$4 a gallon and back to their old ways - already!

[ihatemybike]

Originally Posted by theholycow

My commute is a little more than 100 minutes daily.

Ouch! Is that traffic or distance?

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by ihatemybike

Ouch! Is that traffic or distance?

It's actually quite pleasant, and I usually enjoy it. The length of time I spend on it and the fact that I want to enjoy it are overriding factors in my vehicle choices, more important than FE even, and that's how I have the VW instead of something more efficient -- because the VW's seating position fits me perfectly. I listen to my satellite radio, use air conditioning and/or open windows in warm weather, and all around try to enjoy my time.

It's 38 miles each way, 45 to 50 minutes. 40% low-traffic highway, with the rest being industrial/country roads. There's some really beautiful scenery on each end of it, near where I live and where I work (both are in woodsy, low-density areas). There's one section that goes through a series of local resevoirs that's just wonderful...

I'm posting these photos small because they're WAY off topic, but the links should take you to the album and where you can click a link to view it in original 7mp resolution. While driving along I saw what may have been coyotes or wolves or something, I don't really know my wildlife that well. They were walking over the ice, but by the time I got to take a decent picture they were on shore. If you find your way to the full-resolution photo you'll be able to see them...
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/viewP...39791610688322


This is the road where I stopped to take that picture:
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/viewP...62021361626434

[atc228]

Originally Posted by theholycow

It's 38 miles each way, 45 to 50 minutes. 40% low-traffic highway, with the rest being industrial/country roads. There's some really beautiful scenery on each end of it, near where I live and where I work (both are in woodsy, low-density areas). There's one section that goes through a series of local resevoirs that's just wonderful...

As I was reading your post I thought to myself, "sounds like RI." Then I checked your location and, yup, it is, haha. I'm from East Providence and I think I learned how to drive on your commute. It is also where I got my first tips on driving efficiently and could practice them in an open area. A very beautiful area I might add.



On topic, I do think that mandatory FE gauges would help out, but in the mean time maybe scangauge should throw some commercials on TV so people know about it. Maybe we should get the big news stations (like the NBC Nightly News) to do a segment on it, that way it will get the word out and be credible. I am just worried that with the new gauges, some people will be paying too much attention to the gauge itself, and not enough to the road. While I know they could have amazing benefits, I also know that many Americans- especially the ones in question who need the gauges- would get distracted.

[theholycow]

Originally Posted by atc228

As I was reading your post I thought to myself, "sounds like RI." Then I checked your location and, yup, it is, haha. I'm from East Providence and I think I learned how to drive on your commute. It is also where I got my first tips on driving efficiently and could practice them in an open area. A very beautiful area I might add.

Well, I used to commute from Glocester, RI to Exeter, RI -- and then it was 100% country roads, some of which went through RI's resevoirs. Now I commute to a town near Worcester, MA, so the RI portion of my commute is just a few miles on 44 into CT.

Your idea on getting the ScanGauge some publicity is great, but I'd like to see some competition for it first, a similar product from another company. That would make it cheaper, and maybe the company would be nicer than the ScanGauge company (did you read about them refusing group buys?). Also, a more basic MPG-specific gauge could possibly be cheaper, requiring less R&D and less electronics.

[monroe74]

The SG seems to work well for lots of people, but a basic limitation is that it calculates fuel use indirectly (via airflow sensors) rather than reading it directly via a flow sensor or via the injectors. In certain situations on certain cars, this can cause problems with accuracy. And the nature of the situation is that it's very easy to have this problem (SG giving you bad numbers) and not be aware of it.

It's still a great tool, but I think a lot of people aren't aware of this particular limitation.

[adamsjd1]

Originally Posted by theholycow

What does room and size have to do with speed?

Nothing. I'm just stating that people only think they need these things because that's what the automotive companies keep dishing out. I don't know how many people I know that have either 1 child, or none at all that drive huge SUV's made for seating 6+ people. I don't get what the point is. We have a Grand Prix, and a Dodge Caravan. We have 3 kids, so our vehicles are used for their purpose. Transporting more than just one self with a friend from time to time.

[96hb]

Originally Posted by theclencher

Then these "people with a life" better not whine about fuel prices.

I'm sorry, but I think you do enough whining here for all of us.

[Janos Lin]

Originally Posted by monroe74

Good point, I didn't think of that. Overall efficiency would improve because vehicles closer together would tend to create more of a drafting effect.

Not really, no. Aero drag at low speeds is so insignificant its hardly worth mentioning. At those speeds, air would fill back in before you hit the point the preceding car just left, so no drafting.

http://craig.backfire.ca/pages/autos/drag

While there are many tangible and intagible reasons for driving slower, or faster, but strictly from the viewpoint of how much you're paid per hour vs fuel economy savings, its usually cheaper to go faster, with the figures being more significant over the longer run. The exception would be if you were a low income worker with a very fuel efficient car.

People would see more significant gains to their wallets by going to a more fuel efficient car, from say a truck to a prius. Otherwise I wouldn't bother.

Something to think about, a dollar you save, could be at the expense of the 10 people behind you. Is it cheaper to go slow, and keep pulling over to let people pass and then speed back up. Some tatics are good, others not so much. Funny thing is my 06 Accord V6 returns 26% better mileage at higher speeds along I-5 as opposed to the 55/65 roads on my daily commute.

Janos

[monroe74]

Originally Posted by Janos Lin

Aero drag at low speeds is so insignificant its hardly worth mentioning. At those speeds, air would fill back in before you hit the point the preceding car just left, so no drafting.

Another good point. I didn't think of that, either. And thanks for the very helpful link.

strictly from the viewpoint of how much you're paid per hour vs fuel economy savings, its usually cheaper to go faster

That's an interesting and valid way to look at the situation. But you also have to take into account that many or most people are not in a perfectly elastic work situation. In other words, they don't have the choice, in a given week or month, to work X extra hours in return for Y extra dollars. So if I choose to spend more time driving, in order to save money, it's not necessarily time that was stolen from my work schedule. It might be time that was stolen from my leisure schedule. So the analysis gets a little more complicated.

[slurp812]

Originally Posted by jadziasman

Well, the slowdown on the highways I drive every day didn't last long.

Most cars passing me are driving faster than the posted 70 mph limit from what I can judge as they whiz by me while I try to stay at 60 mph. Apparently the few minutes they save going faster is worth it to them.

I have no clue now what it's going to take to get them to slow down. Will it be a $100 fill up? More?

They believe that the vehicles they drive get the advertised mileage, and there is nothing they can do to change that.