less wear on car, save gas, drive 55
bob syr
find it more relaxing and the time "wasted" isn't that much of a
factor, even on a long trip. On a recent trip from NY to NC, I drove
down I81 to W.Va. and had no problems. It was night so as I drove
down I95 I didn't have any problems. On the return trip however, I
drove up I95 to the Washington-Baltimore beltways during the day.
After going through Richmond going north, I experienced people getting
annoyed at my slow speed. I got a couple of honks, a few flip-offs,
but most important, I felt that my slow 55mph speed might have
actually been too dangerous in that high-speed, high-density traffic.
I figure that those drivers who are passing me left and right as I go
slow should be allowed to go as fast as they want. They paid their
own hard earned money for their gas guzzlers and by god those hard-
working citizens should be able to drive as fast as they want. ;->
WkWkNdgNdg After all it’s their money they’re burning and as far as
I’m concerned they are hastening up depletion of the oil supply, and
not a minute too soon as far as I’m concerned, by god!
One thing you don't hear about as much is that driving 55 places less
wear on the car, especially small ones. Next time I make that trip
I'm going to rent a car and then I can move my speed up closer to the
average speed others are driving. I won't be wearing out my own car
that way.
Happy motoring - Bob
Al
You are stuck in the 50's, Bob.
All you did was piss off a thousand other drivers as you went your
merry way.
How much do you think you saved on this 40 mile trip from Washington
to Baltimore?
How is renting a car going to save money?
And if you are willing to rent a car so you can drive normally, you
are not as concerned about saving oil as you stated.
In short, you don't make any sense whatever.
Take a bus, a very short bus.
Mrs Irish Mike
on the odometer. One of the things I do is drive 55. The easiest thing
to do is to get behind a large truck that is going about the right
speed. Trucks take longer to brake, so I reduce my chance of a rear
end collision. Also the trucks tend to cut through the wind resistance
and pull you along, further reducing the wear on your car. With the
truck in front, most drivers will not want to get between you and the
truck.
When I was much younger (and even more stupidier) I drafted a semi
with my VW bug. I got real close to his bumper and drafted him for
nearly 300 miles. I hardly had my foot on the gas. I exited when he
did and refueled, and found I was getting in excess of 50 mpg. Getting
that close to a truck is dangerous, but a safe distance (1 car length
X 10 mph) can make a difference also.
bob syr
I should be - I was there.
> All you did was piss off a thousand other drivers as you went your
> merry way.
Well no, a lot pass and as I said I had no problems except I95 north
from Richmond to Baltimore.
> How much do you think you saved on this 40 mile trip from Washington
> to Baltimore?
Not much.
> How is renting a car going to save money?
I'll be putting wear on the rental and not my own.
> And if you are willing to rent a car so you can drive normally, you
> are not as concerned about saving oil as you stated.
No, I'll still drive abnormally slow unless I'm forced to on busy fast
highways. I'm concerned about saving oil, but possibly more concerned
about saving my big ol' arse in beltway traffic.
> In short, you don't make any sense whatever.
Sure I do. You'll see when we'll have to use cooking oil in our
tanks. And it won't be that long.
> Take a bus, a very short bus.
Now that makes sense!
>
bob syr
> You are spot on. I drive cars for years and love to see 200K and more
> on the odometer. One of the things I do is drive 55. The easiest thing
> to do is to get behind a large truck that is going about the right
> speed. Trucks take longer to brake, so I reduce my chance of a rear
> end collision. Also the trucks tend to cut through the wind resistance
> and pull you along, further reducing the wear on your car. With the
> truck in front, most drivers will not want to get between you and the
> truck.
I've heard about that but never tried it. Don't you have to be pretty
close to the truck to be in the wake?
>
> When I was much younger (and even more stupidier) I drafted a semi
> with my VW bug. I got real close to his bumper and drafted him for
> nearly 300 miles. I hardly had my foot on the gas. I exited when he
> did and refueled, and found I was getting in excess of 50 mpg. Getting
> that close to a truck is dangerous, but a safe distance (1 car length
> X 10 mph) can make a difference also.
Ah yes. Sounds like fun. I think a VW bug is aerodynamically suited
for coasting in the wake of a semi.
I think a lot of people are driving 55 on the interstate but you don't
see them because they're going the same speed as you. As you say,
it's always good to find a "blocker" to ride behind. - Bob
Fhodge
> Why a law? Anybody who wants to can drive 55 on the interstate. I
> find it more relaxing and the time "wasted" isn't that much of a
> factor, even on a long trip. On a recent trip from NY to NC, I drove
> down I81 to W.Va. and had no problems. It was night so as I drove
> down I95 I didn't have any problems. On the return trip however, I
> drove up I95 to the Washington-Baltimore beltways during the day.
> After going through Richmond going north, I experienced people getting
> annoyed at my slow speed. I got a couple of honks, a few flip-offs,
> but most important, I felt that my slow 55mph speed might have
> actually been too dangerous in that high-speed, high-density traffic.
>
> I figure that those drivers who are passing me left and right as I go
> slow should be allowed to go as fast as they want. They paid their
> own hard earned money for their gas guzzlers and by god those hard-
> working citizens should be able to drive as fast as they want. ;->
> I�m concerned they are hastening up depletion of the oil supply, and
> not a minute too soon as far as I�m concerned, by god!
>
> One thing you don't hear about as much is that driving 55 places less
> wear on the car, especially small ones. Next time I make that trip
> I'm going to rent a car and then I can move my speed up closer to the
> average speed others are driving. I won't be wearing out my own car
> that way.
>
> Happy motoring - Bob
Damn skippy. I didn't buy a supercharged Mustang to go 55 MPH. Just keep
your sloth-like driving in the right lane and everything will be fine.
But for what it's worth with advent of overdrive gearing and such.
You're not saving much in the way of wear an tear on you car by going 55
MPH instead of 75 MPH. What held true 50 years ago isn't necessarily
true now.
Don Klipstein
syr wrote:
>On Oct 10, 6:45�pm, Mrs Irish Mike <wilma6...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> �You are spot on. I drive cars for years and love to see 200K and more
>> on the odometer. One of the things I do is drive 55. The easiest thing
>> to do is to get behind a large truck that is going about the right
>> speed. Trucks take longer to brake, so I reduce my chance of a rear
>> end collision. Also the trucks tend to cut through the wind resistance
>> and pull you along, further reducing the wear on your car. With the
>> truck in front, most drivers will not want to get between you and the
>> truck.
>
>I've heard about that but never tried it. Don't you have to be pretty
>close to the truck to be in the wake?
<I SNIP from here>
My experiece is that the wake behind larger trucks is somewhat
significant even about 1.5 seconds behind the truck, about 130 feet at
60 MPH.
It is good to be behind a large truck by far enough to react to the
truck having an emergency such as a tire exploding or a retreaded tire
losing its tread, so that you can get around the bigger pieces of
shrapnel.
In addition, it is not good to draft trucks that have exposed piles of
gravel or worse loads that they may inadvertently unload if they hit a
pothole. I have known (from experience) dump trucks carrying gravel to
lose a bit of the gravel as they go along, with some of the gravel dinging
windshields of cars nearby behind.
Also, I would not draft trucks having rear closure like that of most
U-Haul ones and lacking a padlock or other means to keep the closure from
opening. I once rode a U-Haul truck without a padlock, and at the
destination the rear was open - with the load fortunately still in the
truck.
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Don Klipstein
>bob syr wrote:
>> Why a law? Anybody who wants to can drive 55 on the interstate. I
>> find it more relaxing and the time "wasted" isn't that much of a
>> factor, even on a long trip. On a recent trip from NY to NC, I drove
>> down I81 to W.Va. and had no problems. It was night so as I drove
>> down I95 I didn't have any problems. On the return trip however, I
>> drove up I95 to the Washington-Baltimore beltways during the day.
>> After going through Richmond going north, I experienced people getting
>> annoyed at my slow speed. I got a couple of honks, a few flip-offs,
>> but most important, I felt that my slow 55mph speed might have
>> actually been too dangerous in that high-speed, high-density traffic.
>>
>> I figure that those drivers who are passing me left and right as I go
>> slow should be allowed to go as fast as they want. They paid their
>> own hard earned money for their gas guzzlers and by god those hard-
>> working citizens should be able to drive as fast as they want. ;->
>> I�m concerned they are hastening up depletion of the oil supply, and
>> not a minute too soon as far as I�m concerned, by god!
>>
>> One thing you don't hear about as much is that driving 55 places less
>> wear on the car, especially small ones. Next time I make that trip
>> I'm going to rent a car and then I can move my speed up closer to the
>> average speed others are driving. I won't be wearing out my own car
>> that way.
>>
>> Happy motoring - Bob
>
>Damn skippy. I didn't buy a supercharged Mustang to go 55 MPH. Just keep
> your sloth-like driving in the right lane and everything will be fine.
>But for what it's worth with advent of overdrive gearing and such.
>You're not saving much in the way of wear an tear on you car by going 55
>MPH instead of 75 MPH. What held true 50 years ago isn't necessarily
>true now.
I would agree that wear-and-tear on almost any car on the road now is
not much worse at 75 MPH than at 55 MPH. It appears to me that most
wear-and-tear is related to either number of miles or number of engine
revolutions.
90 or 100 may be a different story with automatic transmissions, with
possibility of the transmission getting hot enough to shorten its life.
And if the automatic transmission lacks a lockup torque converter, then
lots of 80-plus MPH sustained for over 30-40 miles may get the
transmission on the hot side. 75 may be a bit of a problem in this area
if the tranny lacks a lock-up torque converter and the vehicle has high
aerodynamic drag.
The main reason to go slower is to conserve fuel. Fuel economy in
steady speed driving is usually greatest at the slowest speed at which the
vehicle comfortably runs in top gear, unless the vehicle cannot use top
gear comfortably or at all at 60-65 MPH or so - in which case fuel economy
may be maximized at the slowest speed at which the vehicle comfortably
uses the second-highest gear. As speed increases past 50 MPH or so, air
resistance is significant, and energy used per mile to overcome this is
proportional to square of airspeed.
(In urban driving with a stop sign or an unsynchronized traffic
light every block, fuel economy appears to me maximized at the slowest
speed at which much of the accelerations can be done in 2nd gear, with
top speed maybe 25-30 MPH, maybe even less, and accelerate moderately
vigorously once in 2nd to maximize combined efficiency of the engine and
the tranny. The engine is usually most efficient when it is working
moderately hard, and the tranny is usually most efficient when it is
working moderately lightly and in higher gears. Slower top speed means
less energy used to mainly heat up and wear the brakes, by a factor of
proportional to square of speed that one must stop from.)
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)