effect of the slipstream

[BadDriver]

For example - If everyone drives in the inside lane of the motorway at the speed they want to unless overtaking would the effect of the slipstream save the driver petrol?


Please let's get everyone to try it and save some petrol!!!







snigger

[Rawwr]

Absolutely. Probably. I don't know. What was the question?

[5potTurbo]

Rawwr said:

Absolutely. Probably. I don't know. What was the question?

[Davie_GLA]

4 months, first post a failure. Impressive.

[soad]

No name thread!

Using iPhone by any chance?

[Z06George]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Yes it's half term.

[BadDriver]

Lol yes was posted on a poxy iPhone took 4 attempts to post a thread

4 months first post so? More to do with pedantic posters looking to increase their ecock post counts with stupid replys. I'm not suprised really as i see it on a lot of other forums.

You see the original post was to point out to the pedantic people ( some that I read posts from on here ) about the benefits of driving in the inside lane and therefore keeping them out of the outside lanes leaving them free for overtaking.

Simple really ;-)

[BadDriver]

Lol yes was posted on a poxy iPhone took 4 attempts to post a thread

4 months first post so? More to do with pedantic posters looking to increase their ecock post counts with stupid replys. I'm not suprised really as i see it on a lot of other forums.

You see the original post was to point out to the pedantic people ( some that I read posts from on here ) about the benefits of driving in the inside lane and therefore keeping them out of the outside lanes leaving them free for overtaking.

Simple really ;-)

Ps the orig title made more sense but as I posted it on the phone it disappeared so a mod made the title back up.

[kazman]

Bookmarking this thread now....

[Alex@POD]

BadDriver said:

For example - If everyone drives in the inside lane of the motorway at the speed they want to unless overtaking would the effect of the slipstream save the driver petrol?

I'll be sensible here:

If everyone drives at the speed they want to, they will end up overtaking all the time, and driving as fast as the driver in the front of the queue in the outside lane will. Because he's a numpty and thinks he doesn't need to pull in. Sounds a lot like how it happens now!

On top of that, if you drive close enough to my bumper to benefit from slipstreaming in a road car, you need to be put down, you nutter!

[Petrolhead_Rich]

slipstreaming was covered on myth busters, you have to drive literally 8" of the rear bumper of an articulated lorry to gain 1-2MPG, but you loose it anyway with the foot twitching.

Good Luck, you may want to invest in life insurance, as this would be the result:

[twazzock]

Petrolhead_Rich said:

slipstreaming was covered on myth busters, you have to drive literally 8" of the rear bumper of an articulated lorry to gain 1-2MPG, but you loose it anyway with the foot twitching.

You didn't actually watch that episode, did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE

[Efbe]

twazzock said:

Petrolhead_Rich said:

slipstreaming was covered on myth busters, you have to drive literally 8" of the rear bumper of an articulated lorry to gain 1-2MPG, but you loose it anyway with the foot twitching.

You didn't actually watch that episode, did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE

ys but myth busters is complete boll0cks.

this used to be fairly common, in which small 1 L cars would follow coaches on the motorway. don't see it now,because even bogo-povo-spec cars can make a tonne.

if slip streaming doesn't work, then you better tell every professional cyclist in the world they are doin it wrong.

[BadDriver]

You don't have to be that close to get the effect of drafting.

When you're driving at a 70 and come up behind a car also doing 70 you have to let off the pedal to stop you running in to the back of it or when you come up behind a lorry you find the car accelerating without moving your foot it's because of less load on the engine due to the draft of the vehicle in front.

And of course driving inches of the bumper of the vehicle in front is stupid this isn't the point I'm making.

It more a line of cars in 1 lane instead of being spread out.

[inman999]

Petrolhead_Rich said:

slipstreaming was covered on myth busters, you have to drive literally 8" of the rear bumper of an articulated lorry to gain 1-2MPG, but you loose it anyway with the foot twitching.

Good Luck, you may want to invest in life insurance, as this would be the result:

From memory the benefit was more like 30% and the effect was noted 100's of feet back.

Why would this guarantee a pile a up.

[twazzock]

twazzock said:

Petrolhead_Rich said:

slipstreaming was covered on myth busters, you have to drive literally 8" of the rear bumper of an articulated lorry to gain 1-2MPG, but you loose it anyway with the foot twitching.

You didn't actually watch that episode, did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE

Efbe said:

ys but myth busters is complete boll0cks.

In what way? The testing they did seems fairly sound.

Efbe said:

this used to be fairly common, in which small 1 L cars would follow coaches on the motorway. don't see it now,because even bogo-povo-spec cars can make a tonne.

And? Yes, they can crack 100mph, what if they want a crack at 100mpg? Following a lorry (at a safe distance) is likely to help them do so, which you admit in your next point!:

Efbe said:

if slip streaming doesn't work, then you better tell every professional cyclist in the world they are doin it wrong.

Edited by twazzock on Friday 29th October 16:07

[Efbe]

twazzock said:

twazzock said:

Petrolhead_Rich said:

slipstreaming was covered on myth busters, you have to drive literally 8" of the rear bumper of an articulated lorry to gain 1-2MPG, but you loose it anyway with the foot twitching.

You didn't actually watch that episode, did you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE

Efbe said:

ys but myth busters is complete boll0cks.

In what way? The testing they did seems fairly sound.

Efbe said:

this used to be fairly common, in which small 1 L cars would follow coaches on the motorway. don't see it now,because even bogo-povo-spec cars can make a tonne.

And? Yes, they can crack 100mph, what if they want a crack at 100mpg? Following a lorry (at a safe distance) is likely to help them do so, which you admit in your next point!:

Efbe said:

if slip streaming doesn't work, then you better tell every professional cyclist in the world they are doin it wrong.

Edited by twazzock on Friday 29th October 16:07

twazzock. you make no sense.

In general the program "myth buster's" is a complete piece of rubbish. it is not scientific show, yes i have seen the episode. it is entertaining, but by no means conclusive either way

I have no idea why on earth you are arguing with me.

I mentioned cyclists to prove it does work, albeit at close range due to their speed.

I also mentioned you used to see it a lot because it was the only way for small cars to get decent speeds up on the motorway. Nowadays you don't see this at all.

I have no idea why you are mentioning mpg regarding my post, Yes you will get better mpg by doing this. that is just obvious, but unless there was a very good linked safety mechanism to make both vehicles stop at the same time at the same speed, then it would be dangerous.

edit: if this post seems disjointed, it is because I really don't understand what you are trying to get at

Edited by Efbe on Friday 29th October 16:31

[Tomatogti]

[quote=Efbe]
if slip streaming doesn't work, then you better tell every professional cyclist in the world they are doin it wrong.

It would make a substantial difference. As said above makes a big difference to cyclists at 20-30mph. As drag resistance increases by the cube of the speed increase (double the speed, 8 times the drag) then at motorway speeds it would make a massive difference. Assuming big enough gears, a cyclist could easily sit in behind a lorry doing 60mph, car would be similar and would make a substantial fuel saving.

[sw4rm]

[quote=BadDriver]

When you're driving at a 70 and come up behind a car also doing 70 you have to let off the pedal to stop you running in to the back of it...quote]

This is not possible.

[twazzock]

Efbe said:

twazzock. you make no sense.

In general the program "myth buster's" is a complete piece of rubbish. it is not scientific show, yes i have seen the episode. it is entertaining, but by no means conclusive either way

I have no idea why on earth you are arguing with me.

I mentioned cyclists to prove it does work, albeit at close range due to their speed.

I also mentioned you used to see it a lot because it was the only way for small cars to get decent speeds up on the motorway. Nowadays you don't see this at all.

I have no idea why you are mentioning mpg regarding my post, Yes you will get better mpg by doing this. that is just obvious, but unless there was a very good linked safety mechanism to make both vehicles stop at the same time at the same speed, then it would be dangerous.

edit: if this post seems disjointed, it is because I really don't understand what you are trying to get at

Edited by Efbe on Friday 29th October 16:31

I was asking why you thought Mythbuster is so bad. A genuine question, as their test seemed fairly sound. Obviously it wasn't that in depth or scientific, but it's not entirely flawed, is it?

The rest of your post just seemed like a bit of a non-sequitur, so I was bringing it back on to the topic of fuel efficiency.

There seems no reason for a 'safety mechanism' beyond the usual safe following distance. There are surely gains to be had 2 seconds behind a lorry rather than with no lorry at all.

Didn't mean to seem argumentative, I was just questioning the Mythbusters point and linking your speed point to efficiency.