From: pat@rwing.UUCP (Pat Myrto)
Newsgroups: seattle.general
Subject: Re: Why CAN'T people drive 55?!
Date: 6 Jan 93 14:34:28 GMT
Organization: Totally Unorganized

In article <1553@nazgul.UUCP> bright@nazgul.UUCP (Walter Bright) writes:
>In article <1iaba5INNsrq@shelley.u.washington.edu> nicolett@carson.u.washington.edu (Nicolette Roberge) writes:
>/Finally, driving 55 you still get there. And burn less gas doing
>/it. Petroleum is still a finite resource, and fuel conservation can save
>/us money as individuals. 
>
>Driving 45 you still get there and burn even less gas.
>At 35 mph you will generally see a peak in mileage. This is at the point
>where the car is in high gear, so internal engine losses are the least,
>and the air drag is still minimal (air drag increases as the cube of the
>speed, as I vaguely remember).
>
>The point, obviously, is that there are other factors besides simply fuel
>savings.

Well put.  One not only wants to 'get there' but to get there in a
reasonable time frame.  Reasonable not being defined by someone who
has nothing better to do than sit on the road all day.

Sure, we can also outlaw any car with any engine larger than 1 liter
and 2 cylinders, that has anything but the most minimal components for
use by everyone except politicians, wealthy, military and police, too.
Such a beast will still get one there, have the gas consumption of a
mo-ped.  Of course, don't get in any kind of accident, because the
PC-mobile will turn into an inflated air-bag and a wad of crumpled
foil ...  :-)

Seriously, The main reason one supports low speed limits boils down to
efficiency, and the following is why I feel that efficiency is not the
only (or even primary) consideration.

When I have checked mileage, I have not seen any great amount of difference
between the value I get when I do a steady 55 - 60 and when I do 65 -
75 (taking advantage of the 65 mph section the other side of Everett
and before Mt Vernon).  The comparison is making the run at 55 - 60 the
whole distance vs taking advantage of the higher speed limits.  I suspect
a constant 80mph will have a noticable hit on mileage, I dunno, since
I am not about to attempt that speed for a stretch long enought to get
a useful figure.  I am seeing figures averaging in the area of 30mpg -
it is difficult to get it REAL accurately because a few tenths of a
gallon difference in the fillup can make the result vary from 25 to
40mpg or so when one checks over as short a distance as 50 miles - the
car in question has the overflow point differ a bit if the ground at
the pump is not level.  Point is, not all cars peak out at 55 or suffer
much degredation till one gets past 70.

As politically incorrect as it may be, I feel a car does more than "just
get you there".  Seeing as I spend a non-trivial part of a given day in
the car, important (to me, at least) is in what SHAPE the car gets me
there.   I don't want to be wringing wet on hot days, fatigued because
the PC car is underpowered to the degree that driving in traffic wears
on me (step on the gas and all it does is make more noise, take 10 miles
to get around a truck, etc), and so light that one is fighting to stay
in the lane in the most trivial cross-breeze.  That means (for me) a
heavier car, with some options like air, perhaps some power assist on
steering and reasonable sound proofing.

Obviously, economics will limit the choices one has, but one can choose
a 'better' car a few years old and in good shape over a new econo-box.
But to let one's choice in something that costs the kind of money a car
does be determined by what someone who is not going to have to USE it
says one 'should' get is not acceptable.  If a car that is comfortable
to ride in, is stable in the wind, and reasonably responsive, and not
grossly underpowered becomes available at an affodable price, then such
a vehicle will definitely be considered, but basing the selection
primarily on mpg figures seems pretty silly to me.  Perhaps when I am
flush enough to be able to afford two cars, an econobox for the routine
short sprints, and a more substantial machine for the longer duration
drives will be possible.  Till then, however, mileage is a consideration,
but not the primary one.

If mileage, etc is such a concern, lets see some R&D to produce power
plants that maintain full efficiency at partial as well as full throttle
settings, or an alternative type as long as it has decent range, decent
performance, not prohibitave in cost or maintainance, and doesn't take
long time to 'refuel' (these are why electric based cars are not doing
well - that and outlandish weight from the batteries).  The design must
be acceptable for a one car family - it has to be viable not only for
commutes, but a cross-country trip.  Those that support big gov't programs
should push for a gov't subsidized R&D program for such a power plant.
Perhaps an electric car running off of fuel cells?

Jush my opinion....

-- 
pat@rwing.uucp                                  (Pat Myrto),  Seattle, WA
                      If all else fails, try:
         ...!uunet!{pilchuck, polari}!rwing!pat
WISDOM:    "Travelling unarmed is like boating without a life jacket"