When idling your car, you get zero mpg., waste money and resources,
and create pollution.

Do you turn your engine off when waiting for a train to pass? What
about a red light that you just missed and know from experience will
take several minutes to go green again? Would you do it more often if
you always knew exactly how long you were going to sit before getting
the green?

I've got an idea for getting you this information without adding any
infrastructure. It would only require some reprogramming. Most traffic
signals are computer controlled nowadays. Why couldn't the DOT make
the yellow light flash very briefly every five seconds during the red
phase whenever there was more than a minute left? Then it could flash
every two and a half seconds, until there were only ten seconds left,
at which point it would flash every second. The red would of course
remain continously red the entire time. Implementing this idea would
cost almost nothing (in transportation spending terms) and require no
changes in basic traffic laws or conventions, but could save
unimaginable amounts of fuel and hugely reduce emmissions and CO2.
Best of all, there would be no new rules or big brother. It would
force nothing on anyone!

When I learned to drive, they taught us that is was wasteful to idle
for more than three minutes. On modern cars it is more like ten or
fifteen seconds. Not everyone believes this, and many people refuse to
ever turn off their engine when they are in their car for any reason,
but there are plenty of people out there who are with the idea of
saving money, reducing emissions, or both. Enough anyway, that this
would have a significant impact from the outset. With a big public
awareness campaign (Which could be privately funded) participation
would grow quickly, the positive results would become documentable,
and many naysayers would jump on board too.

I'm sorry I can't provide documentation on gallons of gas or tons of
CO2 saved, but I'm convinced it would be well worth doing.
Documentation on this is thin, but the EPA claims ten seconds is the
break-even time. Please read: http://www.edf.org/documents/9236_Id...where_2009.pdf

Typical negative reactions:

Shutting down the engine in traffic is a bad idea. 1. Bad for the car.
2. Bad for traffic flow and safety. 3. Confusing to motorists.

1. The starter will fail sooner from overuse. A: Yes, true, but don’t
forget that with regular shutdowns the engine is running less, so
other components should last longer. Repair costs should be reduced
overall. Also: "Emissions at startup are much higher than at normal
idle." Yes, but a warm start has much less impact that 30 seconds
idling. Some people will not be convinced of this. Better to leave it
alone until good studies are produced.
2. If lots of people shut down at traffic lights, many will not be
able to restart in time, creating traffic jams and safety concerns. A:
It seems unlikely. First, emergency vehicles make their presence known
from a long way off – plenty of time to restart. Also, very few modern
cars are difficult to start, and the owners of those which are are
aware of the problem and would likely not shut down in the first
place. The program would be strictly voluntary. Just because you
suddenly have information about how long you are going to wait does
not force you kill the motor. Many drivers would instead use the info
to send a text, do a superb lipliner job which they would otherwise
have skimped on, or even use the extra time to masturbate. Everyone
wins!
3. Confusion. This would likely be the reaction from DOT officials.
But come on. Red = Stop, Green = Go. How simple is it? If you have the
intellectual capacity to go to the bathroom by yourself, you can
easily get this. Subtle changes in the function of the yellow light
would not disrupt traffic signal effectiveness for honest and
reasonable people. Those who would use it as an excuse to run a light
should get what they deserve – How ‘bout a Rodney King?

Anyway, many people won’t like the idea of not idling through traffic
lights, but I am only suggesting that we give some information to
motorists via the yellow light, which is currently underutilized. They
can make up their own minds how to use it. As I described, the
program would cost almost nothing and force nothing, but could save
huge amounts of fuel and reduce emissions. I would love to hear
reasonable arguments against it. I’ve heard none so far.

On Sep 8, 1:46*pm, robobass wrote:
When idling your car, you get zero mpg., waste money and resources,
and create pollution.

Do you turn your engine off when waiting for a train to pass? What
about a red light that you just missed and know from experience will
take several minutes to go green again? Would you do it more often if
you always knew exactly how long you were going to sit before getting
the green?

I've got an idea for getting you this information without adding any
infrastructure. It would only require some reprogramming. Most traffic
signals are computer controlled nowadays. Why couldn't the DOT make
the yellow light flash very briefly every five seconds during the red
phase whenever there was more than a minute left? Then it could flash
every two and a half seconds, until there were only ten seconds left,
at which point it would flash every second. The red *would of course
remain continously red the entire time. Implementing this idea would
cost almost nothing (in transportation spending terms) and require no
changes in basic traffic laws or conventions, but could save
unimaginable amounts of fuel and hugely reduce emmissions and CO2.
Best of all, there would be no new rules or big brother. It would
force nothing on anyone!

When I learned to drive, they taught us that is was wasteful to idle
for more than three minutes. On modern cars it is more like ten or
fifteen seconds. Not everyone believes this, and many people refuse to
ever turn off their engine when they are in their car for any reason,
but there are plenty of people out there who are with the idea of
saving money, reducing emissions, or both. Enough anyway, that this
would have a significant impact from the outset. With a big public
awareness campaign (Which could be privately funded) *participation
would grow quickly, the positive results would become documentable,
and many naysayers would jump on board too.

I'm sorry I can't provide documentation on gallons of gas or tons of
CO2 saved, but I'm convinced it would be well worth doing.
Documentation on this is thin, but the EPA claims ten seconds is the
break-even time. Please read: *http://www.edf.org/documents/9236_Id...where_2009.pdf

Typical negative reactions:

Shutting down the engine in traffic is a bad idea. 1. Bad for the car.
2. Bad for traffic flow and safety. *3. Confusing to motorists.

1. * * *The starter will fail sooner from overuse. A: Yes, true, but don’t
forget that with regular shutdowns the engine is running less, so
other components should last longer. Repair costs should be reduced
overall. Also: "Emissions at startup are much higher than at normal
idle." Yes, but a warm start has much less impact that 30 seconds
idling. Some people will not be convinced of this. Better to leave it
alone until good studies are produced.
2. * * *If lots of people shut down at traffic lights, many will not be
able to restart in time, creating traffic jams and safety concerns. A:
It seems unlikely. First, emergency vehicles make their presence known
from a long way off – plenty of time to restart. Also, very few modern
cars are difficult to start, and the owners of those which are are
aware of the problem and would likely not shut down in the first
place. The program would be strictly voluntary. Just because you
suddenly have information about how long you are going to wait does
not force you kill the motor. Many drivers would instead use the info
to send a text, do a superb lipliner job which they would otherwise
have skimped on, or even use the extra time to masturbate. Everyone
wins!
3. * * *Confusion. This would likely be the reaction from DOT officials.
But come on. Red = Stop, Green = Go. How simple is it? If you have the
intellectual capacity to go to the bathroom by yourself, you can
easily get this. Subtle changes in the function of the yellow light
would not disrupt traffic signal effectiveness for honest and
reasonable people. Those who would use it as an excuse to run a light
should get what they deserve – How ‘bout a Rodney King?

Anyway, many people won’t like the idea of not idling through traffic
lights, but I am only suggesting that we give some information to
motorists via the yellow light, which is currently underutilized. They
can make up their own minds how to use it. *As I described, the
program would cost almost nothing and force nothing, but could save
huge amounts of fuel and reduce emissions. I would love to hear
reasonable arguments against it. I’ve heard none so far.

Excuse me, but my Diesel vehicles require at least a 10 second glow
plug heat time when it's cold, and it really gets COLD sometimes.

You need to do a little more driving around the country and in Europe.
Leominster, MA, and possibly other cities blink the yellow light at 4-
way stops to allow pedestrians to cross ALL ways through the
intersection during which there is a steady red light on all 4
positions.

Also, very few traffic lights in this country are remote controllable.
Most, in fact are on timers.

A better idea is to do here like in Germany. Flash the yellow just
before the green, so drivers can begin to accelerate and will have a
green light as they cross the stop line. Much better traffic flow!

Paul

"robobass" wrote in message
...
When idling your car, you get zero mpg., waste money and resources,
and create pollution.

Do you turn your engine off when waiting for a train to pass? What
about a red light that you just missed and know from experience will
take several minutes to go green again? Would you do it more often if
you always knew exactly how long you were going to sit before getting
the green?

I've got an idea for getting you this information without adding any
infrastructure. It would only require some reprogramming. Most traffic
signals are computer controlled nowadays. Why couldn't the DOT make
the yellow light flash very briefly every five seconds during the red
phase whenever there was more than a minute left? Then it could flash
every two and a half seconds, until there were only ten seconds left,
at which point it would flash every second. The red would of course
remain continously red the entire time. Implementing this idea would
cost almost nothing (in transportation spending terms) and require no
changes in basic traffic laws or conventions, but could save
unimaginable amounts of fuel and hugely reduce emmissions and CO2.
Best of all, there would be no new rules or big brother. It would
force nothing on anyone!

When I learned to drive, they taught us that is was wasteful to idle
for more than three minutes. On modern cars it is more like ten or
fifteen seconds. Not everyone believes this, and many people refuse to
ever turn off their engine when they are in their car for any reason,
but there are plenty of people out there who are with the idea of
saving money, reducing emissions, or both. Enough anyway, that this
would have a significant impact from the outset. With a big public
awareness campaign (Which could be privately funded) participation
would grow quickly, the positive results would become documentable,
and many naysayers would jump on board too.

I'm sorry I can't provide documentation on gallons of gas or tons of
CO2 saved, but I'm convinced it would be well worth doing.
Documentation on this is thin, but the EPA claims ten seconds is the
break-even time. Please read:
http://www.edf.org/documents/9236_Id...where_2009.pdf

Typical negative reactions:

Shutting down the engine in traffic is a bad idea. 1. Bad for the car.
2. Bad for traffic flow and safety. 3. Confusing to motorists.

1. The starter will fail sooner from overuse. A: Yes, true, but don’t
forget that with regular shutdowns the engine is running less, so
other components should last longer. Repair costs should be reduced
overall. Also: "Emissions at startup are much higher than at normal
idle." Yes, but a warm start has much less impact that 30 seconds
idling. Some people will not be convinced of this. Better to leave it
alone until good studies are produced.
2. If lots of people shut down at traffic lights, many will not be
able to restart in time, creating traffic jams and safety concerns. A:
It seems unlikely. First, emergency vehicles make their presence known
from a long way off – plenty of time to restart. Also, very few modern
cars are difficult to start, and the owners of those which are are
aware of the problem and would likely not shut down in the first
place. The program would be strictly voluntary. Just because you
suddenly have information about how long you are going to wait does
not force you kill the motor. Many drivers would instead use the info
to send a text, do a superb lipliner job which they would otherwise
have skimped on, or even use the extra time to masturbate. Everyone
wins!
3. Confusion. This would likely be the reaction from DOT officials.
But come on. Red = Stop, Green = Go. How simple is it? If you have the
intellectual capacity to go to the bathroom by yourself, you can
easily get this. Subtle changes in the function of the yellow light
would not disrupt traffic signal effectiveness for honest and
reasonable people. Those who would use it as an excuse to run a light
should get what they deserve – How ‘bout a Rodney King?

Anyway, many people won’t like the idea of not idling through traffic
lights, but I am only suggesting that we give some information to
motorists via the yellow light, which is currently underutilized. They
can make up their own minds how to use it. As I described, the
program would cost almost nothing and force nothing, but could save
huge amounts of fuel and reduce emissions. I would love to hear
reasonable arguments against it. I’ve heard none so far.

Reply:
Is what the Saturn hybrid does. Is I think Mode 1 hybrid.

I'll go one step farther on this topic...

You want to save fuel?

Slow down!

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:33:46 -0500, cavelamb
wrote:

I'll go one step farther on this topic...

You want to save fuel?

Slow down!

People need to remember that the harder you step on either
pedal, the more it costs you...

--
Leon Fisk
Grand Rapids MI/Zone 5b
Remove no.spam for email

People need to remember that the harder you step on either
pedal, the more it costs you...

Try to explain that to the nutjob that races around you to end up at the same
red light. Sooner.

The problem is that many obviously don't care how much gas they're using.
They just write a bigger check to VISA next month. They want to drive that
huge pickup or SUV as fast as they want and whatever it costs is... whatever
it costs.

Moi wrote:
People need to remember that the harder you step on either
pedal, the more it costs you...

Try to explain that to the nutjob that races around you to end up at the same
red light. Sooner.

The problem is that many obviously don't care how much gas they're using.
They just write a bigger check to VISA next month. They want to drive that
huge pickup or SUV as fast as they want and whatever it costs is... whatever
it costs.

How about a national 45 mph speed limit.
Enforced via governor on the car!

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:44:02 -0700, Moi wrote:

People need to remember that the harder you step on either pedal, the
more it costs you...

Try to explain that to the nutjob that races around you to end up at the
same red light. Sooner.

I get a kick out of that - I see the light turn red, I take my foot off
the gas and coast. The nutjob races around me and slams on his brakes at
the light; I gently coast up to the light, and always want to ask, "Are
you really happy you got to the red light before I did? ;-) " - note
smiley inside quotes. ;-)

It also saves on brake shoes/pads. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

"Moi" wrote in message
...
People need to remember that the harder you step on either
pedal, the more it costs you...

Try to explain that to the nutjob that races around you to end up at the
same
red light. Sooner.

The problem is that many obviously don't care how much gas they're using.
They just write a bigger check to VISA next month. They want to drive that
huge pickup or SUV as fast as they want and whatever it costs is...
whatever
it costs.


My diesel pickup gets better mileage at 60 than 45. Maybe it is in a better
torque / rpm zone.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 11:44:02 -0700, Moi wrote:

People need to remember that the harder you step on either
pedal, the more it costs you...

Try to explain that to the nutjob that races around you to end up at the same
red light. Sooner.

The problem is that many obviously don't care how much gas they're using.
They just write a bigger check to VISA next month. They want to drive that
huge pickup or SUV as fast as they want and whatever it costs is... whatever
it costs.


Blink blink....people actually buy gas with Visa?????

Cash..is king


The current Democratic party has lost its ideological basis for
existence.
- It is NOT fiscally responsible.
- It is NOT ethically honorable.
- It has started wars based on lies.
- It does not support the well-being of americans - only billionaires.
- It has suppresed constitutional guaranteed liberties.
- It has foisted a liar as president upon America.
- It has violated US national sovereignty in trade treaties.
- It has refused to enforce the national borders.

....It no longer has valid reasons to exist.
Lorad474

On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:33:46 -0500, cavelamb wrote:

I'll go one step farther on this topic...

You want to save fuel?

Slow down!

Isn't that somewhat of a trade-off? I certainly wouldn't expect
to save gas by putting the car in first and just idling at 2MPH
or so to the store and back!

The point being, don't IC engines have a certain range of RPM
where they're most efficient? At what point does wind resistance
come into it?

Thanks,
Rich

"Rich Grise" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 09 Sep 2009 17:33:46 -0500, cavelamb wrote:

I'll go one step farther on this topic...

You want to save fuel?

Slow down!

Isn't that somewhat of a trade-off? I certainly wouldn't expect
to save gas by putting the car in first and just idling at 2MPH
or so to the store and back!

The point being, don't IC engines have a certain range of RPM
where they're most efficient?

Yes, but the bigger factor is the percent of available torque that's being
used at any given RPM. At low RPMs or high ones, when the throttle is mostly
closed your effective compression ratio goes 'way down, thermal efficiency
goes to pot, and your mileage takes a dive. The most efficient way to run a
conventional spark-ignition engine is at some moderate level of RPMs and
full throttle -- assuming you get good fuel atomization. (That's *engine*
efficiency, not total efficiency of the car, which falls off sharply with
speed above 50 mph or so.) Fuel injection has solved the low-RPM problem;
you get good atomization at all engine speeds.

BMW ran extensive tests a decade or so ago, with the pretty good
computer-controlled port-injection system they were then using, and found
that the best fuel efficiency in acceleration was accomplished at FULL
throttle, but by shifting at low RPMs. That was the opposite of the old
idea, but that had been with carburetors.

The new stratified-charge direct-injection systems are throwing all of the
values into a cocked hat. The latest ones hardly use a throttle at all;
Ford's new one "throttles" mostly by controlling the amount of fuel
injected -- more like a diesel than a conventional IC engine. Partial-load
fuel efficiency is up to unheard of levels in these new engines, which are
taking over in the new designs from most manufacturers.

At what point does wind resistance
come into it?

It's a square-ratio effect, but typically it becomes a major factor
somewhere between 50 and 60 mph. That best-tradeoff speed may drop with the
new engines -- it probably will, in fact, based on theory.

--
Ed Huntress