The Sun - How can they be so bad on reporting on Hypermiling
Discussion
I read this article in the Sun the other day about Hypermiling.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/18828804/driving-h...
A couple of sentences in they quote this from Karl Dyson founder of hypermiler.co.uk
"His first tip was to try coasting which is when you press in the clutch while travelling forward.
Coasting uses no fuel and works well when approaching red lights."
I thought, this Karl chap clearly doesn't understand anything about cars. Most people will know that an engine must use a certain amount of fuel to prevent stalling when the clutch is pressed, however, the opposite is true when slowing down in gear for anything made in the last 15 - 20 years (probably).
So the advise given is completely wrong.
I then noted that at the top of the page there is a recording, and the recording shows that Karl is spot on. The Sun just didn't understand his simple explanation and reported it completely wrong.
So sorry Karl for momentarily thinking you were off your trolley.
What concerns me, when I read an article in the Sun of something I understand, and it's obvious how wrong they are, what about all the topics I don't have background knowledge in?
It's just further evidence that the Sun can be for entertainment only. Assume none of it is correct.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/18828804/driving-h...
A couple of sentences in they quote this from Karl Dyson founder of hypermiler.co.uk
"His first tip was to try coasting which is when you press in the clutch while travelling forward.
Coasting uses no fuel and works well when approaching red lights."
I thought, this Karl chap clearly doesn't understand anything about cars. Most people will know that an engine must use a certain amount of fuel to prevent stalling when the clutch is pressed, however, the opposite is true when slowing down in gear for anything made in the last 15 - 20 years (probably).
So the advise given is completely wrong.
I then noted that at the top of the page there is a recording, and the recording shows that Karl is spot on. The Sun just didn't understand his simple explanation and reported it completely wrong.
So sorry Karl for momentarily thinking you were off your trolley.
What concerns me, when I read an article in the Sun of something I understand, and it's obvious how wrong they are, what about all the topics I don't have background knowledge in?
It's just further evidence that the Sun can be for entertainment only. Assume none of it is correct.
montyjohn said:
It's just further evidence that the Sun can be for entertainment only. Assume none of it is correct.
Yeah it's quite interesting to read mainstream press coverage of a subject you know in depth! I had quick browse through Karl's site, I like that he has a guide to using Octavia VRS launch control under hypermiling tips
V8covin said:
Triumph Man said:
In anything half modern (i.e. has fuel injection) if you're off the throttle with the car in gear it won't use any fuel (i.e. going down hill). If in neutral, or as soon as you touch the throttle, you will be using fuel.
How can an ICE possibly run without fuel ?This should be common knowledge.
ChocolateFrog said:
Because the wheels are turning the engine over.
This should be common knowledge.
I have always assumed as much. The momentum of the car directly connected to the wheels when the clutch is engaged turns the engine over without the need to combustion. You can feel the energy required to turn the engine over when off throttle in gear through 'engine braking'.This should be common knowledge.
V8covin said:
Ok I'll put it another way,how is the engine firing without fuel ?
It's not firing. How could it, if it's not using any fuel? It is turning though, and the momentum that the car has is what is used to turn the engine over,. Obviously, this results in engine braking, as the contents of the cylinder are still being compressed, but with no 'bang' at the end of that stroke, providing power.
Soon as you declutch, the engine will start using fuel to keep it at idle.
Some modern automatic cars make use of both of these to decrease fuel use. My petrol SQ5 will put itself into neutral and coast sometimes, if you're not on the throttle pedal, which is using more fuel, technically, than leaving it in gear; but you don't get any engine braking, so the car will coast farther/not slow down as much.
Soon as you touch the brake pedal, it'll put itself back into gear, and you'll get the benefit of engine braking as well as the service brakes, to slow the car down.
V8covin said:
ChocolateFrog said:
Because the wheels are turning the engine over.
This should be common knowledge.
Ok I'll put it another way,how is the engine firing without fuel ?This should be common knowledge.
montyjohn said:
I read this article in the Sun the other day about Hypermiling.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/18828804/driving-h...
A couple of sentences in they quote this from Karl Dyson founder of hypermiler.co.uk
"His first tip was to try coasting which is when you press in the clutch while travelling forward.
Coasting uses no fuel and works well when approaching red lights."
I thought, this Karl chap clearly doesn't understand anything about cars. Most people will know that an engine must use a certain amount of fuel to prevent stalling when the clutch is pressed, however, the opposite is true when slowing down in gear for anything made in the last 15 - 20 years (probably).
So the advise given is completely wrong.
I then noted that at the top of the page there is a recording, and the recording shows that Karl is spot on. The Sun just didn't understand his simple explanation and reported it completely wrong.
So sorry Karl for momentarily thinking you were off your trolley.
What concerns me, when I read an article in the Sun of something I understand, and it's obvious how wrong they are, what about all the topics I don't have background knowledge in?
It's just further evidence that the Sun can be for entertainment only. Assume none of it is correct.
IMO your entire premise here is incorrect. https://www.thesun.co.uk/motors/18828804/driving-h...
A couple of sentences in they quote this from Karl Dyson founder of hypermiler.co.uk
"His first tip was to try coasting which is when you press in the clutch while travelling forward.
Coasting uses no fuel and works well when approaching red lights."
I thought, this Karl chap clearly doesn't understand anything about cars. Most people will know that an engine must use a certain amount of fuel to prevent stalling when the clutch is pressed, however, the opposite is true when slowing down in gear for anything made in the last 15 - 20 years (probably).
So the advise given is completely wrong.
I then noted that at the top of the page there is a recording, and the recording shows that Karl is spot on. The Sun just didn't understand his simple explanation and reported it completely wrong.
So sorry Karl for momentarily thinking you were off your trolley.
What concerns me, when I read an article in the Sun of something I understand, and it's obvious how wrong they are, what about all the topics I don't have background knowledge in?
It's just further evidence that the Sun can be for entertainment only. Assume none of it is correct.
Say I am approaching something like a red light or a motorway junction in the far distance.
I have several options:
1) Drive at a constant speed and brake hard at the obstacle. This will use the most fuel.
2) Knock the car out of gear let the engine idle and coast for a long time at a very gradually reducing speed.. Fuel consumption is equal to whatever the engine uses idling.
3) Just take my foot off the accelerator. Engine braking is far more powerful than wind drag, so I slow down quite fast to whatever speed idle + gear takes me to. I then have to reaccelerate to make it to the obstruction.
As a simple example - on my old commute, I could pretty much coast for a mile on the motorway by taking the car out of gear, and letting the speed gradually decline from 80 to about 50 at the exit. If I had just removed my foot from the accelerator, I would have slowed to a walking pace in about 200 yards.
The advice to just press the clutch is also wrong - it will kill the release bearing, Take the car out of gear.
rxe said:
As a simple example - on my old commute, I could pretty much coast for a mile on the motorway by taking the car out of gear, and letting the speed gradually decline from 80 to about 50 at the exit. If I had just removed my foot from the accelerator, I would have slowed to a walking pace in about 200 yards.
The advice to just press the clutch is also wrong - it will kill the release bearing, Take the car out of gear.
You might be saving some fuel but in my mind coasting in neutral from 80mph is not a safe technique to be recommended. The advice to just press the clutch is also wrong - it will kill the release bearing, Take the car out of gear.
If you had to do any evasive manoeuvre you might be in a mess.
I'd say he's full of twaddle. Do you really consider you ICE to not be running every time you lift off going down a hill? I'd say the ECU considers it to be running. Any subsequent throttle response considers it to be running. No starter motor or hand-cranking is required at the bottom of the hill, is it?
What if we remove the hill, and the wheels and the rest of the car, and just fit a massive flywheel instead? Spin up the flywheel with the ICE then close the throttle. That's not running? I'd say if you can open the throttle again and RPM increases then it's still running.
If statements need to boil down to semantics, then they're daft statements, and should be dismissed as such.
What if we remove the hill, and the wheels and the rest of the car, and just fit a massive flywheel instead? Spin up the flywheel with the ICE then close the throttle. That's not running? I'd say if you can open the throttle again and RPM increases then it's still running.
If statements need to boil down to semantics, then they're daft statements, and should be dismissed as such.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff