Well thought out billboard?
Discussion
I saw a billboard yesterday. I can't remember the advertised website exactly, but it was something along the lines of savefuelscotland.org.
The billboard stated that driving at 70mph uses 10% more fuel than driving at 50mph - with the intention of making drivers drive slower to conserve fuel.
By my calculations, 70mph is 40% faster than 50mph - you get 40% more speed and hence arrive at your destination 40% sooner for only 10% more fuel.
Has anyone else seen this billboard? Have I picked it up wrong or is my maths wrong??!
The billboard stated that driving at 70mph uses 10% more fuel than driving at 50mph - with the intention of making drivers drive slower to conserve fuel.
By my calculations, 70mph is 40% faster than 50mph - you get 40% more speed and hence arrive at your destination 40% sooner for only 10% more fuel.
Has anyone else seen this billboard? Have I picked it up wrong or is my maths wrong??!
Stevenj214 said:
I saw a billboard yesterday. I can't remember the advertised website exactly, but it was something along the lines of savefuelscotland.org.
The billboard stated that driving at 70mph uses 10% more fuel than driving at 50mph - with the intention of making drivers drive slower to conserve fuel.
By my calculations, 70mph is 40% faster than 50mph - you get 40% more speed and hence arrive at your destination 40% sooner for only 10% more fuel.
Has anyone else seen this billboard? Have I picked it up wrong or is my maths wrong??!
Arrive at you destination 28.5% earlier for 10% more fuel.The billboard stated that driving at 70mph uses 10% more fuel than driving at 50mph - with the intention of making drivers drive slower to conserve fuel.
By my calculations, 70mph is 40% faster than 50mph - you get 40% more speed and hence arrive at your destination 40% sooner for only 10% more fuel.
Has anyone else seen this billboard? Have I picked it up wrong or is my maths wrong??!
I'd rather spend 10% more on fuel then waste my life driving on the motorway at 50mph that would only add another hour to my total daily comute.
Driving at 50mph on the motorway is just fecking dangerous frankly.
Also have they thought about this:
Person driving at 50mph on the motorway cause dozens of lorries to have to slow down pull out and then speed up again - How much extra fuel will this use?
These Lorries will then block cars who will slow down and then speed up again - How much extra fuel will this use?
This country is run by retards.
Driving at 50mph on the motorway is just fecking dangerous frankly.
Also have they thought about this:
Person driving at 50mph on the motorway cause dozens of lorries to have to slow down pull out and then speed up again - How much extra fuel will this use?
These Lorries will then block cars who will slow down and then speed up again - How much extra fuel will this use?
This country is run by retards.
Utter crap, isnt it?
The whole world seems to be going in to meltdown about what can be saved.
My favourite was in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, where in the bathroom there is the familiar 'help us to help your environment. If you use your towels for 3 days, we will save.blah, blah, blah detergent blah, blah, blah.'
Im sure it may save a thimble full of soap powder, but since you had to fly me 2500 miles to get here, it doesnt seem to make a great deal of difference.
Am i the only one that simply doesnt care about my carbon footprint/effects on the environment and so on???
The whole world seems to be going in to meltdown about what can be saved.
My favourite was in Egypt a couple of weeks ago, where in the bathroom there is the familiar 'help us to help your environment. If you use your towels for 3 days, we will save.blah, blah, blah detergent blah, blah, blah.'
Im sure it may save a thimble full of soap powder, but since you had to fly me 2500 miles to get here, it doesnt seem to make a great deal of difference.
Am i the only one that simply doesnt care about my carbon footprint/effects on the environment and so on???
V8mate said:
Stevenj214 said:
I saw a billboard yesterday. I can't remember the advertised website exactly, but it was something along the lines of savefuelscotland.org.
The billboard stated that driving at 70mph uses 10% more fuel than driving at 50mph - with the intention of making drivers drive slower to conserve fuel.
By my calculations, 70mph is 40% faster than 50mph - you get 40% more speed and hence arrive at your destination 40% sooner for only 10% more fuel.
Has anyone else seen this billboard? Have I picked it up wrong or is my maths wrong??!
Arrive at you destination 28.5% earlier for 10% more fuel.The billboard stated that driving at 70mph uses 10% more fuel than driving at 50mph - with the intention of making drivers drive slower to conserve fuel.
By my calculations, 70mph is 40% faster than 50mph - you get 40% more speed and hence arrive at your destination 40% sooner for only 10% more fuel.
Has anyone else seen this billboard? Have I picked it up wrong or is my maths wrong??!
t to care anymore.So.
By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
rude-boy said:
So.
By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
Sadly not, it's Miles Per Gallon so time taken is irrelevent. By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
rude-boy said:
So.
By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
No. By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
At 50mph you'll use 100% of the fuel and get there 'on time'.
At 70mph, you'll use 110% of the fuel and get there 28.5% earlier.
Does that help?
My understanding is that fuel consumption increases exponentially above roughly 60mph because of the increasing part being played by wind-resistance, so people would be best off driving at about 60. Above 60 = more fuel consumption due to wind-resistance, below 60 = more fuel consumption due to the engine having to do more of the work to keep the car moving as there isn't sufficient momentum. I believe the optimum trade-off between momentum and wind resistance is just below 60mph. I now await a mathematical/scientific genius to flame me!
V8mate said:
rude-boy said:
So.
By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
No. By driving 20mph slower you would arrive at your destination 28(ish)% later. Therefore you will be driving for 28% longer, using 90% of the fuel you would have at 70mph...
Now maths is not my strong point (or else i'd have crunched the full numbers for an illustration) but surely it actually means that you will get there later and use more fuel...
At 50mph you'll use 100% of the fuel and get there 'on time'.
At 70mph, you'll use 110% of the fuel and get there 28.5% earlier.
Does that help?
Doesn't seem quite so cockeyed if we know that they are talking the 50mph mpg figures as the 100% percentile (or whatever the correct term is!)Personally I see it as paying an extra 10% travel costs for an extra 28% of my time which is a good RoR as far as i'm concerned.
MitchT said:
My understanding is that fuel consumption increases exponentially above roughly 60mph because of the increasing part being played by wind-resistance, so people would be best off driving at about 60. Above 60 = more fuel consumption due to wind-resistance, below 60 = more fuel consumption due to the engine having to do more of the work to keep the car moving as there isn't sufficient momentum. I believe the optimum trade-off between momentum and wind resistance is just below 60mph. I now await a mathematical/scientific genius to flame me!
The 'just below 60mph' bit has to be erroneous.A car is at its most economical when it is travelling at the lowest possible speed, in the highest possible gear, without causing the engine to labour.
So, for example, on a flat road, my wife's MINI Cooper is most economically driven at c.33mph.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff