.
> > I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
> > rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
> > get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
> > permitting).
>
> > - Sharon
> > "Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"
>
> Aaaaaannnnnnd.... she's got it. We could realize real savings by simply
> allowing people to maintain a steady speed on the highway.
You *can* maintain a steady speed on the highway, if you know how.
Hint: It's not the fault of everyone else that you can't.
> I just got
> home from work (which is not far from Sharon's office, IIRC) and at
> least three times I found myself tooling along in the right lane and I'd
> come up behind a whole phalanx of Sloth, have to disengage cruise, drop
> 5-10 MPH, change three lanes to the left, reaccelerate, pass maybe 5-6
> cars, change three lanes back to the right.
And, of course, you could have taken the lane to the L of the R lane,
set your cruise for the SL, and probably never had to disengage it.
> If everyone were playing by the Rules (tm) theoretically I would never
> have to change more than one lane at a time, and slowing and
> reaccelerating would be greatly reduced.
Probably. Are you playing by the rules, or is a significant amount of
the traffic you told me is always speeding actually running 45-50?
> It's also counter to fuel economy for the highways to be so clogged with
> traffic that it's actually quicker to take surface streets, with red
> lights, stop sighs, etc.
The highways aren't nearly as clogged as those refusing to play by the
rules make them.
-----
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792041 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 03:52 |
|
On Jan 22, 8:39 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
> Scott in SoCal wrote:
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:03:19 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>Sharon wrote:
>
> >>> I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
> >>>rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
> >>>get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
> >>>permitting).
>
> >>Aaaaaannnnnnd.... she's got it. We could realize real savings by simply
> >>allowing people to maintain a steady speed on the highway.
>
> > Exactly!
>
> >>I just got
> >>home from work (which is not far from Sharon's office, IIRC) and at
> >>least three times I found myself tooling along in the right lane and I'd
> >>come up behind a whole phalanx of Sloth, have to disengage cruise, drop
> >>5-10 MPH, change three lanes to the left, reaccelerate, pass maybe 5-6
> >>cars, change three lanes back to the right.
>
> > I can understand the lane changing part, but why did you have to
> > disengage your CC and slow down? I *never* slow down when passing
> > unless another vehicle in the left lane is preventing me from changing
> > lanes in time.
>
> There ya go. traffic is so heavy it's not always possible to avoid
> being paced by other traffic. I could often *see* the sloth barricade,
> but often I'd have to slow to let the idiot to my left ooze past me so I
> could slip in behind him. The other alternative would be to gun it and
> slip in front (assuming that he's not tailgating the driver in front of
> him)
And the other alternative, you and so many others obviously will
rarely consider, is just slowing down.
> This is not atypical for DC-area traffic. And you wonder why I'm an
> antisocial, grouchy bastard.
I don't. Your expectations are unrealistic, you refuse to change them
despite the mountain of evidence that they are unrealistic, so you
remain in a constant state of disappointment, blaming everyone but
yourself.
------
- gpsman
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792046 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 04:00 |
|
gpsman wrote:
> On Jan 22, 5:03 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>Sharon wrote:
>>
>>>In article <13pat26mkdov... [at] corp.supernews.com>, geo... [at] lava.net (Geoff Miller) writes:
>>
>>>>I don't think it's the car that's the problem. The problem
>>>>is many of the people who drive them.
>>
>>>>You know that restaurant on the west side of Hwy. 17 at the
>>>>summit? I passed by there one time doing 65, just as an
>>>>early-model Prius was pulling out of the parking lot onto
>>>>the highway. In no time, it was right alongside me. That
>>>>got my attention.
>>
>>>>The Prius has 150 horsepower altogether. That may not sound
>>>>like much, but it's what the early 240Zs had. The Prius weighs
>>>>about 400 lbs. more than the early Z, but it's still far from
>>>>underpowered. It's just a question of how the person behind
>>>>the wheel chooses to drive it.
>>
>>> Indeed. There's a cloverleaf on my morning commute from a slow-posted
>>>street to a 55mph-posted street. Every now and then I get stuck behind a sloth
>>>(not in a Prius) trying to get onto the faster street. I have no problem
>>>pulling around them into the middle lane and accelerating so that the cars
>>>behind me don't have to brake.
>>> I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
>>>rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
>>>get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
>>>permitting).
>>
>>> - Sharon
>>>"Gravity... is a harsh mistress!"
>>
>>Aaaaaannnnnnd.... she's got it. We could realize real savings by simply
>>allowing people to maintain a steady speed on the highway.
>
>
> You *can* maintain a steady speed on the highway, if you know how.
yeah, if you drive slower than absolutely everyone else on the road.
> Hint: It's not the fault of everyone else that you can't.
No, it's the fault of a few (well, OK, *quite* a few) assholes.
>
>>I just got
>>home from work (which is not far from Sharon's office, IIRC) and at
>>least three times I found myself tooling along in the right lane and I'd
>>come up behind a whole phalanx of Sloth, have to disengage cruise, drop
>>5-10 MPH, change three lanes to the left, reaccelerate, pass maybe 5-6
>>cars, change three lanes back to the right.
>
>
> And, of course, you could have taken the lane to the L of the R lane,
> set your cruise for the SL, and probably never had to disengage it.
I *could* try that, but a) it's illegal b) it's rude and c) it still
wouldn't work, if traffic is as heavy as it was today and others aren't
KRETP, as they often aren't.
It's people driving like you suggest that cause the exact problem that
I'm describing, which causes the main flow of traffic to cram into the
leftmost two (or sometimes even one) lanes to get around them, when in
an ideal scenario the majority of traffic would actually be in the right
lanes, modeling a laminar flow with the slowest on the right and fastest
on the left.
>
>
>>If everyone were playing by the Rules (tm) theoretically I would never
>>have to change more than one lane at a time, and slowing and
>>reaccelerating would be greatly reduced.
>
>
> Probably. Are you playing by the rules, or is a significant amount of
> the traffic you told me is always speeding actually running 45-50?
*I'm* playing by the rules, by trying to stay to the right to let faster
traffic by without impeding them. The main flow of traffic is going
faster than I. The problem is when you get a three-wide pacing each
other and going slower than the main flow, which causes clumping and
everyone has to go all the way to the hammer lane to get around (unless
it's a four-wide, in which case everything gets all FUBAR.)
I suppose I could just sit in the leftmost lane and set the CC to my
preferred speed and just sit there, but even that plan only works if
you're the only person doing it (oh, and it's illegal, rude, yadda yadda.)
I refuse to be one of those people who will drive in such a manner that
I would consider it assaholic if I saw someone else doing it just
because it's convenient for me.
>
>>It's also counter to fuel economy for the highways to be so clogged with
>>traffic that it's actually quicker to take surface streets, with red
>>lights, stop sighs, etc.
>
>
> The highways aren't nearly as clogged as those refusing to play by the
> rules make them.
Indeed. So get with the program and stop recommending that people drive
like an asshole.
fuckhead.
nate
(has a VERY low tolerance fcr idiots like gpsmoron today)
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792047 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 04:03 |
|
gpsman wrote:
> On Jan 22, 8:39 pm, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net> wrote:
>
>>Scott in SoCal wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 18:03:19 -0500, Nate Nagel <njna... [at] roosters.net>
>>>wrote:
>>
>>>>Sharon wrote:
>>
>>>>> I've found that you get the best mileage from maintaining one speed
>>>>>rather than constantly changing speeds. The Prius is optimized for that. So I
>>>>>get myself to 10-over quickly and then stay there as much as I can (traffic
>>>>>permitting).
>>
>>>>Aaaaaannnnnnd.... she's got it. We could realize real savings by simply
>>>>allowing people to maintain a steady speed on the highway.
>>
>>>Exactly!
>>
>>>>I just got
>>>>home from work (which is not far from Sharon's office, IIRC) and at
>>>>least three times I found myself tooling along in the right lane and I'd
>>>>come up behind a whole phalanx of Sloth, have to disengage cruise, drop
>>>>5-10 MPH, change three lanes to the left, reaccelerate, pass maybe 5-6
>>>>cars, change three lanes back to the right.
>>
>>>I can understand the lane changing part, but why did you have to
>>>disengage your CC and slow down? I *never* slow down when passing
>>>unless another vehicle in the left lane is preventing me from changing
>>>lanes in time.
>>
>>There ya go. traffic is so heavy it's not always possible to avoid
>>being paced by other traffic. I could often *see* the sloth barricade,
>>but often I'd have to slow to let the idiot to my left ooze past me so I
>>could slip in behind him. The other alternative would be to gun it and
>>slip in front (assuming that he's not tailgating the driver in front of
>>him)
>
>
> And the other alternative, you and so many others obviously will
> rarely consider, is just slowing down.
Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, did you even READ my fucking post? I
*did* say that I slowed down to slip behind, which was the original
complaint. All that slowing and reaccelerating is what kills your gas
mileage, which is the whole point of the thread.
>
>> This is not atypical for DC-area traffic. And you wonder why I'm an
>>antisocial, grouchy bastard.
>
>
> I don't. Your expectations are unrealistic, you refuse to change them
> despite the mountain of evidence that they are unrealistic, so you
> remain in a constant state of disappointment, blaming everyone but
> yourself.
Why, because I expect people to be courteous and reasonable? I refuse
to change my expectations just because some people are assholes. And
yes, I expect YOU to be courteous and reasonable as well, and receive
regular feedback that proves that you're a fuckwit and an asshole.
Go learn how to drive, dickhead. You're the problem, not the solution,
your delusions of adequacy notwithstanding.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792049 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 04:17 |
|
|
Post removed (X-No-Archive: yes)
|
|
|
| Re: Sloth Kills Fuel Economy [message #792051 ] |
Wed, 23 January 2008 04:23 |
|
Scott in SoCal wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 22:03:52 -0500, Nate Nagel <njnagel [at] roosters.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>gpsman wrote:
>
>
>>>And the other alternative, you and so many others obviously will
>>>rarely consider, is just slowing down.
>>
>>Jumping Jesus on a pogo stick, did you even READ my fucking post? I
>>*did* say that I slowed down to slip behind, which was the original
>>complaint. All that slowing and reaccelerating is what kills your gas
>>mileage, which is the whole point of the thread.
>
>
> Is it any surprise to anyone at this point that GPSTard didn't
> understand that?
Well, we know he doesn't understand KRETP, courtesy, or the 85th
percentile, but I was hoping that he might at least understand fuel
economy (or lack thereof) since he supposedly has experience with big
rigs. And reading comprehension, since he's apparently at least capable
of replying to Usenet posts in a manner that comes scarily close to
passing the Turing test.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Thu Jan 8 02:54:24 CET 2009
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0.12699 Sekunden |
