New excuse to lower the speed limit

[Usarka]

http://www.stuff.co.nz/4513470a10.html

Hmmm, lets say we're doing it to reduce greenhouse emmissions!

[Hitcher]

Fucking bureaucrats!

[nodrog]

fucking Hippies!!

[Hitcher]

Yeah. Burn them!

[Usarka]

Fuck it, I'm revolting.

[ManDownUnder]

Yeah. Burn them!

And the sooner the better. They eat beans, and lentils and things. They're probably the biggest methane producers of the lot.

[ManDownUnder]

Fuck it, I'm revolting.

I'm only "mostly disgusting", but working on it.

[riffer]

So a 10 percent reduction in speed creates a 1.4 percent reduction in oil consumption through an 11 percent efficiency gain.

Why are there no costs associated with other time-based inefficiencies discussed? I speculate they aren't considered in the equation.

[Pwalo]

Don't forget the proposed urban road and congestion charging being proposed as well. Just imagine the beaucracy that would be associated with that BS.

I'd also like to see the research that backs up the efficiency claim for 90kph. I'm sure that there was talk that the most fuel efficient speed for modern cars was around 110kph.

[Marmoot]

The discussion about the proposed speed limit reduction only masks the real issue that in reality this country is now being governed by a party which is only supported by 5% of the voters.

Just look at the example:
- anti-smacking bill
- prostitution reform
- fuel tax surcharge (proposed, delayed but not ruled out)
- speed limit reduction (proposed)

Find out why:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10508398

Amazing example of democracy.....

[WRT]

So a 10 percent reduction in speed creates a 1.4 percent reduction in oil consumption through an 11 percent efficiency gain.

I'd dispute these figures. 97 Legacy GTB's get 450k's to a tank on the open road when doing 100-110, but get 500k's when doing 120kph (not that I'd do that sort of reckless speed myself, officer). Might be different in autos, but in the manual the 100-110 bracket is too high rev'ing in 4th, and in 5th its too low - you can hear the engine labouring. Get up to 120 and it purrs along and uses NOTICIBLY less gas.

A lot of modern cars are set up for faster speeds on motorways, speeds of 120-150kph are not uncommon on European motorways (not sure about America or Asia), and so their gearing is not suited for optimum cruising at 100kph.

Note that I doubt this applies to older cars (mind you, a '97 is getting pretty old now) or vans/trucks/suvs/other un-aerodynamic vehicles. But they shouldn't be on the roads getting in our way anyway.

[Hitcher]

Don't forget the same mentality that thinks that cheesecutter barriers are OK is at play here as well. We are talking about serious wowserism.

[Big Dave]

And then seven or eight people turn up for BRONZ meetings.

[Usarka]

i cant even turn up to work on time.....


By this logic the auckland motorway should be a very low pollutant. traffic rarely gets above 60kph in peak times.....

[TOTO]

They wont dare lowering it. That will create even more traffic problems.

[swbarnett]

I'd dispute these figures.
Me too.

1994 Honda Accord, engine's done about 200,000km (had a second hand one put in at 245,000km on the clock cause the mechanic messed up the cam chain replacement). If I cruise at 100-110 I need about 3/4 of a full tank of gas to get to Hamilton and back from Auckland, If I cruise at 120 I only use half a tank.

[WRT]

Me too.

1994 Honda Accord, engine's done about 200,000km (had a second hand one put in at 245,000km on the clock cause the mechanic messed up the cam chain replacement). If I cruise at 100-110 I need about 3/4 of a full tank of gas to get to Hamilton and back from Auckland, If I cruise at 120 I only use half a tank.

Drop your speed to 90 and in my experience, things only get worse. Like I say, YMMV for non-aerodynamic bricks, mk1 escorts, hillman imps, etc, but in the main, most cars get better MPG at 120 (and possibly higher, on long flat straight roads like the new expressways).

[Daffyd]

My '96 Polo is the same... I don't have the figures to back it up but I know it's happier and uses less gas between 120 and 130 than at 100.

[Usarka]

Some one needs to do some scientific research, and possibly use the evidence to increase the speed limit in order to save greenhouse emmissions! :wari:

[FilthyLuka]

i'd guess euro cars would get different fuel rates. seeing as some would be geared for a 130km/h cruise as opposed to the 100km/h NZ limit

[Edbear]

Some one needs to do some scientific research, and possibly use the evidence to increase the speed limit in order to save greenhouse emmissions! :wari:


Or even a proper fuel usage check. It needs to be done over about three tankfuls, under similar conditions. There are so many variables otherwise.

The government could do more to encourage people to buy later model vehicles which are becoming very efficient these days. Perhaps reducing the tax on new cars, or the GST rebate being available to the private motorist?

Registration reduced for cars under 5 years old? There could be some interesting ideas on this.

[avgas]

We are already the 'slowest' nation on the planet. If the greens want to decrease their carbon footprint on the planet they should remove themselves from it.

[Usarka]

The government could do more to encourage people to buy later model vehicles which are becoming very efficient these days. Perhaps reducing the tax on new cars, or the GST rebate being available to the private motorist?

Or apply emmission standards and regulations on imported vehicles.

But that would lose votes.

[jrandom]

Fucking bureaucrats!


fucking Hippies!!

I don't think either concept would make for pr0n that I'd want to watch.

:crazy:

[Morcs]

The proposed congestion charges wont actually stop people using their cars.
I dont understand where they get that idea from. They will just keep driving and pay the money.

[merv]

Who remembers 1974 and the 80km/hr limit being imposed? Fun times when I used to get tickets for doing 99 on the highway - sheesh!!

[DinnMuzz]

Hey it is election year again, can't you tell all these wally's, are thinking up good, NOT, ideas, the latest reduce the open road limit to 90kms Heard it on the News Today. The reason,,,,,,, IT WILL REDUCE VEHICLE EMISSIONS....:nono:

What the,, maybe they could stop talking,, that would reduce hot gas emissions.
as well as Green gas, emissions.:sick:

[megageoff76]

but if we are going slower it will take longer to get there...therefore using more petrol....:clap:

[chubby]

and just to make sure everyone adheres to this new proposal I bet they'd draft in another 100 Bearly Holden's to cruise the motorways and look out for minor discretions.

Oh the green party, they should be on stage.... then next one outta town.

[Skyryder]

They wont dare lowering it. That will create even more traffic problems.

And more revinue.


Skyryder

[yod]

they coudl also buy a fleet of Hyundai Getz's instead of the 34 beemers with what; 3-4 litre diesel engines(?), that are the new parliamentary vehicles

[peasea]

Drop your speed to 90 and in my experience, things only get worse. Like I say, YMMV for non-aerodynamic bricks, mk1 escorts, hillman imps, etc, but in the main, most cars get better MPG at 120 (and possibly higher, on long flat straight roads like the new expressways).

I know ours does. A 5.7l V8 Holden Berlina is at it's best (in overdrive) at about 117kph. The engine is making gobs of torque at that pace and if I slow it down it often slips back a cog, using more gas. It's also only an $80 fine at that pace but the soon to banned radar detector that's on my shopping list will counter a lot of that bs.

[scracha]

Bwhahaha. Next they'll be telling us we need a flag waving man walking in front of our vehicles.

With the $hite roads going through towns and over railway lines it already takes the best part of a day to go between Dorkland and Wellywood. The railway system is a joke and air travel doesn't exactly help the environment (and even if it did we only get ripped off by shitey "welcome to our monopoly " Air New Zealand).

[Hitcher]

I don't think either concept would make for pr0n that I'd want to watch.
Particularly the hippies, whose excessively rampant body hair would velcro them together. Great flailing dreadlocks, Batman!

[Edbear]

Who remembers 1974 and the 80km/hr limit being imposed? Fun times when I used to get tickets for doing 99 on the highway - sheesh!!

And the car-less days!

[Forest]

Before anyone says "this will never happen" they should read this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_Law).


The National Maximum Speed Law (in the United States) was a provision of the 1974 Emergency Highway Energy Conservation Act[1] that capped all speed limits at 55 mph (90 km/h). This cap was intended to conserve gasoline in response to the 1973 oil crisis. This law was modified in the late 1980s to allow 65 mph (105 km/h) limits. In 1995 it was repealed, returning the power of setting speed limits to the states.

[peasea]

And the car-less days!


I was told Carlos Daze was a Mexican guitarist.

[Grahameeboy]

Fuck it, I'm revolting.

I couldn't agree more :yes:

[Grahameeboy]

Yeah. Burn them!

Remember the emission gases?

[Hitcher]

I was told Carlos Daze was a Mexican guitarist.

I think you maybe confused with Manuel Labour.

[The Pastor]

my 83 civic 1.3l hatch gets much more km to the tank at 140km/hr than 100. It was the same with my gpz1000. It loved 150km/hr. just slowly wallowed along :)

[Mikkel]

I find that the fuel efficiency of my GT-B is really good at 200 km/h... So far I have used less than one litre of petrol travelling at that speed.

[Hitcher]

The Lorenz Contraction further enhances fuel economy.

[Mikkel]

But then, that pesky time dilation is so bloody hard to get your head around...

[Hitcher]

A fencing instructor named Fisk
Had a technique exceedingly brisk
So fast was his action
The Lorenz Contraction
Foreshortened his foil to a disc.

[MD]

I got curious after reading this, so I decided to test what the 675's economy is like at different cruising speeds yesterday.

The Daytona has a current litres used per 100km display. It seems quite accurate and responds to the slightest change in gradient or head wind speed - which made it bloody hard to get a steady readout.
Remember, these rates are cruising at a constant speed with no acceleration at all. Tank holds 17.4 litres claimed.

Results;
90 kph = 4.5 l/100 = tank range of 386 km
100 kph = 5.1 l/100 = tank range of 341 km
110 kph = 5.7 l/100 = tank range of 305 km
120kph = 6.1 l/100 = tank range of 285 km *

* this 285km range happens to be what I get if I don't thrash it for a whole tank full.

The scary bit that I don't want the Greens to know, is that by just dropping form 90 kph to 88 kph (which the bike seemed to navigate itself to?) would get 4.0 to 4.1 l/100. So 80kph might just be a fuel saver. That's an additional 38 km from a tank from just a 2 kph drop! I was too scared to sample 80 kph on a straight open road. Worth knowing though if I'm running out miles from civilisation.

Another scary result from using this display was how bad 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears are at sucking the good oil, even if you take off as gently as possible.
I assumed that a constant 4000rpm would return about the same level of consumption, no matter what gear the bike was in. How wrong I was.

So all the Greenies have to do is ban 1 & 2nd gears in all vehicles, problem solved.

As much as I hate to admit it. They do have a point that within a range, reductions in speed can produce exponential decreases in fuel consumption.
Bastards!
ps- it's really fun to watch the readout go mental when you go full tit through the gears :devil2:.

[Pwalo]

I got curious after reading this, so I decided to test what the 675's economy is like at different cruising speeds yesterday.

The Daytona has a current litres used per 100km display. It seems quite accurate and responds to the slightest change in gradient or head wind speed - which made it bloody hard to get a steady readout.
Remember, these rates are cruising at a constant speed with no acceleration at all. Tank holds 17.4 litres claimed.

Results;
90 kph = 4.5 l/100 = tank range of 386 km
100 kph = 5.1 l/100 = tank range of 341 km
110 kph = 5.7 l/100 = tank range of 305 km
120kph = 6.1 l/100 = tank range of 285 km *

* this 285km range happens to be what I get if I don't thrash it for a whole tank full.

The scary bit that I don't want the Greens to know, is that by just dropping form 90 kph to 88 kph (which the bike seemed to navigate itself to?) would get 4.0 to 4.1 l/100. So 80kph might just be a fuel saver. That's an additional 38 km from a tank from just a 2 kph drop! I was too scared to sample 80 kph on a straight open road. Worth knowing though if I'm running out miles from civilisation.

Another scary result from using this display was how bad 1st, 2nd and 3rd gears are at sucking the good oil, even if you take off as gently as possible.
I assumed that a constant 4000rpm would return about the same level of consumption, no matter what gear the bike was in. How wrong I was.

So all the Greenies have to do is ban 1 & 2nd gears in all vehicles, problem solved.

As much as I hate to admit it. They do have a point that within a range, reductions in speed can produce exponential decreases in fuel consumption.
Bastards!
ps- it's really fun to watch the readout go mental when you go full tit through the gears :devil2:.

You are exactly right. If we could all suddenly appear on a straight, flat piece of road then travelling at 90k would be the most effecient way to travel. It's just the actual driving with other traffic, corners, hills, etc that's the problem.

Mind you it is possible to increase your economy by simply looking ahead and being smooth on the throttle, just like a MotoGP rider with a limited amount of fuel to last a race.

[Usarka]

The traffic lights at motorway on-ramps cause every car to stop and accelerate.

transit actually stated that the side by side lanes are partly to encourage cars to accelerate quickly.

Which is BAD for greenhouse emmissions.

I might write a letter to the greens pointing this out....... (edit, im a kiwi i cant be arsed)

[Swoop]

I don't think either concept would make for pr0n that I'd want to watch.

:crazy:
It would be an excellent "snuff" movie, however.