Al Gore, Conservationist?

[realtraveller]

Al Gore was caught doing 75 mph in a 55 mph zone in Oregon.

Earth may be in the balance, but Al seems not to know that speeding burns more fossil fuels than going slower.

http://news.statesmanjournal.com/article.cfm?i=65366

[poseidon]

Well, this is a case of knowing what is best for you. You can't expect him to live by his own rules, can you?

[erik_kosberg]

That does it, I’m not voting for Gore on November second!

[wivabef]

Me neither!

Let's see...

so far, we're not voting for Clinton, Gore, McCain, Teresa Heinz, Hillary and the Iraqi soccer team.

Who's left to vote for?

Oh. Yeah.

Hmmmm.

Tell me about this Bednarik (sp?) dude again?

[drmomentum[$]]

Badnick? Badnarick? All I know is that Stokes said he was a loonie.

That leaves... I dunno, I heard Alan Keyes is running for something. Dog catcher?

-JP

[poseidon]

I'm not voting for Kerry.

[slick4591[$]]

I'll write in Letterman. If this place is gonna stay zany, we might as well do it right.

[thinkerlady[$]]

poseidon said

I'm not voting for Kerry.

He still hasn't returned your phone call???

[poseidon]

Nope.

[conradd]

LOL, if you're on the Oregon Coast and speeding in either a rental car or one with out of state plates, plan on supplementing the local municipal budget.

[Stokes Pennwalt]

realtraveller said

Al seems not to know that speeding burns more fossil fuels than going slower.

Well, he is a rather vocal fanboy of this alleged global warming pap, so we can't really expect much in the way of science from him.

[drmomentum[$]]

The globe isn't warming? That's great news!

So, Kathy, exacly what is the relationship between velocity and fuel consumption when travelling over a pre-defined distance? I've always wondered about that, and since you seem to know, why not spread the wealth. If I go 20MPH in my car vs, say 40MPH from home to work, which will burn more fuel?

Idling at red lights also wastes fuel. I hear Al Gore has been doing that for years. What a hypocrite.

-JP

[erik_kosberg]

If he had been driving a Prius at 75, this thread never would have happened.

[frazzledspice]

No one has mentioned Nader.

I doubt he ever drove 75 in a 55 mph zone. (Did the speedometer on the Corvair go up that high anyway?)

[brian_igo]

slick4591 said

I'll write in Letterman. If this place is gonna stay zany, we might as well do it right.

What's good for Washington is good for Austin, too, Dennis.

[slick4591[$]]

Didn't know Kinky was running. Now I have more thinking to do.

[emeleel]

http://autorepair.about.com/cs/gener...a022203a_2.htm

Stay within posted speed limits. The faster you drive, the more fuel you use. For example, driving at 65 miles per hour (mph), rather than 55 mph, increases fuel consumption by 20 percent. Driving at 75 mph, rather than 65 mph, increases fuel consumption by another 25 percent.

[theworm[$]]

but FL speed limit is 70.
Florida is bad bad bad.

[wivabef]

How much fuel is consumed by the cops idling while pointing radar guns at people?

[poseidon]

theworm said

but FL speed limit is 70.
Florida is bad bad bad.

75 here in CO, with most traffic travelling around 80-85.

[poseidon]

wivabef said

How much fuel is consumed by the cops idling while pointing radar guns at people?

Well yeah but those costs are recuperated in the form of fines...

[drmomentum[$]]

The faster you drive, the more fuel you use.

The longer you drive, the more fuel you use as well. So should one only drive for 10 minutes per day? Perhaps so. If that doesn't get you to work at your normal speed, I guess you have to drive faster.

My point is, people don't drive by time, they drive by distance (getting from one place to another). So any meaningful analysis of fuel consumption has to specifically adjust for the fact that a faster velocity gets you to your destination sooner. Do these numbers account for that? It doesn't appear so.

Going faster does use more fuel, even if adjusted for distance. Is it significant? Assuming the above is not adjusted, driving 75 gets you there 13.5% faster. The amount of excess fuel actually consumed is around 3%, which is insignificant within the mileage variation of different vehicles (I'm assuming people have enough experience with automobiles to have noticed the widely varying fuel consumptions). So the type of car you choose to drive is much more significant. Maintenance issues with your care probably also swallow that 3%.

Years ago I was very concerned with fuel consumption on my long commute and measured my fuel consumption. I watched it closely and would experiment with different styles of driving. I found that accelerating had much more of an effect on consumption than velocity. In other words, if you varied your speed a lot (braking and accelerating) you would use a lot more fuel, no matter what speed you were going.

Also, optimal fuel consumption speed is probably around 40 MPH from what I had read at the time (some books from fuel-conservation obsessed authors). Driving at slower speeds can actually consume greater amounts of fuel over distance travelled. But lets say we determined that 40 was optimal fuel consumption speed. Then no matter what the speed limit (the speed limit isn't magic, and has nothing to do with fuel consumption) we should berate Al Gore for driving at any other speed than 40 MPH. Slower or faster, he's wasting fuel.

The rest of us, we get a pass.

-JP

[drmomentum[$]]

I didn't show my work above because I was trying to do it in my head. It comes out to something like 3.8% when I do it out. Assuming a trip of 100 minutes taking 10 units of fuel per minute uses 1000 units of fuel. The same trip at the faster speed takes only 86.5 minutes times 20% more fuel per minute (12) = 1038 fuel units used. Only 3.8 percent.

-JP