or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › Do you support a new 60/65 national speed limit?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Do you support a new 60/65 national speed limit? - Page 2

Poll Results: Do you support the proposed 60/65 MPH National Speed Limit

Poll expired: Aug 11, 2008  
  • 16% (10)
    Yes, 60 MPH, 65 in rural areas, is fast enough and will save fuel.
  • 74% (46)
    No, I don't support any national speed limit.
  • 8% (5)
    I'd go further, a 55 MPH national speed limit.
  • 1% (1)
    I don't care one way or another.
62 Total Votes  
post #31 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by simonbda View Post
Ding ding ding ding! I drive my compact car 75+mph and still get 30+mpg. I don't think I'm to blame for high oil prices.

Found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law

Lets also not forget that these figures were taken when cars were shaped like bricks, and had low efficiency everything. The savings in today's vehicles, even a large SUV, will be substantially less.
post #32 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post
Lets also not forget that these figures were taken when cars were shaped like bricks, and had low efficiency everything. The savings in today's vehicles, even a large SUV, will be substantially less.
Of course statistics can say just about anything. I'm curious why the increase in economy was so low. I suspect two things-

Compliance was low so in effect people really weren't driving much slower.

There was a huge increase in aggressive driving as people still tried to make time with the lower speed limit. I'm willing to bet that was a huge factor. The 55 limit was actually too low. Although a few people may have driving slow. Most people tried to drive as fast as they could without getting bagged by the revenue enhancement officers (state-police radar traps). They had to drive aggressively to do that. I remember what it was like in the 70s and 80s. I did a ton of interstate driving back then. Slam on the gas until you got to 64.49999 MPH and then back off. Slow car in way. Hit breaks. Shift lane. Slam on gas until back to 64.49999 MPH. Repeat. Repeat. Repeat.

But, I know that if I drove my car 100 miles at 64MPH and then again at 73 MPH, there would be a definite difference in gas mileage. I'd bet 3-5% which is significant.
post #33 of 130
Lets keep the hypocrisy out!
If they want to save fuel, begin to make more (I do agree with Richie-Rich) economic and efficient cars.

What about the consumption of the SUVs and other crap inefficient cars inside the city??? And your speed there is about ~30mph!

What about to begin to prioritize the use a public transportation instead the car. It's far easy to see a lot of people alone in the car every day on the streets. One bus can transport 30-40 people and do not consume as much as 30X more. What a bout metro and trains?

Just take a look at the European and Japanese cars, reanult, pegeout, nissan, honda, fiat, etc and you'll find out how they can do the same as american car using small motors and much less fuel.
post #34 of 130
Cars and SUVs are all sizes so each one will have a different wind drag.
I know that with a big truck you start using over half your fuel to fight the wind at about 55 mph and you can get up to where you're using twice as much fuel to fight the wind resistance fairly quickly as you increase your speed. With high fuel prices you will not see many trucks above 62 mph. Some that are now set at 62 will drop back to 60 or 58 mph. The high speed 500 hp haulers running 80 mph are just about a thing of the past.
We all know that the difference in vehicle speeds on the Interstate system is frequently more dangerous than the absolute speed. Big trucks are a big part of the traffic. The big trucks can't/won't run faster so everyone will slow down. Change the law or leave it alone. It probably doesn't matter much. We'll be driving more slowly in the future.
post #35 of 130
The big rigs can roll downhill fast without using extra gas. When I'm cruise controlled at max. legal minus 10%, I'll move to the left lane if a semi is behind me and there is a restriction on truckers using the left lane. I think SUVs should be required to observe such restrictions and no I will not be moving to the left lane to allow a Big Ski SUV to pass on the right.
post #36 of 130
Thread Starter 
Nova this week had CLick&Clack doing stuff on alternative cars. Apropos.
post #37 of 130
Airing tonight at 8pm.
post #38 of 130
Actually many of you would be very surprised to know that modern large SUVs, such as the one I just obtained, have a very low relative Cd. In my case .34, that means my big hunkering SUV has the same wind resistance as a 2004 Aston Martin DB9 and way less than a Lamborghini Countach...Believe It or Not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...g_coefficients
post #39 of 130
Define SUV?

cars today are so efficient. Speed limits should be guidelines.... not rules.
post #40 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post
Actually many of you would be very surprised to know that modern large SUVs, such as the one I just obtained, have a very low relative Cd. In my case .34, that means my big hunkering SUV has the same wind resistance as a 2004 Aston Martin DB9 and way less than a Lamborghini Countach...Believe It or Not!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...g_coefficients
It may have a low Cd, but I don't think the Cd x A is as low.
post #41 of 130
and there's also something called

FRONTAL AREA

and your new mini van has WAY more than the A-M......

it's apples and oranges
post #42 of 130
As the others have said, let's look at a few examples of .34Cd, but this time multiplying it by the frontal area...

Ferrari Testarossa: 0.63
DeLorean DMC-12: 0.644
Mercedes SLK 350: 0.656
Porsche 996 GT 2: 0.666
Alfa Romeo GT 3.2 V6: 0.67
Audi TT: 0.676
Alfa Romeo Brera 3.2 JTS: 0.714
Aston Martin Vantage: 0.73
Bentley Continental GTC: 0.792
Mercedes ML500: 0.955
post #43 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2turn View Post
Nova this week had CLick&Clack doing stuff on alternative cars. Apropos.
One thing I liked about the show is it gave at least a little inpon on plug-in hybrids. Every time I see something about them, it says they get 100MPG or infinite MPG depending on how long your drive them between charges. Of course that's whooie because the charging uses fule. What you really care about is the carbon footprint and energy expense of the electric portion of the power from plug in charging vs. the gasoline portion of the power for extended range. Without knowing this info, you can't even begin to analyze whether they are a win or not.

I think they numbers they quoted were 25% of the carbon footprint and 40% of the energy cost for grid charging vs. gasoline. Now, I'm sure there's a dozen different ways to calculated it and many variables and someone else could run the numbers and get something different. But if those numbers even close to right, it sounds like a win.

Although I'm skeptical. I do think they may have potential. For one thing, if we got our power grid more on solar and wind, and people recharged mostly at night when electric demand is low, it could really help the environment and energy costs. Maybe four our of five weekdays, I drive about five miles to the train station, take the rail to work, and then drive five miles home. But sometimes, I need to drive one to three hours a couple times a week to ski or do other stuff. A plug-in hybrid would be perfect for that.
post #44 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2turn View Post
One thing I liked about the show is it gave at least a little inpon on plug-in hybrids. Every time I see something about them, it says they get 100MPG or infinite MPG depending on how long your drive them between charges. Of course that's whooie because the charging uses fule. What you really care about is the carbon footprint and energy expense of the electric portion of the power from plug in charging vs. the gasoline portion of the power for extended range. Without knowing this info, you can't even begin to analyze whether they are a win or not.

I think they numbers they quoted were 25% of the carbon footprint and 40% of the energy cost for grid charging vs. gasoline. Now, I'm sure there's a dozen different ways to calculated it and many variables and someone else could run the numbers and get something different. But if those numbers even close to right, it sounds like a win.

Although I'm skeptical. I do think they may have potential. For one thing, if we got our power grid more on solar and wind, and people recharged mostly at night when electric demand is low, it could really help the environment and energy costs. Maybe four our of five weekdays, I drive about five miles to the train station, take the rail to work, and then drive five miles home. But sometimes, I need to drive one to three hours a couple times a week to ski or do other stuff. A plug-in hybrid would be perfect for that.
there is no major manufactoer making plug in hybrid that you speak off, every hybrid on the road today get its electrical energy from braking.

Plugging in a car would be stupid as there is so much energy to had from simply slowing the car down.

I dare you to link me to one plug in hybrid made by a major manufactor.
post #45 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
there is no major manufactoer making plug in hybrid that you speak off, every hybrid on the road today get its electrical energy from braking.

Plugging in a car would be stupid as there is so much energy to had from simply slowing the car down.

I dare you to link me to one plug in hybrid made by a major manufactor.
I didn't say they were made today. I didn't say I was whole-heartedly advocating them. I just said that the idea may have potential. That's it. Five or ten years from now, a plug-in hybrid with 50-100 miles range on a grid charge might might be a great alternative to a pure gasoline care or a non-chargeable hybrid. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Maybe a different technology will come along that would be better. If we're a good running portion of the electric grid on natural power in 20 years, then batteries for cars might be a good idea. But, suppose some chemist somewhere comes up with a way to convert water and CO2 into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, e.g., gasoline, diesel, ,ethanol. Then the fill-up-the-tank paradigm might still be the way to go. Who knows. Let the technology advance and see what's best down the road.

As for being stupid, well you could slow down also and save even more.
post #46 of 130
post #47 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2turn View Post
I didn't say they were made today. I didn't say I was whole-heartedly advocating them. I just said that the idea may have potential. That's it. Five or ten years from now, a plug-in hybrid with 50-100 miles range on a grid charge might might be a great alternative to a pure gasoline care or a non-chargeable hybrid. That's the only point I was trying to make.

Maybe a different technology will come along that would be better. If we're a good running portion of the electric grid on natural power in 20 years, then batteries for cars might be a good idea. But, suppose some chemist somewhere comes up with a way to convert water and CO2 into a liquid hydrocarbon fuel, e.g., gasoline, diesel, ,ethanol. Then the fill-up-the-tank paradigm might still be the way to go. Who knows. Let the technology advance and see what's best down the road.

As for being stupid, well you could slow down also and save even more.
a plug in car with a range of 50-100 miles was and still an electric car!!! not a hybrid.

there is no hybrid today that doesnt get it electric energy off of braking. It would be stupid not too, also the plugging in is stupid and one of th biggest myths about todays and even yesterday's hybrid. I remember when my dad got a insight as a company car and everyone asking us how much it cost to plug in. lol electric power was achieved by a dual purpose generators/DC Motor located between the petrol engine block and manual transmission.

this was in the year 2000...

also the last electric car was taken back by GM and all of them were crushed, AKA the super fast and sporty GM EV1. I feel bad for the owners who GM would not let buy them out.

so

plug in cars = purely electric there is no hybrid technology in a car with one power train.

hybrid = cars that arent plugged in and have 2 different power sources usually gas/electirc but literally any number of combinations could be used.

the near future is bicycles and smaller more compact communities, as off right now beside hybrid technology there is no viable and cost effective alternative fuel.

even today's hybrid suck compared to yesterday's econo cars. because we demand PW,PL, Power steering, Ac, heavy more crash resitant frames, our cars weigh more. Weight sucks for fuel economy, and make the car less fun to drive. My race car gets 40mpg on the highway, runs a 14.5 quarter mile, all with out a catylitic converter. Its illegal to run like that yes but if you put it on tailpipe tester it passes the test. It pollutes no more than any car made from the same era even with out a supposelt nessacary Cat converter.
post #48 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
a plug in car with a range of 50-100 miles was and still an electric car!!! not a hybrid.
....

so

plug in cars = purely electric there is no hybrid technology in a car with one power train.

hybrid = cars that arent plugged in and have 2 different power sources usually gas/electirc but literally any number of combinations could be used.

What would you call a car that --
  • has batteries
  • has an electric motor to drive the wheels powered by the batteries
  • has a liquid hydrocarbon powered engine to charge the batteries
  • might have additional on-board recharging such as regenerative braking
  • can also be charged off the power grid by being plugged in when not in use so for short trips, it doesn't require much if any liquid hydrocarbon fuel

You are free to name it.

You could call it a "plug-in hybrid". You could call it a "FoozieMcDoogleWhizzBangARoo". You could call it a "LetsCallItStooooopidInTheMiddleOfWhatWasAnIntelli gentDiscussionCar". Doesn't really make a difference what you call it.

It's not made as a readily-available production vehicle today. It's an idea that exists today. It will exist tomorrow. It might be a good idea. It might not.

Oh, and I didn't coin the turn "plug-in hybrid".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plug-in_hybrid

Quick read shows seven manufacturers working on them with models coming out in 2009 and 2010. Also, some on are the road today as aftermarket conversions.

At first I totally poo-pooed the idea because what it really does is just move the power source from the engine to the power plant. What the real important question is is, is the power plant more efficient and greener than the engine. That is still the important question. The topic came up because the Nova show was the first place I've seen anyone quote any numbers at all on this question.

PS

Is it freakin' ski season yet?
post #49 of 130
http://www.chevrolet.com/electriccar/

word has it that chevy has basically bet the company's future on the chevy volt. plug-in hybrid due out in 2010. of course, most electricity comes from coal, and here in western ny, it's expensive as hell.
post #50 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
Plugging in a car would be stupid
Not if the batteries have the range to take you to work and back. Your assumption is based on dinky batteries and an overbuilt fuel engine that can power the car by itself to traffic needs. The design object is capacious batteries (enough for a work commute) and a dinky tiny fuel engine that essentially runs as a battery charger.

For better explanation see here.
post #51 of 130
PS all regenerative hybrids do is perpetuate a stop and go culture of red lights and stop signs.


Stuff speed limits on highways - thats not where the savings are. Make roundabouts everywhere.
post #52 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by comprex View Post
PS all regenerative hybrids do is perpetuate a stop and go culture of red lights and stop signs.


Stuff speed limits on highways - thats not where the savings are. Make roundabouts everywhere.
very true....
post #53 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2turn View Post
At first I totally poo-pooed the idea because what it really does is just move the power source from the engine to the power plant. What the real important question is is, is the power plant more efficient and greener than the engine. That is still the important question. The topic came up because the Nova show was the first place I've seen anyone quote any numbers at all on this question.
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!....its what I have been preaching to all these contra-gasoline people. Another thing to think about is how these power plants basically legally-cheat the system by buying credits so that they can spew as much crap into the atmosphere and waters as they want. Its all just a bunch of hypocrisy...smoke and mirrors and for the general public that do not take the time to thoroughly research things and just go with the flow/fad, its good enough.
post #54 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by learn2turn View Post
Of course statistics can say just about anything. I'm curious why the increase in economy was so low. I suspect two things-
I would also suspect the continued existence of 3-speed automatic trannies, that should have been made obsolete in 1970.
post #55 of 130
Nuclear powered cars is the way to go. I am sure if they could encase the radioactive material in a 10" thick lead and steel container there would be no chance of risk of radioactive material leakage in the event of an accident.....of course now with all the terrorism, that solution will NEVER become an option....sad really.
post #56 of 130
I'd be in favor of plug-ins if they were nuclear powered.
post #57 of 130
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by epic View Post
I'd be in favor of plug-ins if they were nuclear powered.
Plug-ins, I love plug-ins. One reason I prefer Firefox.

AdBlockerPlus just rocks. No more movie picture ads while I'm trying to read the news on Yahoo.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
post #58 of 130
Quote:
I also support artificially making the price of gas unaffordable for everybody just to get the big cars off the road. If the big cars were taken off the road and we let gas price settlle out to thier natural prices the gas prices would be cheaper. The simple act of driving your hummer(or other way to large for one person vehicle) is making gas prices higher.
Just too simplistic…

At the turn of the millennium, the estimated number of operational vehicles on the world’s roadways was around 500 – 600 million. I don’t’ recall if there was an estimate regarding cars vs. trucks, small vs. large. My guess is that the world count is higher for cars is than trucks for personal vehicles, and “mid-sized” or smaller is the average size when considered in aggregate. As a share of the worldwide use of petrol, the US large car/truck population is not a driving force for rising gasoline prices. What is a large driving force is the shear number of vehicles on the roads. Estimates for the year 2030 are pegged at 1.3 billion, with the USA no longer leading the way. Not to mention the amount of oil needed to pave/repave ther roadways to handle the growing number of vehicles.

That’s the future and what is mildly impacting current prices. That along with the HUGE use of refined oil for plastics and other products worldwide. I recently saw an estimate that the annual amount of oil used to produce plastic grocery bags and bottled water bottles (2.5 million bottles per hour in the US) would fuel millions cars. By the time a plastic bottle reaches a consumer’s hand in the US, the manufacture and distribution uses .25 gallons of fossil fuel. USA plastic bottle production consumes more than 17 million barrels of oil per year, enough to fuel 1 million vehicles. Not only is worldwide plastic bottle use skyrocketing and consuming fossil fuel, the amount being recycled is miniscule. So while it’s easy to single out SUVs as the current politically incorrect poster child, the real issue is far bigger and more complex. A compact car owner who drives the average 15,000 miles per year uses the same amount of gas that a 16mpg SUV driver does who drives 7,500 miles per year. Even that is loaded with variation depending on highway vs. city driven miles.

What is mostly impacting prices right now is speculation. Oil is a commodity traded on futures markets like corn and hog bellies. Traders are bidding on the right to buy oil that hasn’t even come out of the ground yet. The connection between the recent $/barrel price for oil futures and the price at the pump is a profit game being played by the industry. They aren’t selling $140/barrel oil yet. Throw in all the current issues relating to natural disasters, regional conflict, and political efforts disrupting oil recovery and refining and it equates to the same psychological factor that drives the stock markets – future value predictions. Some people win and some people lose. Finally the US has no excess refining capacity. I think by design, but that’s my opinion.

Would it help if all the US pickup trucks and large SUVs were banned. Some, but not as much as people would like to believe. The exploding growth in vehicle use in “Asia” with the potential for more than 2 billion people to own a vehicle is a driving force. A few rich folk driving an SUV pale in comparison. What about all of the top fuel drag racing? …. 14 gallons of fuel to go ¼ of a mile. There’s so much recreational use of fuel by the masses (ATVs’ cycles, snowmobiles, boats/PWCs, etc.) that picking on a “few rich slobs” for their SUVs is foolish … unless one lives an Amish lifestyle and then maybe the preacher is above reproach.

The problem won’t be solved by pointing fingers at the “other guy”.

The majority of traffic is slowing down on highways where I travel. Truckers are no longer running up the butts of slower traffic ahead of them. Most big rigs that I encounter are running around 65mph or less. I travel 500 miles RT to my mountain and I've noticed slowing from 75/80mph to 65/70mph will make a difference in the gas consumed. I just don't always do it. Have to overcome that "just want to get there" feeling during an extended drive.
post #59 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by BushwackerinPA View Post
there is no major manufactoer making plug in hybrid that you speak off, every hybrid on the road today get its electrical energy from braking.

Plugging in a car would be stupid as there is so much energy to had from simply slowing the car down.

I dare you to link me to one plug in hybrid made by a major manufactor.
Regardless of how much energy you can recover through braking, you still need to add energy one way or another. Plugging in is one way to do that.
What if you could plug in at night and charge up at 2 cents/kWh, drive to work and plug in to sell back some of that in the afternoon when the wholesale price could be anywhere from 12 cents to $1.50? The information technology and hardware to do that is available right now, but the infrastructure needs to be developed.

BK
post #60 of 130
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richie-Rich View Post
Ding, ding, ding, ding!!!....its what I have been preaching to all these contra-gasoline people. Another thing to think about is how these power plants basically legally-cheat the system by buying credits so that they can spew as much crap into the atmosphere and waters as they want. Its all just a bunch of hypocrisy...smoke and mirrors and for the general public that do not take the time to thoroughly research things and just go with the flow/fad, its good enough.
How do they cheat? What credits are they buying? How does that allow them to spew as much as they want? Where is the hypocrisy? Who are they?

BK
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Resorts, Conditions & Travel
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Mountain/Resort Related Forums › Resorts, Conditions & Travel › Do you support a new 60/65 national speed limit?