HP, 60 mph, level ground

[Existential Angst]

Awl --

KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late. One can only hope the
bliss will continue, but it may just be the lull before another hysterical
menstruating storm.....
Hopefully this will shut him up a little bit longer.... or act as a
maxi-pad.....

Previously I estimated my Honder Fit hp at 60 mph at about 12 hp, and some
proly thought that this was ridiculously optimistic, but in fact, it was
proly conservative.
Consider http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm , which calculates the hp
for a Corvette at 65 mph at 11.8 hp..... !!!! From the chart at the very
end of the article.

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient ,
you'll see the CdA for many cars is 5-6+.

Thus, interpolating between 55 and 65 mph, and figgering the CdA of a Fit is
proly a bit less than the Vette, the hp req'd for the Fit at 60 mph is proly
between 8 and 9, ie, under 10 hp!!!!

Not that this is such a big deal (vs. 12), but it does illustrate just how
low steady-state hp requirements can be. It is only acceleration and hills
that really amp this requirement up.
Oh, yeah, and being an asshole.

You may find some varying results with different tables, analyses, but the
near-universal consensus is very low hp is required for modest speeds. Note
that hp requirement for a Vette drops to 1.16 -- Yup, one point one six --
at 30 mph. And jumps to 31 at 90 mph..... and even that seems
surprisingly low. The table shows 344 hp for 200 mph, which def'ly seems
low, so maybe this chart is skewed a bit. But you get the idea. Mebbe
others can provide other tables.

The wiki article shows how CdA can vary, with a few surprises, such as the
very impressive CdA for the Honda Insight -- lower, even, than the Honda
NSX.

Bottom line is, fuel efficiency is *inversely* proportional to the CdA, so
that if you halve the CdA, you double the car's efficiency -- which is what
the Aptera et al are all about -- regardless of the underlying power plant
strategy. In fact, the mpg ROI from CdA proly swamps power plant
considerations.

Had GM spent that $1.++ BILLION on the Volt's CdA rather than its
3-clutch/two-motor/multi-planetary gear system, we'd proly be bankrupting
Saudi Arabia just about now.

Also from the hp article, you see the dramatic savings from going from 65 to
55 mph. Or, the other way around, from 55 to 65, you will burn 65% MORE GAS
per unit time, and 40% more fuel per unit distance (basically 55/65 x 11.8,
subtract 7.14 from that, then divide by 7.14). The figure per unit
distance is the mpg-relevant factor. Note that fuel consumption is *directly
proportional* to horsepower, virtually by definition.

Funny, the old DOT admonitions about saving 10% by driving at 55 mph seem
*awfully conservative*, given the above.
But this is why you see these much higher mpg claims from Prius drivers,
with very light feet. Just a little driving aggression (ie, driving like an
asshole) drops mpg like a stone.

So, once again, hybrids, EVs that INSIST on maintaining 100++ hp totals (150
for the Volt) are simply sabotaging the Green premise/effort, as illustrated
by the low-power 60s/70s Beetles. Yeah, they won't zoom up steep hills, but
given gas/economic situation today, chillin up hills may not be such a bad
idea.
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

"Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5189f682$0$20214$607e...@cv.net...

Oh, yeah, the *increase* from the lower number to the higher number is
always a more dramatic number.
Ito SAVINGS from 65 mph to 55, that figure works out to 24% -- still more
than the DOT, iirc, and indeed substantial.
But in the ballpark.

Iow, in this case, "40% more gas per mile from 55 to 65" is the same as
"24% less gas per mile from 65 mph to 55".
--
EA

[jim beam]

On 05/08/2013 12:39 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
<snip pointless irrelevant drivel>

attention whore.

--
fact check required

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 02:53:41 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

>Awl --
>
>KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late.

Some of us have lives, and mine recently included a gorgeous spring
road trip. It's good to know that your slavery to your obsession
continued during my absence. It seems like you could save time and get
empirical results by springing for a ScanGauge. But yeah, I know,
they're $150! This article might get you started.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110628224728AAg73Cr In
the meantime, carry on "designing" your zero percent Volt, and should
you ever tire of the process I'll report on the effect it had on my
enjoyment of a 100% version.

By the way, I took my ScanGauge
http://www.carbibles.com/productreviews_scangauge.html out of my
motorhome and loaned it to a friend who's wants to try it on his
pickup, jeep, and econobox. What a chump he is to do that when he
could be imagining numbers instead, eh?

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 07:06:05 -0700, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 05/08/2013 12:39 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
><snip pointless irrelevant drivel>
>
>attention whore.

LO His point seems to be that if maximum available hp is higher,
then far higher hp is required at all times. Or something. He has a
Honda Fit, and despite all road tests to the contrary, he believes
it's outrageously overpowered, and should only have half as much hp.
Because that would greatly increase his mileage. Or something. :)

[Wild_Bill]

See the episode of Top Gear where the fella takes the Bugatti Veyron to
251+MPH on a test track.
He explains some interesting HP/speed numbers and how many radiators the
engine requires.
The quieter fella was driving (not the little one or the big one).

A lot of daily driver cars (in all of this time since the '30s) would be
more than adequate with a Model A engine with some minor modern
engineering/design changes made along the way.
A diesel version coulda reduced the need for a lot of gasoline in all this
time (kerosene or anything that readily ignites), because a lotta farmers
(and still owner/operators) woulda most likely been growing/using a biofuel.
Don't drink outta that blue jug Vern.. that's high-test.

When ya gonna calculate how much the additional costs are, just due to the
high rate of obesity in this country?
I couldn't give a FRA, but I'm sure some folks are regularly working on
numbers like that.

--
WB
.........

"Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5189f682$0$20214$607e...@cv.net...

[alv...@example.com]

In rec.crafts.metalworking Existential Angst <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> Oh, yeah, the *increase* from the lower number to the higher
> number is always a more dramatic number.

> ..."40% more gas per mile from 55 to 65" is the same as

> "24% less gas per mile from 65 mph to 55".
> --
> EA
>

> > ...(ie, driving like an asshole)...
> > EA

Cool. :)

Well, since I just rejoined Usenet Newsgroups after a really long
absence I don't know who I'm supposed to hate and like and to make
fun of and all that childish kind of crap. LOL :)

I'm a skeptic in pretty much everything but that doesn't keep me
from enjoying something well written like that.

I thought the post was cool. :)

...but I am easily entertained tho!! :(
I'm really st00pid like that. :/

But, EA, how'd you know I drive like an asshole? :/

Alvin in AZ drives like an asshole but thought it was a secret.

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mrmko8hjkq0tnor8e...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 02:53:41 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>Awl --
>>
>>KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late.

Gawd, the Bliss is over.....

>
> Some of us have lives, and mine recently included a gorgeous spring
> road trip.

Did your period get in the way??

It's good to know that your slavery to your obsession
> continued during my absence. It seems like you could save time and get
> empirical results by springing for a ScanGauge. But yeah, I know,
> they're $150! This article might get you started.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20110628224728AAg73Cr In
> the meantime, carry on "designing" your zero percent Volt, and should
> you ever tire of the process I'll report on the effect it had on my
> enjoyment of a 100% version.
>
> By the way, I took my ScanGauge
> http://www.carbibles.com/productreviews_scangauge.html out of my
> motorhome and loaned it to a friend who's wants to try it on his
> pickup, jeep, and econobox. What a chump he is to do that when he
> could be imagining numbers instead, eh?

How do you know the scanguage is accurate?? Do you know how the scanguage
calcs hp??
Btw, I have a scanguage, but not the most recent one. Dudn't do hp, but you
can infer relative hp.... Well, you couldn't, but I can....

As far as numbers go, apparently you aren't so quick with numbers, given
your mis-calc'd ROI on the volt, AND given all the shit you COULD have
slammed me for if you knew a fukn thing about anything.

Not to worry.... I'll post the omissions.
Study hard..... but pace yourself, please, you don't wanna readjust yer
meds.... again.....
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

<alv...@Example.com> wrote in message news:kme0bm$mc9$1...@reader1.panix.com...

> In rec.crafts.metalworking Existential Angst <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> Oh, yeah, the *increase* from the lower number to the higher
>> number is always a more dramatic number.
>> ..."40% more gas per mile from 55 to 65" is the same as
>> "24% less gas per mile from 65 mph to 55".
>> --
>> EA
>>
>> > ...(ie, driving like an asshole)...
>> > EA
>
> Cool. :)
>
> Well, since I just rejoined Usenet Newsgroups after a really long
> absence I don't know who I'm supposed to hate and like and to make
> fun of and all that childish kind of crap. LOL :)

Don't worry, DAT will become clear in no time at all.

>
> I'm a skeptic in pretty much everything but that doesn't keep me
> from enjoying something well written like that.
>
> I thought the post was cool. :)
>
> ...but I am easily entertained tho!! :(
> I'm really st00pid like that. :/

It's called having a (rare) sense of humor, as opposed to the amazingly high
%-age of character-disordered circle-jerking menstruating egomaniacs running
around here.

>
> But, EA, how'd you know I drive like an asshole? :/

We're ALL assholes, just some of us manage to keep the AQ (Assaholic
quotient) around some tolerable mean, whilst Kidding et al are, like, 4
standard deviations to the right. Kidding thinks his 190 AQ is his IQ, but
then he confuses many many things, like his ass with his elbow..

I was into fast bikes in the 80's, had the fastest production bikes made at
the time, one a bit tricked out.
Once you've gotten used to your face shield pressed to yer nose, there are
very few cars in the world that can impress, speed-wise or
acceleration-wise.
And bikes today, out of the showroom, have 0-60s of near-2 secs, and 1/4
miles in the 9's, I believe....
The kawasaki 750 H3 two-stroke triple, in the 70's, had a 0-60 of 2.9 secs!!
Cars essentially just stand still relative to that.
Consequently, I drive cars like an old woman..... I can just park a bit
better..... lol
And, now, after these hp threads, I'm driving even slower!!!! LOL!!
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:penko859mvin4rovb...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 08 May 2013 07:06:05 -0700, jim beam <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 05/08/2013 12:39 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
>><snip pointless irrelevant drivel>
>>
>>attention whore.

Ahhh, so we have TWO math-phobic menstruating assholes here....

>
> LO His point seems to be that if maximum available hp is higher,
> then far higher hp is required at all times. Or something.

Man are u confused.....

He has a
> Honda Fit, and despite all road tests to the contrary, he believes
> it's outrageously overpowered, and should only have half as much hp.
> Because that would greatly increase his mileage. Or something. :)

Dood..... it's called optimization.
Didn't I post a link on optimization?? Taking derivatives'n'shit????
Oh, yeah, I know, <whooooooosh>. Sorry.....

Ackshooly, the Fit is not so much underpowered as it is improperly geared.
'tis what 'tis.
--
EA

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 15:13:51 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:


>How do you know the scanguage is accurate??

It isn't. (for hp) Although it can be pretty close, and it's excellent
for relative hp, which could teach you the difference between driving
at gross weight up a muddy hill vs level pavement. In situ vs diddling
a calculator and piling one erroneous assumption upon another. Regular
people could grok that without knowing hp. For example, if your
vehicle runs out of steam in worst case, then it's underpowered, as
in, gutless beetles. Yes I know you think it's a tragedy that most
people (including you) refuse to suffer. It was especially funny
though to read that you won't have your cherished old beetle on
account of the lack of AC, at the same time you're complaining that
others aren't willing to compromise. I suppose you're never going to
accept that the market has already judged what is reasonable, and that
it won't change no matter how loud or persistent your yipping and
yowling.

So you have a lot in common with these guys.
http://www.rockettovenus.com/index.cfm?page=story Except for the fact
that they put their money where their mouths were.

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:g8blo8hdfnhus4k8n...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 15:13:51 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>How do you know the scanguage is accurate??
>
> It isn't. (for hp) Although it can be pretty close, and it's excellent
> for relative hp, which could teach you the difference between driving
> at gross weight up a muddy hill vs level pavement. In situ vs diddling
> a calculator and piling one erroneous assumption upon another.

Such as?
Oh, you mean the erroneous assumptions that GM engineers are addressing??
Like, uh, lack of sales of the Volt???

THAT erroneous assumption?

Or F = ma, E = mgh erroneous assumptions??

Regular
> people could grok that without knowing hp. For example, if your
> vehicle runs out of steam in worst case, then it's underpowered, as
> in, gutless beetles. Yes I know you think it's a tragedy that most
> people (including you) refuse to suffer. It was especially funny
> though to read that you won't have your cherished old beetle on
> account of the lack of AC, at the same time you're complaining that
> others aren't willing to compromise. I suppose you're never going to
> accept that the market has already judged what is reasonable, and that
> it won't change no matter how loud or persistent your yipping and
> yowling.

<yawn> <stretch> <scratch my balls>

Oh, the in situ thing:
Math-deficient peeple are often in situ peeple, who often have to BUILD a
perpetual motion machine and/or take one apart and study it in effing depth,
to figger out why it dudn't work. Oh, yeah, math and the laws-of-thermo
deficient.....

You DO have a matching ascot for your Volt, right??
--
EA

[Steve Walker]

On 5/8/2013 15:32, Existential Angst wrote:
<SNIP>

> I was into fast bikes in the 80's, had the fastest production bikes made at
> the time, one a bit tricked out.
> Once you've gotten used to your face shield pressed to yer nose, there are
> very few cars in the world that can impress, speed-wise or
> acceleration-wise.

Yes, indeedy. Acceleration rules!!!

> And bikes today, out of the showroom, have 0-60s of near-2 secs, and 1/4
> miles in the 9's, I believe....
> The kawasaki 750 H3 two-stroke triple, in the 70's, had a 0-60 of 2.9 secs!!
> Cars essentially just stand still relative to that.

Had one. Scary quick at the time. Then got outta bikes for about 2
decades, then bought a 600 Ninja in '98. Laid it down at WELL over a
hunnert when a farmer, on a clear straight, no trees road, hadda see me
comin, daylight, headlight on, pulls out on the road, freezes and blocks
both lanes. Ass over applecart for a loooooong ways. I think that bike
woulda killed my 750.

> Consequently, I drive cars like an old woman..... I can just park a bit
> better..... lol
> And, now, after these hp threads, I'm driving even slower!!!! LOL!!
>

I still want another bike, but SWMBO says no.



--
Steve Walker
Fusi...@frontierbrain.com (remove brain when replying)

[Vic Smith]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 02:53:41 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:


>
>Also from the hp article, you see the dramatic savings from going from 65 to
>55 mph. Or, the other way around, from 55 to 65, you will burn 65% MORE GAS
>per unit time, and 40% more fuel per unit distance (basically 55/65 x 11.8,
>subtract 7.14 from that, then divide by 7.14). The figure per unit
>distance is the mpg-relevant factor. Note that fuel consumption is *directly
>proportional* to horsepower, virtually by definition.
>

I recently did a pretty close MPG check on my 2003 Impala for a 3000
vacation trip. Never more than half a gallon off on 12 gallon
fill-ups, which is about a 4% margin of error. Trigger squeezing.
The solid interstate part, where I was nearly always +70 mph, returned
31.8 mpg. But some of that was through the Smoky mountains.
The 400 mile part where I was driving locally at my vacation
destination, mostly about 45-55 mph, all flatland, but with
significant stop and go, returned 32.9.
Really hard to get anything pinned down, because of the variables, but
my numbers show either a much smaller speed penalty than I expected,
or much less low speed penalty than my previous car suffered.
Pretty sure the Impala was designed with more concentration on the low
speed efficiency than my previous car, a '97 Lumina. It's only 50 lbs
lighter than the Lumina, and can't match the Lumina's cda, but it's
clear my wife makes fewer trips to the gas station for her low speed
commuting/shopping use.
I might calculate actual MPG for that, but I usually only do that for
long trips to set a baseline out of curiosity, and to add "spice" to a
long drive. It's pretty exciting to check MPG on a long drive.
Pretty sure the improvement to MPG I'm seeing over the Lumina is
nearly all engine/trans management combined with 16" vs 15" wheels.
I've always known that gas consumption vs speed doesn't progress in a
linear fashion, but I think you simplify the HP/speed correlation to
MPG too much. Besides cda, there's gearing, rolling resistance,
engine efficiency, etc., that I'm aware of, but far from an expert.
I think even cda of a particular car is variable depending on speed.
The proof is always in the pudding. I'm happy with the Impala MPG.
BTW, the Honda Fit doesn't have very good cda anyway, from what I've
seen. My Impala's might be better, but I haven't hunted it up.
I do know the Impala cd is .30 vs .35 for the Fit.

[Existential Angst]

"Steve Walker" <fusi...@frontierbrain.com> wrote in message
news:518AF181...@frontierbrain.com...

> On 5/8/2013 15:32, Existential Angst wrote:
> <SNIP>
>> I was into fast bikes in the 80's, had the fastest production bikes made
>> at
>> the time, one a bit tricked out.
>> Once you've gotten used to your face shield pressed to yer nose, there
>> are
>> very few cars in the world that can impress, speed-wise or
>> acceleration-wise.
>
>
> Yes, indeedy. Acceleration rules!!!
>
>
>
>> And bikes today, out of the showroom, have 0-60s of near-2 secs, and 1/4
>> miles in the 9's, I believe....
>> The kawasaki 750 H3 two-stroke triple, in the 70's, had a 0-60 of 2.9
>> secs!!
>> Cars essentially just stand still relative to that.
>
> Had one. Scary quick at the time.

Cycle Mag, at the time, used to post *graphs* of their time trials, and you
could actually put a straight edge on them, and read off the graph, for
roll-ons, 0-100, etc.
The 2.9 sec 0-60 for the H3 came right off one of those graphs -- no typo..
Another stunner of a bike was the MV Augusta 750, one of THE most expensive
bikes at the time, incredible high-end power, that was revealed by those
graphs. Forgot the stats, but those 750s were really sumpn else.

Cycle Mag eventually stopped including the graphs..... acceding,
essentially, to Le Pubic's mathematical ilitiricy, even in graph form. Our
very own Kidding is a perfect example, but another fukn know-it-all who
can't do math.
'course, he's in good company -- Alan Geenspan (Mr. Fed) apparently can't do
math, as he blubbered on Charlie Rose: But... but.... but.....but.....
I THOUGHT the market would regulate ITSELF!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Greenspan inneresting read, was called a
"hack"..... But I digress.

Bottom line is, mebbe if people rode bikes as kids, they'd get over this
bullshit hp requirement in cars.... and be happy going up hills slowly.
lol.

Then got outta bikes for about 2
> decades, then bought a 600 Ninja in '98. Laid it down at WELL over a
> hunnert when a farmer, on a clear straight, no trees road, hadda see me
> comin, daylight, headlight on, pulls out on the road, freezes and blocks
> both lanes. Ass over applecart for a loooooong ways. I think that bike
> woulda killed my 750.

Quadriplegia is epidemic in 20 year-olds in CA, cuz rich mommy'n'daddy buy
junior what is tantamount to a superbike as his first bike.
It is *impossible* for a newbie to responsibly handle a modern big bike as a
first bike.
Mine were fairly refined 1100's, fast in the '80s, but nowhere near the
stuff today. But still way beyond novice level.

>
>
>> Consequently, I drive cars like an old woman..... I can just park a bit
>> better..... lol
>> And, now, after these hp threads, I'm driving even slower!!!! LOL!!
>>
>
> I still want another bike, but SWMBO says no.

The urge to buy another bike never really goes away. Funny, mine keeps
nudging me, I'm the one saying no... LOL
A big bike would be suicide..... hmmmm...... mebbe dats her plan?? LOL
If I do get one, it'll be an old Norton 750/850, with pipes you could hear
on the moon.
But basically, you don't wanna be a Sunday driver on a motorcycle, just too
risky.
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:fgqlo8dfrfjsii05e...@4ax.com...

fuknFit..... LOL!!!!!
Thanks gawd it was cheap!!! But the "A" might make up for it, ito total
CdA.
Did you see the Wiki article?? Cd's of .07.... !!!! Car proly looked like
a racing kayak.... lol

HP/Speed vs mpg: God invented the cubic relation between power and
speed..... y = x^3 is hard to circumvent, ito getting BETTER mpg's at
higher speeds, altho with a car geared suff'ly high, I suppose that's
possible too.

Fyi, if you fill your car up to the lip of the fill-hole -- which yer not
supposed to do -- you can get very VERY accurate mpg calcs, poss. to 5
significant figures, depending on your odometer type, but easily 4 sig
figs.. Really extraordinary accuracy, rare in the every-day world. That
would translate into under-1% accuracy.
The question then is, as you alluded, to correlate that with driving styles,
etc.

If you rely on the gas station's nozzle cutoff, then yer proly in the 5%
accuracy range.
--
EA


>

[Vic Smith]

Besides the odo accuracy, the station pump accuracy comes into play.
I'll never know.
On those trips I always trigger squeeze until the squeezes are
producing very little, but I leave the nozzle all the way in and don't
spill gas. 4% margin of error is enough for me. A slight head wind
or different road surface might double or negate that. Who knows.
Don't know how accurate they are, but those "real time" mpg gauges
seem neat. Never had one.
There's a term for uber MPG attainers, "rad misers" or "uber MPG
freaks" or something. They probably watch those real time consumption
meters like a hawk, after stripping out their back seats and spare
tire, but I'm not one of those.
But the recording of gas pumped against odo can't be beat for
accuracy, especially over long mile distances.
Just want a little math excitement sometimes, since I can't dance with
algebra.

[Existential Angst]

"Vic Smith" <thismaila...@comcast.net> wrote in message

news:v61mo8tj6ilb9irqs...@4ax.com...

> On Wed, 8 May 2013 21:55:21 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>>Fyi, if you fill your car up to the lip of the fill-hole -- which yer not
>>supposed to do -- you can get very VERY accurate mpg calcs, poss. to 5
>>significant figures, depending on your odometer type, but easily 4 sig
>>figs.. Really extraordinary accuracy, rare in the every-day world. That
>>would translate into under-1% accuracy.
>>The question then is, as you alluded, to correlate that with driving
>>styles,
>>etc.
>>
>>If you rely on the gas station's nozzle cutoff, then yer proly in the 5%
>>accuracy range.
>
> Besides the odo accuracy, the station pump accuracy comes into play.
> I'll never know.

Well, if you look at the readout, they read to 0.001 of a gallon, which is a
cupla cc's.... perty accurate.
Heh, assuming they're not rigged.... lol

> On those trips I always trigger squeeze until the squeezes are
> producing very little, but I leave the nozzle all the way in and don't
> spill gas. 4% margin of error is enough for me. A slight head wind
> or different road surface might double or negate that. Who knows.

True, given the reality of the road, sub-1% measuring accuracy IS proly
moot.
But it's still neat that you CAN get that level of accuracy, perhaps in more
controlled circumstances.

> Don't know how accurate they are, but those "real time" mpg gauges
> seem neat. Never had one.

The assholeKidding keeps harping on his effingScanguage. I have one, and
they can be an EXCELLENT "behavioral modification" tool, and learning tool.
But, after you've mod'd yer driving behavior, and learned a few things, they
lose their real utility, altho you can do neat experiments with them.

For example, on one of the Nissan Frontier (pickup truck) forums, a guy used
a scangauge to do pretty exhaustive experiments on whether driving with the
tailgate up or down made a diff, mpg-wise. Intuition would tell you that of
course, driving with it down ought to make a sig. diff. He found that it
made very little difference!!!
And iirc, a bed cover didn't make that much of a diff either.
Seems like a simple experiment, trial, but it was fairly involved, and
experimentally tedious.

There's a few things you learn from a ScanGuage -- which of course Kidding
has no clue about, cuz the ONLY fukn thing he's innerested in this world is
rationalizing his Chevy BloatVolt purchase, and other brags.

Well, obviously, you learn that hills burn more gas than level driving....
LOTS more.
But the eye-opener is, the mpg's REALLY plummet when you (or the tranny)
drop down a gear.
Moral: near-lugging the engine saves gas, even if it feels like your
position in the powerband sucks. It DOES suck, power-wise, but is good,
mpg-wise.
How good it is for the engine is another story, but mpg-wise, high-gear
low-rpm roolz.

I read where one car maker explicitly acknowledged this, forgot the context.
But the way most cars rev, it's pretty clear most carmakers are oblvious to
this, or just don't care about gas conservation, unless they can get some
EPA brag out of it..

The other thing it teaches is simply to be lite on the pedal. Lite lite
lite lite LIGHT!!!!! No heavy acceleration. The ScanGuage brutally
illustrates this!!!
But, otoh, you don't want to take forever delaying the gear-shift point,
either!! So it's a bit of a balance. I think, if you bustid yer ass, you
can use the Scangauge to accumulate "trials", so you *might* be able to
assess total gas consumption in a specific gear-shift/acceleration pattern,
but I never got that far.
So basically I will just accelerate as light as possible to get what appear
to be normal gear shifts.

The other thing you'll notice is that going downhill, with no gas
whatsoever, yields near-100 mpg stats -- no real surprise, cuz after all, it
IS down hill.
The surprise comes in when yer goin downhill, and you shift to neutral.
Then, yer mpgs JUMP a full 50% or more!!.
So in my Frontier, downhill, I'll get 70-90 mpg -- keep in mind that the
idling engine burns about 0.3 gal per hour -- another inneresting factoid,
vehicle-specific of course.
Shift to neutral (free-wheeling), and the mpg's jump to 120-140 -- depending
on the grade, of course.

Depending on the downhill grade, you can do FULL MILES in 100++ mpg-mode,
which bleeve me, I can really use in dat goddamm Frontier..... what a
guzzler, but not as bad as the big chevies, fords. Mine is an '04, I think
now the bigger trucks are doing much better on gas.

> There's a term for uber MPG attainers, "rad misers" or "uber MPG
> freaks" or something. They probably watch those real time consumption
> meters like a hawk, after stripping out their back seats and spare
> tire, but I'm not one of those.
> But the recording of gas pumped against odo can't be beat for
> accuracy, especially over long mile distances.
> Just want a little math excitement sometimes, since I can't dance with
> algebra.

It is inneresting stuff, very accurate.
So accurate that if you have developed a good feel what your car SHOULD do,
mpg-wise, you can actually tell if you've gotten bad gas, or when they shift
to that ethanol shit -- it really shows.
--
EA


>

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 12:43:36 -0400, "Wild_Bill"
<wb_wi...@XSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:

>See the episode of Top Gear where the fella takes the Bugatti Veyron to
>251+MPH on a test track.
>He explains some interesting HP/speed numbers and how many radiators the
>engine requires.
>The quieter fella was driving (not the little one or the big one).
>
>A lot of daily driver cars (in all of this time since the '30s) would be
>more than adequate with a Model A engine with some minor modern
>engineering/design changes made along the way.
>A diesel version coulda reduced the need for a lot of gasoline in all this
>time (kerosene or anything that readily ignites), because a lotta farmers
>(and still owner/operators) woulda most likely been growing/using a biofuel.
>Don't drink outta that blue jug Vern.. that's high-test.
>
>When ya gonna calculate how much the additional costs are, just due to the
>high rate of obesity in this country?
>I couldn't give a FRA, but I'm sure some folks are regularly working on
>numbers like that.

Your SWAG is way off. You want to find out how much horsepower it
REALLY takes to run a vehicle at any given speed, under any given
condition, run an ELECTRIC version of that vehicle, ballasted to the
same weight, and read the motor current.
It takes almost 6 hp to idle a 4 liter Ford V6 according to the
scanguage.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

They call themselves "Hyper Milers" - and accuracy of fuel consumption
calculations can be over 99% over a number of tankfulls because the
fill error only counts once. Ten fillups of 20 gallons = 200 gallons,
with a fill error of 1 gallon is still only half a percent error.

My scanguage is accurate to within 1 % over 5 tanks full for fuel
quantity. (took a bit of calibrating to get there)

[T0m $herman]

You can buy a vehicle that has basically half a Honda Fit engine - it is
called the Honda NC700X. Real world mileage reports are in the 60-70
mpg range due to the light weight (a little under 500 pounds) and
despite the horrendous aerodynamics (no CdA listed, since that will
depend greatly on rider size and clothing worn).

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

On 5/8/2013 2:32 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> I was into fast bikes in the 80's, had the fastest production bikes made at
> the time, one a bit tricked out.
> Once you've gotten used to your face shield pressed to yer nose, there are
> very few cars in the world that can impress, speed-wise or
> acceleration-wise.
> And bikes today, out of the showroom, have 0-60s of near-2 secs, and 1/4
> miles in the 9's, I believe....
> The kawasaki 750 H3 two-stroke triple, in the 70's, had a 0-60 of 2.9 secs!!
> Cars essentially just stand still relative to that.

A couple of the hyper-sports and liter-bikes can run quarter-mile times
under 10 seconds. 0-60 times are in the 2½-3 second range, and
generally cannot be bettered without wrecking the bike for other uses
(e.g. extended swing-arms and lowered suspensions) - more power does not
help until near triple-digit speeds since it just lifts the front end
and/or spins the back wheel on stock configured bikes.

My little Honda CBR600F4i (which some idiots will say is a good beginner
bike) will run 0-60 in about 3½ seconds, 0-100 mph in ~7½ seconds, 0-150
mph in ~18 seconds, and the quarter-mile in ~11¼ seconds - the latest
super-sport bikes have about 10 more HP and will be slightly faster.
Fortunately the handling is in a whole other realm than the Kawasaki
H3/Mach IV - the latter are quite rare now, since the combination of
poor handling and on/off nature of the power-band led to most being
crashed at some point.

As for power at speed, I can tell you my Yamaha TW200 uses all of its
~13 HP at the rear wheel to maintain 65 mph on level ground (70 mph if I
lay on the tank). Of course, it has horrible drag with no fairing,
upright seating position, and wide bars, and likely poor rolling
resistance also (130 and 180 mm wide knobby tires inflated to 22/20 psi
front/rear). So real world fuel mileage is only about 70 mpg despite
its 280-pound "wet" weight (the air-cooled and carbureted engine dating
back to at least 1987 is also likely not the most efficient, and the
stock gearing is also short).

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

On 5/8/2013 8:42 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> "Steve Walker" <fusi...@frontierbrain.com> wrote in message
> news:518AF181...@frontierbrain.com...
>> On 5/8/2013 15:32, Existential Angst wrote:

>> [...]

> Quadriplegia is epidemic in 20 year-olds in CA, cuz rich mommy'n'daddy buy
> junior what is tantamount to a superbike as his first bike.
> It is *impossible* for a newbie to responsibly handle a modern big bike as a
> first bike.

I am hoping that J*st*n B**b*r crashes badly on his MV Agusta.

> Mine were fairly refined 1100's, fast in the '80s, but nowhere near the
> stuff today. But still way beyond novice level.

Yeah, the idiots out there suggest a 600cc super-sport for a first bike,
when a Honda CBR250R or Kawasaki Ninja 300 is what they should be choosing.

>
>> I still want another bike, but SWMBO says no.

Will the dealer take her in trade? ;)

>
> The urge to buy another bike never really goes away. Funny, mine keeps
> nudging me, I'm the one saying no... LOL
> A big bike would be suicide..... hmmmm...... mebbe dats her plan?? LOL
> If I do get one, it'll be an old Norton 750/850, with pipes you could hear
> on the moon.
> But basically, you don't wanna be a Sunday driver on a motorcycle, just too
> risky.

As is riding only a few times per year, especially when combined with
drinking (thinking about all the H-D and other cruisers that get ridden
less than 2000 miles a year).

I not only ride regularly (including the Yamaha TW200 on the back roads
in the snow in winter - I may not meet any traffic but ditch riding
snowmobiles), but also attend several advanced riding refresher classes
and a couple of track schools every year to get feedback on my riding
skills. And of course, ATGATT.

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

On 5/8/2013 8:55 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>
> fuknFit..... LOL!!!!!
> Thanks gawd it was cheap!!! But the "A" might make up for it, ito total
> CdA.
> Did you see the Wiki article?? Cd's of .07.... !!!! Car proly looked like
> a racing kayak.... lol
>

Cd of ~0.06, and 82 mph on level ground at about 0.6 HP (Sam Whittingham
pedaling). Front end is taller than optimum for aerodynamics, but
needed for knee clearance.

<http://www.varnahandcycles.com/gallery/g09.jpg>

> HP/Speed vs mpg: God invented the cubic relation between power and
> speed..... y = x^3 is hard to circumvent, ito getting BETTER mpg's at
> higher speeds, altho with a car geared suff'ly high, I suppose that's
> possible too.
>
> Fyi, if you fill your car up to the lip of the fill-hole -- which yer not
> supposed to do -- you can get very VERY accurate mpg calcs, poss. to 5
> significant figures, depending on your odometer type, but easily 4 sig
> figs.. Really extraordinary accuracy, rare in the every-day world. That
> would translate into under-1% accuracy.
> The question then is, as you alluded, to correlate that with driving styles,
> etc.
>
> If you rely on the gas station's nozzle cutoff, then yer proly in the 5%
> accuracy range.
>

Why I do not have accurate figures on my Honda Elite 110. The fuel tank
is under the floorboard and has no filler neck - just sticking the
nozzle in and squeezing the lever fully results in gasoline spilling all
over the place - a partial squeeze until mostly full, then a series of
short squeezes to top off the tank is the best technique I have found.
So the best I can say is that mileage is better than 90 mpg around town,
and drops to near 80 mpg if one flogs the poor little scoot along at top
speed (50 mph/7700 rpm).

--
T0m $herm@n

[T0m $herman]

On 5/8/2013 10:36 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> [...]

> For example, on one of the Nissan Frontier (pickup truck) forums, a guy used
> a scangauge to do pretty exhaustive experiments on whether driving with the
> tailgate up or down made a diff, mpg-wise. Intuition would tell you that of
> course, driving with it down ought to make a sig. diff. He found that it
> made very little difference!!!

I would expect better mileage/less drag with the tailgate up.

> And iirc, a bed cover didn't make that much of a diff either.
> Seems like a simple experiment, trial, but it was fairly involved, and
> experimentally tedious.
>
> There's a few things you learn from a ScanGuage -- which of course Kidding
> has no clue about, cuz the ONLY fukn thing he's innerested in this world is
> rationalizing his Chevy BloatVolt purchase, and other brags.
>
> Well, obviously, you learn that hills burn more gas than level driving....
> LOTS more.

I have a built-in mpg function (seems to be an average of the last 3
seconds or so) on my Honda NT700V, and the fuel economy drops 20-25 mpg
when I stand up to cross an expansion joint at freeway speeds.

> But the eye-opener is, the mpg's REALLY plummet when you (or the tranny)
> drop down a gear.
> Moral: near-lugging the engine saves gas, even if it feels like your
> position in the powerband sucks. It DOES suck, power-wise, but is good,
> mpg-wise.
> How good it is for the engine is another story, but mpg-wise, high-gear
> low-rpm roolz.
>

On the NT700V, too low is easy to tell, since the drive-shaft rattles
when the engine is lugged.

> I read where one car maker explicitly acknowledged this, forgot the context.
> But the way most cars rev, it's pretty clear most carmakers are oblvious to
> this, or just don't care about gas conservation, unless they can get some
> EPA brag out of it..
>

Two of my Honda's (2005 Civic EX and the 2010 NT700V) could benefit from
a 6th gear, as they are running about 3300 and 5000 rpm, respectively at
70 mph.

> Depending on the downhill grade, you can do FULL MILES in 100++ mpg-mode,
> which bleeve me, I can really use in dat goddamm Frontier..... what a
> guzzler, but not as bad as the big chevies, fords. Mine is an '04, I think
> now the bigger trucks are doing much better on gas.
>

My 2002 A/T, V-6, "King Cab", 4WD Frontier is a gas hog - I was really
surprised to get 20 mpg average on a 350-mile highway trip last weekend.
Normal use is about 15-16 mpg, which is why it usually stays parked
until I am getting paid to drive it.

>
> It is inneresting stuff, very accurate.
> So accurate that if you have developed a good feel what your car SHOULD do,
> mpg-wise, you can actually tell if you've gotten bad gas, or when they shift
> to that ethanol shit -- it really shows.
>

Mid-grade with 10% ethanol is less expensive than regular gas here in
Iowa, so it actually costs less per mile. I do not run it in the bikes,
particularly the air-cooled TW200.

--
T0m $herm@n

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

> Depending on the downhill grade, you can do FULL MILES in 100++ mpg-mode,
>

I just saw that, and realized how stupid of a statement it was.

If I put any one of my vehicles on ANY downhill grade (greater than about
1%), they coast down, gathering speed as they go.

LLoyd

[Nate Nagel]

On 05/08/2013 11:36 PM, Existential Angst wrote:

> Well, obviously, you learn that hills burn more gas than level driving....
> LOTS more.
> But the eye-opener is, the mpg's REALLY plummet when you (or the tranny)
> drop down a gear.
> Moral: near-lugging the engine saves gas, even if it feels like your
> position in the powerband sucks. It DOES suck, power-wise, but is good,
> mpg-wise.
> How good it is for the engine is another story, but mpg-wise, high-gear
> low-rpm roolz.
>
> I read where one car maker explicitly acknowledged this, forgot the context.
> But the way most cars rev, it's pretty clear most carmakers are oblvious to
> this, or just don't care about gas conservation, unless they can get some
> EPA brag out of it..

There was a big shift in RPM at cruise back when I was a kid in the bad
old days post-fuel crisis... you can really tell the difference. An old
car with a direct drive top gear and a 3.54:1 or 3.73:1 rear end is
positively screaming compared to RPM at cruise today. There were even
some limited holdouts like my '84 GTI (3.94 final drive IIRC with a very
slight OD in 5th) which would sit at 4000 RPM @ 80 MPH (seemingly happy
about it, and for hours on end...)

And yes, the older cars felt much more lively than the newer ones (for
comparable weight and power output) but obviously didn't get anywhere
near the fuel economy of today's vehicles (possibly due to cruise RPM;
definitely also due to improvements in chamber design, engine management
technology, other developments e.g. direct injection etc.)

There's still something nice about cruising at 3200 RPM and passing
someone being as simple as look, signal, push down a little on the
skinny pedal. However those days are gone I fear...

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

[Nate Nagel]

Again, this is an advancement in engine management technology. An older
car with a carburetor will still be metering fuel through the idle jets
with the throttle fully closed, and even some early fuel injection
systems did not incorporate a closed-throttle fuel cutoff (I'm thinking
of CIS when I type this; I kind of miss the "snap crackle pop" on
overrun even though I know it's wasteful.) However most (all?) modern
cars shut off all fuel completely with a gear engaged, engine speed over
a certain RPM, and throttle at 0% allowing the engine to run in "air
pump" mode when coasting down a hill.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 20:21:14 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:


>Oh, the in situ thing:
>Math-deficient peeple are often in situ peeple, who often have to BUILD a
>perpetual motion machine and/or take one apart and study it in effing depth,
>to figger out why it dudn't work. Oh, yeah, math and the laws-of-thermo
>deficient.....

Math is good except where it's used to avoid the obvious. Your
problem, like your brother crackpots who believe in perpetual motion,
is denial. There is no space between the VW XL1 and a Prius Plugin for
the $20k one ton hybrid EV Angstmobile. I don't think you'll ever
admit it but at least you're on your way. Your idiotic claims have
gone from a 99% Volt that you or Gunner could build, to a much lesser
vehicle that would cost $100 million to develop. Keep "evolving,"
someday reality may appear to you like a revelation.

>You DO have a matching ascot for your Volt, right??

You might use your calculator for something useful. Such as to compare
the power to gross weight ratio of a Fit to Volt. In a few minutes you
could figure out who has the greater "greed" for hp. arf arf Oh
wait, you're going to say that the Volt should have been made of CF.
Why didn't they use that for the Fit again?

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 08:21:55 -0700, wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 04:56:55 -0500, "T0m $herman"
><twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:

>>You can buy a vehicle that has basically half a Honda Fit engine - it is
>>called the Honda NC700X. Real world mileage reports are in the 60-70
>>mpg range due to the light weight (a little under 500 pounds) and
>>despite the horrendous aerodynamics (no CdA listed, since that will
>>depend greatly on rider size and clothing worn).

LOL Another benchmark that shows the difficult road for the fantasy
Angstmobile. EA wants a 4 place hybrid EV with the utility to haul
lathes and pallets, and with the max hp and retail price of a low end
Hogly Ferguson.

My next 2 wheeler is going to be an FJR. I may have to get a beefier
ascot. :)

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 00:03:54 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:


> My scanguage is accurate to within 1 % over 5 tanks full for fuel
>quantity. (took a bit of calibrating to get there)

That was my experience as well. I tweaked the offset about a dozen
times until I was confident that discrepencies weren't worth chasing.
The offset seemed to affect the speed readout, which I then tweaked
seperately.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 06:13:59 -0500, "T0m $herman"
<twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:

>On 5/8/2013 10:36 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>> [...]
>> For example, on one of the Nissan Frontier (pickup truck) forums, a guy used
>> a scangauge to do pretty exhaustive experiments on whether driving with the
>> tailgate up or down made a diff, mpg-wise. Intuition would tell you that of
>> course, driving with it down ought to make a sig. diff. He found that it
>> made very little difference!!!
>
>I would expect better mileage/less drag with the tailgate up.

Virtually no difference in the real world. A toneau cover makes some
small improvement on some trucks, as does a cap - if you compare
ballasted to the same weight.

>
>> And iirc, a bed cover didn't make that much of a diff either.
>> Seems like a simple experiment, trial, but it was fairly involved, and
>> experimentally tedious.
>>
>> There's a few things you learn from a ScanGuage -- which of course Kidding
>> has no clue about, cuz the ONLY fukn thing he's innerested in this world is
>> rationalizing his Chevy BloatVolt purchase, and other brags.
>>
>> Well, obviously, you learn that hills burn more gas than level driving....
>> LOTS more.
>
>I have a built-in mpg function (seems to be an average of the last 3
>seconds or so) on my Honda NT700V, and the fuel economy drops 20-25 mpg
>when I stand up to cross an expansion joint at freeway speeds.
>
>> But the eye-opener is, the mpg's REALLY plummet when you (or the tranny)
>> drop down a gear.
>> Moral: near-lugging the engine saves gas, even if it feels like your
>> position in the powerband sucks. It DOES suck, power-wise, but is good,
>> mpg-wise.
>> How good it is for the engine is another story, but mpg-wise, high-gear
>> low-rpm roolz.

Depends on the engine. If you drop out of the torque band the mileage
can go for a crap in a hurry.
On my Ranger I can get the same or better mileage at 90kph as at 50 in
5th gear. At 90 it's just coming up on the cam, so the volumetric
efficiency is better and the pumping losses are lower. - ergo - the
efficiency is higher. Above 90 the high cd and frontal area starts
eating your lunch.

>>
>On the NT700V, too low is easy to tell, since the drive-shaft rattles
>when the engine is lugged.
>
>> I read where one car maker explicitly acknowledged this, forgot the context.
>> But the way most cars rev, it's pretty clear most carmakers are oblvious to
>> this, or just don't care about gas conservation, unless they can get some
>> EPA brag out of it..
>>
>Two of my Honda's (2005 Civic EX and the 2010 NT700V) could benefit from
>a 6th gear, as they are running about 3300 and 5000 rpm, respectively at
>70 mph.
>
>> Depending on the downhill grade, you can do FULL MILES in 100++ mpg-mode,
>> which bleeve me, I can really use in dat goddamm Frontier..... what a
>> guzzler, but not as bad as the big chevies, fords. Mine is an '04, I think
>> now the bigger trucks are doing much better on gas.
>>
>My 2002 A/T, V-6, "King Cab", 4WD Frontier is a gas hog - I was really
>surprised to get 20 mpg average on a 350-mile highway trip last weekend.
> Normal use is about 15-16 mpg, which is why it usually stays parked
>until I am getting paid to drive it.
>>
>> It is inneresting stuff, very accurate.
>> So accurate that if you have developed a good feel what your car SHOULD do,
>> mpg-wise, you can actually tell if you've gotten bad gas, or when they shift
>> to that ethanol shit -- it really shows.
>>
>Mid-grade with 10% ethanol is less expensive than regular gas here in
>Iowa, so it actually costs less per mile. I do not run it in the bikes,
>particularly the air-cooled TW200.

I've found it needs to be at least 5% less expensive per liter (or
gallon) to break even on the Ranger, Taurus, PT Cruiser or Mistyque
V6.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 07:28:22 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:

The little 241 Red Ram Hemi with overdrive was a joy. 2000 RPM at
something like 70MPH, shift out of overdrive and pass an SS350 Nova at
about 3000 with no drama at all. - in a '53 station wagon.

[Existential Angst]

<cl...@snyder.on.ca> wrote in message
news:ngkno81k47kvlfbe7...@4ax.com...

You illustrate the nature of optimization -- a concept beyond Kidding's
reading level..
With pyooters, it's a pretty straightforward thing to evaluate a maximum
fuel efficiency point *real-time*..
Some cars have a real-time "mpg meter" of sorts -- the new Fit does -- but
they really don't make it easy for a driver to tell exactly where or how he
should be operating for max. effic.
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:nbino8hvesiok57ph...@4ax.com...

Well, unbeknownst to KiddingHisSelf, there is no real need to tweak the
scanguage to that degree, siince what is most useful to most people are the
RELATIVE readings.
You'd only need to calibrate against some standard if you needed to
dick-wave YOUR mpg's against another car's/brand mpg's.
Which, apparently Kidding compulsively needs to do, so tweak away!!! Arf
Arf Clap Clap....

AND, that multi-car comparison would presume that everyone has an accurately
calibrated 'guage, which is highly unlikely.
So once again, Kidding dick-waves in an empty room, but still hears the
applause in his head. Arf Arf Arf Clap Clap Clap......

One possible useful application of an accurately calibrated scanguage would
be to use it as a screening tool for buying a new car.
But, how realistic or practical is that, given the mpg visissytudes of new
cars, and the difficulty of accurately calibrating the 'guage to EACH car.
Or to even find standard conditions for sed testing.

But this all <swooshes> over Kidding's head anyway..... it's mostly an
observation for other people who might get a scanguage, to spare them from
wasting time with Kidding's sundry pathologies and idiocy.

The scanguage is much more of an *educational/behavioral* tool. It better
demonstrates trends/patterns, than absolute info.
Altho it does display a bunch of engine parameters, as well, but that's not
really mpg-relevant.
--
EA

[Vic Smith]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 12:50:31 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:

>On Thu, 09 May 2013 06:13:59 -0500, "T0m $herman"
><twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>>On 5/8/2013 10:36 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
>>> [...]
>>> For example, on one of the Nissan Frontier (pickup truck) forums, a guy used
>>> a scangauge to do pretty exhaustive experiments on whether driving with the
>>> tailgate up or down made a diff, mpg-wise. Intuition would tell you that of
>>> course, driving with it down ought to make a sig. diff. He found that it
>>> made very little difference!!!
>>
>>I would expect better mileage/less drag with the tailgate up.
>
>Virtually no difference in the real world. A toneau cover makes some
>small improvement on some trucks, as does a cap - if you compare
>ballasted to the same weight.
>>

Put a cap on my '66 F-100. That had 352 with a quad. Got a cap that
sat exactly at the cab roof line, because I wanted it "aerodynamic."
Gas was 35 cents a gallon, so I never checked if it made a difference.
Just made it into a good camper.

[Nate Nagel]

Did that have the Borg-Warner "automatic overdrive" with the lockout
cable? Those are kind of neat once you understand how they work. I
wouldn't mind finding a T-85 with OD to fit behind a Studebaker motor
but they seem to be somewhat rare and the parts to make the column shift
work in a C-K body even more so.

[Existential Angst]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1BB4B0729823ll...@216.168.3.70...

>
>> Depending on the downhill grade, you can do FULL MILES in 100++ mpg-mode,
>>
>
> I just saw that, and realized how stupid of a statement it was.

Oh?? How so?
Be as coherent as you can.....

>
> If I put any one of my vehicles on ANY downhill grade (greater than about
> 1%), they coast down, gathering speed as they go.

Wow.... Shall we call you Galileo??
Or Kidding's ButtBuddy?
--
EA




>
> LLoyd
>

[Existential Angst]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message
news:XnsA1BB4B0729823ll...@216.168.3.70...
>

Oh, I just saw that, and realized how stupid of a statement it was.
Do you have any idea why?? Of course, not, so I'll splain it to you.

Yeah, they'll gather speed, but only until a very distinct terminal
velocity, which, all other things being constant, is TOTALLY dependent on
the grade.
In fact, the grade actually MEASURES the total of the frictional forces on
the vehicle, being *exactly* calc'd by mg cos (angle).

So you could actually use grade as a laboratory diagnostic on ANY two cars,
to see which one has the best "net net net" CdA, which would include
EVERYTHING except the driveline/transmission itself:
If you did the same comparison in gear, you'd then be able to assess
driveline friction, but you'd have to do both experiments, and subtract..

If you know the grade (from google or whatever), you get the actual angle
by taking the arctan of the decimal grade (not the %), and take the cos of
that. For example, the arctan of a 4% grade is 2.29 deg.
Bec "grade" IS, by definition, the tangent of the true angle (rise over
run). Thus, the "grade" of a 45 deg angle is 100% . The grade of a 60 deg
angle would be 173%, so you can indeed have grades greater than 100%.

Not a tremendously practical bunch of factoids, but inneresting.
But actually perty practical if two dickwavers like SponBoi and Kidding
wanted to compare net frictional losses in their cars. They would have to
find some other means, however, to measure the grating friction in their
personalities.

It's not practical to coast down an insuff'ly steep grade, cuz the terminal
vel is too low.
Nor is it practical to coast down a steep grade, with insufficient run, cuz,
well, it's just too short..
Ergo, "depending on the downhill grade...."
Kapisch?

In/about effingNYC, I have been able to freewheel for up to 1.1 miles,
maintaining 60 mph a good part of the way, and tapering off at 40, before
the assholes behind me start getting pissed.... which, ackshooly, I can
unnerstand.... LOL
Upstate, I"m sure you can practicably freewheel for a cupla miles or more.

Most everybody knows the joy of freewheeling (illegal in most states, fwiu),
but the scanguage gives a vivid numerical illustration of the mpg difference
between coasting in gear, and coasting in neutral.

Which was the point of that particular usage of the scanguage.
--
EA


>
> LLoyd
>

[T0m $herman]

On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:
> On Thu, 09 May 2013 08:21:55 -0700, wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 04:56:55 -0500, "T0m $herman"
>> <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>
>>> You can buy a vehicle that has basically half a Honda Fit engine - it is
>>> called the Honda NC700X. Real world mileage reports are in the 60-70
>>> mpg range due to the light weight (a little under 500 pounds) and
>>> despite the horrendous aerodynamics (no CdA listed, since that will
>>> depend greatly on rider size and clothing worn).
>
> LOL Another benchmark that shows the difficult road for the fantasy
> Angstmobile. EA wants a 4 place hybrid EV with the utility to haul
> lathes and pallets, and with the max hp and retail price of a low end
> Hogly Ferguson.
>

↑ Heh.

> My next 2 wheeler is going to be an FJR. I may have to get a beefier
> ascot. :)
>

I was tempted to get a Honda VFR1200F last winter - local dealer had it
reduced to $13K.

--
T0m $herm@n

[Existential Angst]

"Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:518c267e$0$20236$607e...@cv.net...

Oh, OH, ARF ARF!!!!!

It gets even better!!

Since you can now very accurately measure the forces acting on the car,
simply multiply by the reading of yer speedometer, and Voila, you now have
the POWER required to *maintain* constant velocity, which equals the power
LOSS due to CdA, rolling friction, transmission/driveline losses (if
performed in gear).
So NOW, you have a near-exact empirically determined hp requirement for a
car at that velocity. The only caveat being that the velocity MUST be
constant.

Important note: This figure is valid for LEVEL GROUND, because the only
purpose of the grade, in this case, is to supply a known force. The calc'd
hp applies only to the terminal velocity, irrespective of the grade.

Now, easier said than done, cuz, well, you gotta find known grades long
enough to reach terminal velocity, but even this can be surmounted by
helping mg cos (angle) by accelerating INTO some "anticipated" terminal
velocity, until you get it right.

The other thing is to find grades that will sustain 60 mph, if that is your
speed/hp of interest.

The OTHER thing you can do, apropos of one poster's observation about the hp
needed to just keep the engine turning, which he stated was about 4 or so hp
for a jeep:
IF you can change the idle on the engine, if you lower the idle to the point
where the engine just shuts off, and measure the gals per hour via a
scanguage, now you have a pretty good indication of what it takes to simply
run the engine hp-wise.

This is a bit of an estimate, bec you have to estimate the Carnot efficiency
of the engine, and multiply that by the btu per gal of fuel, and do the
conversion to hp.
The carnot effic of most engines, based on the estimated temps of the
combustion gases, seems to be around 60%.

So this is not an EXACT calculation like the above hill experiments, but it
should be good for a good ballpark estimate of this piece of the hp
requirement of a vehicle -- which would need to be ADDED to the above
experiments -- unless one is coasting downhill in gear in a MANUAL
transmission, then the engine braking would proly be an indicator. The
above was presuming automatic transmissions..

Arf Arf..... Study hard, Kidding, cuz you will be tested.... Here, in case
you need help:
http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com
--
EA





> --
> EA
>
>
>>
>> LLoyd
>>
>
>

[Lloyd E. Sponenburgh]

"Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> fired this volley in
news:518c31f4$0$20210$607e...@cv.net:

> EA
Moron.

I'll let your little dick fester in your mouth now. You won't get any
more replies no matter what you post. So suffer, asshole. I know you
live to get a rise out of people, since you can't do anything else; but
you won't.

'Bye, little girl!

Lloyd

[T0m $herman]

On 5/9/2013 6:28 AM, Nate Nagel wrote:
> There's still something nice about cruising at 3200 RPM and passing
> someone being as simple as look, signal, push down a little on the
> skinny pedal. However those days are gone I fear...

My favorite passing is dropping down to 2nd gear on the F4i, and letting
in the clutch hard so the front wheel comes up about a foot or so off
the ground. And no, I do not want to grow up. :)

--
T0m $herm@n

[Existential Angst]

"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh" <lloydspinsidemindspring.com> wrote in message

news:XnsA1BBCC261ED94ll...@216.168.3.70...

Butt ANOTHER math-phobic scan-guage dependent hater!!
Whuzzamatter, you can't refute any of it, so you resort to name-calling,
like His Asshole the Great Kidding?
Oh, oh, OH, let me guess: you already KNEW all of this, right??

The math-phobic: Jim Beam, KiddingHisSelf, you, proly a bunch of other
haters, proly mostly bitter closet fagits....

Here, Spermenberg, in case you missed my link to Kidding:
http://tutoring.sylvanlearning.com/
--
EA


>
> Lloyd
>

[T0m $herman]

On 5/9/2013 7:13 PM, Existential Angst wrote:
> The math-phobic: Jim Beam, KiddingHisSelf, you,

Who is "Jim Beam". I am only aware of a "jim beam".

--
T0m $herm@n

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 16:45:19 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>

Yes, it was the Borg Warner Automatic overdrive. Press the button on
the gearshift and mat it!!!

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 16:45:19 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:

>

>>>> Well, obviously, you learn that hills burn more gas than level driving....

It made a nice "split shift" too - basically gave you a 5 speed.
couldn'r use 1st od and 2nd direct if I remember correctly - you
picked one or the other as 1stOD was just a tad higher than 2nd
direct.

[Nate Nagel]

The ones I've driven were all Studebakers - the switch was integrated
with the throttle linkage, which had a heavy spring integrated into it
so you could push the gas pedal past WOT to engage the kickdown. Don't
ever have to take your hands off the steering wheel unless you really
mean business and want to grab 2nd (and in a Stude at highway speed
that's pretty pointless, even the wildest factory engines work best
shifted at 5K - 5500 or so.) Even easier! Some owners would wire a
kickdown switch on the dash so you could kick down before WOT. Problem
(for me) is that most used the T86 transmission and I don't really
expect that - or the OD unit that was used with them - to hold up to the
torque of an Avanti engine, and as I said, I have been looking off and
on for years for a T-85/OD but they all have the wrong input shaft, are
really expensive, or both.

I did manage to do a mostly factory looking conversion to a T-10 wide
ratio 4-speed though, so I got that going for me.

[cl...@snyder.on.ca]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:10:37 -0500, "T0m $herman"

<twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:

>On 5/9/2013 11:06 AM, whoyakidding's ghost wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 08:21:55 -0700, wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 04:56:55 -0500, "T0m $herman"
>>> <twsherman@REMOVE_THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> You can buy a vehicle that has basically half a Honda Fit engine - it is
>>>> called the Honda NC700X. Real world mileage reports are in the 60-70
>>>> mpg range due to the light weight (a little under 500 pounds) and
>>>> despite the horrendous aerodynamics (no CdA listed, since that will
>>>> depend greatly on rider size and clothing worn).
>>
>> LOL Another benchmark that shows the difficult road for the fantasy
>> Angstmobile. EA wants a 4 place hybrid EV with the utility to haul
>> lathes and pallets, and with the max hp and retail price of a low end
>> Hogly Ferguson.
>>

>? Heh.

>
>> My next 2 wheeler is going to be an FJR. I may have to get a beefier
>> ascot. :)
>>
>I was tempted to get a Honda VFR1200F last winter - local dealer had it
>reduced to $13K.

How about the Kaw ZN1300? a friend has about half a dozen in various
states or repair. He's in his eighties now.

[T0m $herman]

Not really my thing - I would prefer a bike that you can remove the
luggage and take to a track day.

<http://www.motorcyclespecs.co.za/model/kawasaki/kawasaki_zn1300_voyager.htm>

--
T0m $herm@n

[Ashton Crusher]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 07:28:22 -0400, Nate Nagel <njn...@roosters.net>
wrote:

Not when you own a 60 Dodge Matador.....

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 15:48:33 -0400, "Existential Angst"
<fit...@optonline.net> wrote:

>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nbino8hvesiok57ph...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 00:03:54 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>
>>
>>> My scanguage is accurate to within 1 % over 5 tanks full for fuel
>>>quantity. (took a bit of calibrating to get there)
>>
>> That was my experience as well. I tweaked the offset about a dozen
>> times until I was confident that discrepencies weren't worth chasing.
>> The offset seemed to affect the speed readout, which I then tweaked
>> seperately.
>
>Well, unbeknownst to KiddingHisSelf, there is no real need to tweak the
>scanguage to that degree, siince what is most useful to most people are the
>RELATIVE readings.

No, you idiot. If you don't adust the offset, then the miles to empty
readings are useless.

>You'd only need to calibrate against some standard

All you do is check the actual gallons to fillup vs what the scangauge
predicted, and tweak until they consistently match up. You tweak the
offset on the same screen as the fillup reset, so it couldn't be
easier.

> if you needed to
>dick-wave YOUR mpg's against another car's/brand mpg's.
>Which, apparently Kidding compulsively needs to do, so tweak away!!! Arf
>Arf Clap Clap....

Another of your straw men, oh empty headed one.

>AND, that multi-car comparison would presume that everyone has an accurately
>calibrated 'guage, which is highly unlikely.
>So once again, Kidding dick-waves in an empty room, but still hears the
>applause in his head. Arf Arf Arf Clap Clap Clap......

Whoyakidding? You're only making this crap up because I rightly called
you a crackpot.

>One possible useful application of an accurately calibrated scanguage would
>be to use it as a screening tool for buying a new car.

No it wouldn't. That's what the EPA mileage estimates are for.

>But, how realistic or practical is that, given the mpg visissytudes of new
>cars, and the difficulty of accurately calibrating the 'guage to EACH car.
>Or to even find standard conditions for sed testing.

LOL Now you're taking down your own straw man.

>But this all <swooshes> over Kidding's head anyway..... it's mostly an
>observation for other people who might get a scanguage, to spare them from
>wasting time with Kidding's sundry pathologies and idiocy.

Ah, so now you're serving the public good by saving people from
investing in what is widely accepted as a very useful tool... mostly
because you don't have $150, and because you don't want to know what
that tool would tell you about your crackpot hp ideas.

>The scanguage is much more of an *educational/behavioral* tool. It better
>demonstrates trends/patterns, than absolute info.

Horseshit. It displays a lot of dead accurate info, reads and resets
TCs, and is highly customizable.

>Altho it does display a bunch of engine parameters, as well, but that's not
>really mpg-relevant.

So what? Those parameter readouts are excellent for troubleshooting.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

On Thu, 09 May 2013 21:48:15 -0500, "T0m $herman"

They're heavy. The FJR is no lightweight, but it's not bad for a big
sport tourer. The Triumph is light and I have no fear of chains, but
it's hard to imagine going back to British. Didn't like the concept of
the swaying saddlebags but I need to see them in person. The BMW RT
looks good on paper, but I swore off BMW a long time ago. The VFR is
really slick but too sporty for this old man. Plus the high pipe looks
to preclude anything but the stock tiny bags.

[whoyakidding's ghost]

I like how he was replying to himself. Very funny, and a frequent
habit of the deranged like Bonkers, who is EA becomes more like each
day.

[jon_banquer]

On May 10, 7:21 am, whoyakidding's ghost <whoyakidd...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

What's deranged is when everyone KiddingNoOne doesn't like (anyone who
calls KiddingNoOne on his lies / bullshit) becomes Jon Banquer.

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:md0qo8pbo4randc8a...@4ax.com...

<yawn>

It's called thinking out loud.
Oh, btw, did you find any errors??
Oh, that's right, *of course not*!!
If you don't *understand* shit, you just bash it, as you are so easily
threatened -- you, spermenberg, plimboi, apparentely a bunch that haven't
yet come out of the reading-below-grade-level closet.

Find any errors?? In ANY of these recent posts? I didn't think so.
And there WERE some errors!!! YOU just don't have a clue as to what they
are!!! LOL
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3mupo8dggnuv8b8mg...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 15:48:33 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:nbino8hvesiok57ph...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 00:03:54 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My scanguage is accurate to within 1 % over 5 tanks full for fuel
>>>>quantity. (took a bit of calibrating to get there)
>>>
>>> That was my experience as well. I tweaked the offset about a dozen
>>> times until I was confident that discrepencies weren't worth chasing.
>>> The offset seemed to affect the speed readout, which I then tweaked
>>> seperately.
>>
>>Well, unbeknownst to KiddingHisSelf, there is no real need to tweak the
>>scanguage to that degree, siince what is most useful to most people are
>>the
>>RELATIVE readings.
>
> No, you idiot. If you don't adust the offset, then the miles to empty
> readings are useless.

Again, you miss the point. You only need this for absolute readings -- the
few practical purposes to absolute readings -- besides dickwaving -- were
outlined below, and you didn't understand those.

>
>>You'd only need to calibrate against some standard
>
> All you do is check the actual gallons to fillup vs what the scangauge
> predicted, and tweak until they consistently match up. You tweak the
> offset on the same screen as the fillup reset, so it couldn't be
> easier.
>
>> if you needed to
>>dick-wave YOUR mpg's against another car's/brand mpg's.
>>Which, apparently Kidding compulsively needs to do, so tweak away!!! Arf
>>Arf Clap Clap....
>
> Another of your straw men, oh empty headed one.
>
>>AND, that multi-car comparison would presume that everyone has an
>>accurately
>>calibrated 'guage, which is highly unlikely.
>>So once again, Kidding dick-waves in an empty room, but still hears the
>>applause in his head. Arf Arf Arf Clap Clap Clap......
>
> Whoyakidding? You're only making this crap up because I rightly called
> you a crackpot.

When you can stop jerking yourself off in a mirror, go find the error, and
post back.

>
>>One possible useful application of an accurately calibrated scanguage
>>would
>>be to use it as a screening tool for buying a new car.
>
> No it wouldn't. That's what the EPA mileage estimates are for.

Arf Arf Clap Clap: Kidding the Seal mugging for fish again, from the status
quo -- or swinging from the dick of the status quo -- again.
Dude, I just gave you one possible app of calibration. If you throw THAT
out, then you are *really* just jerking yourself off.

>
>>But, how realistic or practical is that, given the mpg visissytudes of new
>>cars, and the difficulty of accurately calibrating the 'guage to EACH car.
>>Or to even find standard conditions for sed testing.
>
> LOL Now you're taking down your own straw man.

Well, you couldn't, so I figgered I do it for you..... LOL
Still, one could assume that
1. initial mpg's of a new car will be in some constant proportion to
broken-in mpg's;
2. Iffin yer not driving on a distinct grade or into a wind, you could
proly get a serviceable result.
3. Still not easy for the avg person. Plus, the same model scanguage does
not work on all cars -- or didn't.

>
>>But this all <swooshes> over Kidding's head anyway..... it's mostly an
>>observation for other people who might get a scanguage, to spare them from
>>wasting time with Kidding's sundry pathologies and idiocy.
>
> Ah, so now you're serving the public good by saving people from
> investing in what is widely accepted as a very useful tool... mostly
> because you don't have $150, and because you don't want to know what
> that tool would tell you about your crackpot hp ideas.

I have a scanguage. I stated that the scanguage was useful, much more useful
than the absolute calibration you are so obsessed with.
Whatever you don't understand is crackpot. You really need to get your
reading on grade level.

>
>>The scanguage is much more of an *educational/behavioral* tool. It better
>>demonstrates trends/patterns, than absolute info.
>
> Horseshit. It displays a lot of dead accurate info, reads and resets
> TCs, and is highly customizable.

Lots of shit do that. Its "mpg feedback", which I have explained at length
and which you obviously don't understand, is most useful.
But then, you aren't really into education. Didn't do well in school, eh?

>
>>Altho it does display a bunch of engine parameters, as well, but that's
>>not
>>really mpg-relevant.
>
> So what? Those parameter readouts are excellent for troubleshooting.

Didn't say they weren't. But you can get shit for that from Autozone for
$19.95.
Oh, but that's right, you prefer to pay double.... sextuple???

In a previous post, I outlined about 4 experiments you can do with the
scanguage. <swoosh> again???
--
EA

[Stan Weiss]

- While your vehicle maybe smaller than a vette that does mean that it
CdA is less. CdA is a function of both frontal area and CD.
- Since Aero Dynamic HP loss is not a straight line you will not get
very good results from interpolation. If you double that speed to 130
MPH you will see around 100 HP.
- What happens when you try and past someone at 65 MPH going into a 30
MPH head wind?

Stan

Existential Angst wrote:
>
> Awl --
>
> KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late. One can only hope the
> bliss will continue, but it may just be the lull before another hysterical
> menstruating storm.....
> Hopefully this will shut him up a little bit longer.... or act as a
> maxi-pad.....
>
> Previously I estimated my Honder Fit hp at 60 mph at about 12 hp, and some
> proly thought that this was ridiculously optimistic, but in fact, it was
> proly conservative.
> Consider http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm , which calculates the hp
> for a Corvette at 65 mph at 11.8 hp..... !!!! From the chart at the very
> end of the article.
>
> If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient ,
> you'll see the CdA for many cars is 5-6+.
>
> Thus, interpolating between 55 and 65 mph, and figgering the CdA of a Fit is
> proly a bit less than the Vette, the hp req'd for the Fit at 60 mph is proly
> between 8 and 9, ie, under 10 hp!!!!
>
> Not that this is such a big deal (vs. 12), but it does illustrate just how
> low steady-state hp requirements can be. It is only acceleration and hills
> that really amp this requirement up.
> Oh, yeah, and being an asshole.
>
> You may find some varying results with different tables, analyses, but the
> near-universal consensus is very low hp is required for modest speeds. Note
> that hp requirement for a Vette drops to 1.16 -- Yup, one point one six --
> at 30 mph. And jumps to 31 at 90 mph..... and even that seems
> surprisingly low. The table shows 344 hp for 200 mph, which def'ly seems
> low, so maybe this chart is skewed a bit. But you get the idea. Mebbe
> others can provide other tables.
>
> The wiki article shows how CdA can vary, with a few surprises, such as the
> very impressive CdA for the Honda Insight -- lower, even, than the Honda
> NSX.
>
> Bottom line is, fuel efficiency is *inversely* proportional to the CdA, so
> that if you halve the CdA, you double the car's efficiency -- which is what
> the Aptera et al are all about -- regardless of the underlying power plant
> strategy. In fact, the mpg ROI from CdA proly swamps power plant
> considerations.
>
> Had GM spent that $1.++ BILLION on the Volt's CdA rather than its
> 3-clutch/two-motor/multi-planetary gear system, we'd proly be bankrupting
> Saudi Arabia just about now.
>
> Also from the hp article, you see the dramatic savings from going from 65 to
> 55 mph. Or, the other way around, from 55 to 65, you will burn 65% MORE GAS
> per unit time, and 40% more fuel per unit distance (basically 55/65 x 11.8,
> subtract 7.14 from that, then divide by 7.14). The figure per unit
> distance is the mpg-relevant factor. Note that fuel consumption is *directly
> proportional* to horsepower, virtually by definition.
>
> Funny, the old DOT admonitions about saving 10% by driving at 55 mph seem
> *awfully conservative*, given the above.
> But this is why you see these much higher mpg claims from Prius drivers,
> with very light feet. Just a little driving aggression (ie, driving like an
> asshole) drops mpg like a stone.
>
> So, once again, hybrids, EVs that INSIST on maintaining 100++ hp totals (150
> for the Volt) are simply sabotaging the Green premise/effort, as illustrated
> by the low-power 60s/70s Beetles. Yeah, they won't zoom up steep hills, but
> given gas/economic situation today, chillin up hills may not be such a bad
> idea.
> --
> EA

[Existential Angst]

"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message

news:3mupo8dggnuv8b8mg...@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 9 May 2013 15:48:33 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>>"whoyakidding's ghost" <whoyak...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:nbino8hvesiok57ph...@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 00:03:54 -0400, cl...@snyder.on.ca wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> My scanguage is accurate to within 1 % over 5 tanks full for fuel
>>>>quantity. (took a bit of calibrating to get there)
>>>
>>> That was my experience as well. I tweaked the offset about a dozen
>>> times until I was confident that discrepencies weren't worth chasing.
>>> The offset seemed to affect the speed readout, which I then tweaked
>>> seperately.
>>
>>Well, unbeknownst to KiddingHisSelf, there is no real need to tweak the
>>scanguage to that degree, siince what is most useful to most people are
>>the
>>RELATIVE readings.
>
> No, you idiot. If you don't adust the offset, then the miles to empty
> readings are useless.
>
>>You'd only need to calibrate against some standard
>
> All you do is check the actual gallons to fillup vs what the scangauge
> predicted, and tweak until they consistently match up. You tweak the
> offset on the same screen as the fillup reset, so it couldn't be
> easier.

Actually, it could be, and much more accurately:
As I discussed with Vic, you can get near-5 or mebbe full-5 digit accuracy
simply by dividing when you fill up.
THAT is your TRUE average mpg's.

But YOU tweak your ass off on a gadget for something that is totally
superfluous AND less accurate!!!
Typical of those who just don't get it -- and never will.
And refuse to acknowledge what the gadget IS useful for -- cuz, well, you
just don't get it -- and never will.
--
EA

[Existential Angst]

"jon_banquer" <jonba...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:24d7ae07-8270-4fc8...@e14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

=====================================================

Kidding is much more than a liar.
He is a rare combination of an sociopathic egomaniac who is at once
semi-articulate, yet with an astoundingly poor reading comprehension --
along with lloyd spermenberg, a few others.

Kidding posted all those links on the Volt (which I found very inneresting,
and which just vividly PROVED the over-complexity point), and was apparently
so complicated that *Kidding STILL* dudn't understand it!!! Not that shit
has to be all that complicated to swoosh over his head.....

For example, he didn't realize that the Volt apparently has direct-drive
capability, which he demonstrated when he said NOTHING to my Volvo
direct-drive link, or my erroneous assertion that direct drive didn't exist
in the Volt. He calls ME stupid, yet doesn't understand the very subject he
spends boucou time researching/studying.
I never pretended to understand the logic of the volt -- I still don't --
but I understand gratuitous complexity -- as does, apparently, the
non-buying Pubic, causing a suspension in Volt production.

In the whole fracas about the weight of the BloatVolt, he said NOTHING about
the fact that regenerative brakes, IN THEORY, *completely nullify the weight
issue*, as per a kind of variation on roller-coaster physics, which is
simply the expression of conserved kinetic/potential energy -- in the case
of the Volt, conserved kinetic/CHEMICAL potential energy, via the batteries.

I had not realized this weight implication either, until a discussion with
Ed, and fuknKidding STILL doesn't recognize this.
Now, weight, in practical terms, is STILL a sig. liability (bec, in
thermodynamics, you NEVER win), but less so with regen brakes.

Kidding won't acknowledge the pie in his face from your article, where GM is
saying they will shrink the genset, lower the weight, and lower the
price.....
Gee, where has THAT issue come up before???

And he scoffs at the issue of $1+++ BILLION dollars in an UNnecessary
rocket-science transmission, when, well, 300,000,000 Merkins are apparently
not scoffing, AND not buying.....
Staying true -- or true-er -- to the diesel-electric locomotive motiff, and
piggy-backing off the Prius and other designs, would have cost GM 1/10th
that amount, and resulted in likely a MUCH superior/more practical cheaper
product, albeit less dazzling from a mega-engineering/science project pov.

If yer gonna spend $1 BILLION, here's what you should be spending it on:
http://www.economist.com/node/18750574
which talks about the rare-earth super-magnets used in Tesla's 300 hp motor,
the size of a small watermelon.
Basically the Tesla is a scaled up version of a slot car!!!
Waaay over Kidding's head, tho.... and apparently way over GM's head, as
well.

Finally, Kidding has been taunting me for weeks now, with his fuknScanguage
bullshit
He has now
1. VIVIDLY demonstrated that he is too stupid to understand the REAL
utility of his own fukn scanguage -- heh, the pattern repeats, eh?? and
2. doesn't understand "hill physics", or apparently, how to do simple
division at the gas pump to REALLY nail his avg. mpg's.
Instead, he jerks himself off over utterly POINTLESS scanguage
calibrations.... cuz, well, the scanguage is DIGITAL and has pretty
backlighting, and.....

Kidding is the kind of asshole who will crow about weighing a coal truck to
the fukn MILLIGRAM -- utterly pointless and gratuitously expensive -- and
will then try to weigh milligram amounts on a fuknbathroom scale -- utterly
useless.....
He just doesn't get CONTEXT, either from a math/science pov, OR from an
applied Volt/genset strategy pov.

Bec kidding and his ilk are simply gymnasts on the dick of the status quo
and ""authority", and everyone else is a clumsy idiot.
--
EA

[jon_banquer]

Detailing how fucked in the head KiddingNoOne is would be a full time
job.

[Paul Hovnanian P.E.]

Existential Angst wrote:

[snip]

>
> If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automobile_drag_coefficient
> , you'll see the CdA for many cars is 5-6+.
>
> Thus, interpolating between 55 and 65 mph, and figgering the CdA of a Fit
> is proly a bit less than the Vette, the hp req'd for the Fit at 60 mph is
> proly between 8 and 9, ie, under 10 hp!!!!

First thing; don't forget the tire rolling resistance.

Also, given the acceleration of a Fit, think of how much fuel you'll save by
having the guy behind you push you along the on-ramp. The poor person
driving the 'Vette has to do that all by themselves.

--
Paul Hovnanian mailto:Pa...@Hovnanian.com
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bureaucrat, n.: A person who cuts red tape sideways. -- J. McCabe

[Jon Elson]

Existential Angst wrote:

Can't give you an HP number, but I drove my kid
about 250 miles to a basketball tournament last
weekend. I got 57 MPG in the Honda Civic hybrid
with 4 people in the car. That sure is a record
for me! (And, that's with gasohol, pure gasoline
would be even higher.)

Jon