On Wed, 19 Jul 2017 11:29:19 -0700 (PDT),
trader_4 wrote:

Look at the energy required to lift a 100 lb rock two feet. I can do
it two ways, with a 2ft lever that provides low torque, or a 10 ft
lever that applies higher torque. Which takes more *energy* to lift
the rock? Answer: they both take the same amount. Now apply that
to the fuel economy issue.

The problem is that the math is non linear.
The physics forum said it this way.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...wheels.406860/

"attempting to spin a 2x larger wheel at the same speed would be attempting
to move the car 2x faster. Since energy is force x distance, traveling 2x
faster for 1 hour necessarily requires at least 2x more energy (since you
covered 2x more distance)...."

Or take the example of a bicycle with different gear ratios. While
the ratios vary, and with some ratios you couldn't get up a hill,
while with other ratios it's possible or even easy, it doesn't
change the energy input required.

The physics forum said otherwise.
https://www.physicsforums.com/thread...wheels.406860/

"Even more bad news is that in the real world, air resistance is actually a
square function! (2x more speed means 4x more air resistance!). This means
you would actually probably need at least 4x more energy..."

I am not a physicist so I'm just looking for the answers like everyone else
where my intuition isn't good enough to answer the question correctly.