Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
UK diy (uk.d-i-y) For the discussion of all topics related to diy (do-it-yourself) in the UK. All levels of experience and proficency are welcome to join in to ask questions or offer solutions. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed.
My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. -- Chris |
#2
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Chris ] gurgled happily, sounding much like they were
saying: I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? They don't exist. I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. They'll vary widely between classes of car - although individual cars within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. |
#3
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 2:34*pm, Chris ] wrote:
Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? Googling your subject gives a load of hits. Here's the first one: http://metrompg.com/posts/speed-vs-mpg.htm -- Nige Danton |
#4
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 2:58*pm, Adrian wrote:
within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. -- Nige Danton |
#5
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 3:03*pm, Nige Danton wrote:
On Oct 8, 2:58*pm, Adrian wrote: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. My response would have been better phrased as "drag cubes with velocity; are cars really so slippery that drag does not become significant until 60mph?" -- Nige Danton |
#6
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Chris wrote:
I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. I think that frictional losses including the rolling resistance are pretty much linear with speed, but aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Hence economy driving broadly falls into these categories To reduce frictional losses - otherwise approximately constant per mile - lighten the car and pump the tyres up. And fit eco-tyres. You can probably get 3-4% this way - keep speeds below 60 mph at which point aero losses start to mount sharply. This is significant. On cars with consumption meters 50-70 represents about 10% increase in fuel consumption, over that it goes up massively. - strip all external junk like roof racks and the like. There is probably at 70mph a couple of percent to be had here. - try and drive at a gear and speed where the engine is most efficient. For a diesel that is at the lowest throttle setting IIRC where the fuel-air ration is leanest. That possibly means use revs and less welly to get acceleration and power, not slogging in a low gear at higher throttle settings. For a petrol it may well be the other way around I am not sure. This can net you about 5% from typical driving styles. - reduce acceleration and braking to a minimum by anticipating the road. Braking represents a net loss of energy that is never recoverable. This is as great a contributions as speed reduction. Especially in towns. |
#7
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: On cars with consumption meters 50-70 represents about 10% increase in fuel consumption Not always. You're ignoring the effect of gearing and the efficient rev range of an engine. |
#8
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Nige Danton gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. Trust me on this... I've got plenty of experience with low-powered, unaerodynamic vehicles. It starts to come into play at about 60. |
#9
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"Adrian" wrote in message ... Nige Danton gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. Trust me on this... I've got plenty of experience with low-powered, unaerodynamic vehicles. It starts to come into play at about 60. So why do large commercials use lots of fuel at a constant 30, more at a constant 40 and even more at a constant 50? If drag isn't the cause what is? |
#10
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. I think that frictional losses including the rolling resistance are pretty much linear with speed, but aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Hence economy driving broadly falls into these categories To reduce frictional losses - otherwise approximately constant per mile - lighten the car and pump the tyres up. And fit eco-tyres. You can probably get 3-4% this way - keep speeds below 60 mph at which point aero losses start to mount sharply. This is significant. On cars with consumption meters 50-70 represents about 10% increase in fuel consumption, over that it goes up massively. - strip all external junk like roof racks and the like. There is probably at 70mph a couple of percent to be had here. - try and drive at a gear and speed where the engine is most efficient. For a diesel that is at the lowest throttle setting IIRC where the fuel-air ration is leanest. That possibly means use revs and less welly to get acceleration and power, not slogging in a low gear at higher throttle settings. For a petrol it may well be the other way around I am not sure. This can net you about 5% from typical driving styles. - reduce acceleration and braking to a minimum by anticipating the road. Braking represents a net loss of energy that is never recoverable. This is as great a contributions as speed reduction. Especially in towns. There's been a lot about this on the radio in recent months, with people wanting to cut their fuel consumption because of the price of it (now that oil is back to $85 a barrel, why is petrol still £1.09 at the pumps?) and the consensus is that the greatest savings to be had are by using gentle acceleration. Fair enough. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have heard this, and have taken it to heart without any thought. When joining a motorway, or dual carriageway, your boot should be on the floor, especially where it is an uphill slip road. You need to get your vehicle up to at least the speed of traffic on the inside lane, so that you can make the judgement to slip in behind or in front of any vehicle near you in that lane, without causing any problem to them. More and more people now seem to gently meander up the slip, without a thought for anyone other than themselves, and then expect to be able to just join the main carriageway, whilst everyone else takes care of letting them. It has reached the point where I have almost been brought to a stop on the slip by these thoughtless people, so many times in recent months, that I groan whenever I swing off a roundabout, and see another motor chugging up or down the slip, in front of me. Careful smooth driving ? Fine. But think of the implications to others around you, when carrying out this 'eco-driving'. Arfa |
#11
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"dennis@home" gurgled happily, sounding
much like they were saying: Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. Trust me on this... I've got plenty of experience with low-powered, unaerodynamic vehicles. It starts to come into play at about 60. So why do large commercials use lots of fuel at a constant 30, more at a constant 40 and even more at a constant 50? If drag isn't the cause what is? I'm not a truck driver, so I don't know if that's the case or not. If it was, I'm sure the haulage firms would be restricting their driver's speeds - yet they aren't. |
#12
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Adrian wrote:
I'm not a truck driver, so I don't know if that's the case or not. If it was, I'm sure the haulage firms would be restricting their driver's speeds - yet they aren't. yes they are, I've seen several artics with stickers on the back saying "this vehicle is restricted to X mph" where X is lower than the 56 mph limit (and I don't mean the 40 mph limit on single carriageways). |
#13
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
In an earlier contribution to this discussion,
The Natural Philosopher wrote: aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Either - it depends on what parameter you're talking about! Aerodynamic *force* is proportional to the square of velocity. The *power* (force x speed) needed to overcome aerodynamic drag is proportional to the cube of velocity. -- Cheers, Roger ______ Email address maintained for newsgroup use only, and not regularly monitored.. Messages sent to it may not be read for several weeks. PLEASE REPLY TO NEWSGROUP! |
#14
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Arfa Daily wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. I think that frictional losses including the rolling resistance are pretty much linear with speed, but aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Hence economy driving broadly falls into these categories To reduce frictional losses - otherwise approximately constant per mile - lighten the car and pump the tyres up. And fit eco-tyres. You can probably get 3-4% this way - keep speeds below 60 mph at which point aero losses start to mount sharply. This is significant. On cars with consumption meters 50-70 represents about 10% increase in fuel consumption, over that it goes up massively. - strip all external junk like roof racks and the like. There is probably at 70mph a couple of percent to be had here. - try and drive at a gear and speed where the engine is most efficient. For a diesel that is at the lowest throttle setting IIRC where the fuel-air ration is leanest. That possibly means use revs and less welly to get acceleration and power, not slogging in a low gear at higher throttle settings. For a petrol it may well be the other way around I am not sure. This can net you about 5% from typical driving styles. - reduce acceleration and braking to a minimum by anticipating the road. Braking represents a net loss of energy that is never recoverable. This is as great a contributions as speed reduction. Especially in towns. There's been a lot about this on the radio in recent months, with people wanting to cut their fuel consumption because of the price of it (now that oil is back to $85 a barrel, why is petrol still £1.09 at the pumps?) and the consensus is that the greatest savings to be had are by using gentle acceleration. Fair enough. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have heard this, and have taken it to heart without any thought. When joining a motorway, or dual carriageway, your boot should be on the floor, especially where it is an uphill slip road. You need to get your vehicle up to at least the speed of traffic on the inside lane, so that you can make the judgement to slip in behind or in front of any vehicle near you in that lane, without causing any problem to them. I m not convinced that slow acceleration is as effective as its made out to be. the energy needed to get a car up to speed is the same. Its just whether the engine is operting more efficiently at high or low power outputs. Now very high power outputs ARE inefficient, that's without doubt. But whether 'tickover plus one' is more efficient than - say - half throttle - is a really moot point. We know, that at idle, producing no actual acceleration, the powertrain is necessarily 0% efficient. WE suspect that, at full power, its less efficient than part power. So the curve of efficiency is definitely sort of parabolic. Where IS the most efficient part? Intelligent guesswork suggests its not close to idle at all. There frictional loses in the engine will be nearly all the losses. My gut feel is that a petrol engine does best at about half RPM and half throttle. A diesel possibly at somewhat higher RPM and somewhat less throttle |
#15
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Andy Burns wrote:
Adrian wrote: I'm not a truck driver, so I don't know if that's the case or not. If it was, I'm sure the haulage firms would be restricting their driver's speeds - yet they aren't. yes they are, I've seen several artics with stickers on the back saying "this vehicle is restricted to X mph" where X is lower than the 56 mph limit (and I don't mean the 40 mph limit on single carriageways). 50mph on single carriageways.... |
#16
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
In article ],
Chris ] writes: I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. I've been playing with this, having recently got my first car which displays fuel consumption. It wasn't quite what I expected. Best fuel consumption is flat between 50MPH and 65MPH. Between 45MPH and 70MPH, efficiency doesn't drop off much. Below 45MPH, efficiency drops off significantly (even when you can comfortably stay in 5th gear, although I'm not sure it's making any difference if I stay in 4th instead at lower speeds). Urban driving (start/stop and never getting above 30MPH) is the worst of all. Before I actually measured it, I would have guessed highest efficiency would have been at lower speeds than it is. (The effect of start/stop driving is no surprise of course.) I suspect engine, gearbox, etc has probably been designed for good fuel consumption at higher speeds instead, and this is more than countering increased drag up to 65MPH. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup] |
#17
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying: I'm not a truck driver, so I don't know if that's the case or not. If it was, I'm sure the haulage firms would be restricting their driver's speeds - yet they aren't. yes they are, I've seen several artics with stickers on the back saying "this vehicle is restricted to X mph" where X is lower than the 56 mph limit (and I don't mean the 40 mph limit on single carriageways). Is that for efficiency reasons or for PR to try to cut back on the "dualling artics"? I suspect the latter - because it would be FAR more widespread, especially amongst smaller/pikier outfits - whilst the ones who seem to do that seem to be the more "polished". 50mph on single carriageways.... Nope... 40mph. 50mph is only for 7.5ton. |
#18
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Roger Mills wrote:
In an earlier contribution to this discussion, The Natural Philosopher wrote: aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Either - it depends on what parameter you're talking about! Aerodynamic *force* is proportional to the square of velocity. The *power* (force x speed) needed to overcome aerodynamic drag is proportional to the cube of velocity. Right, So on a per mile basis, the work done is the force times the distance? So in theory the *consumption* is affected as the square of the velocity? If you lump the two things together, you get that the frictional losses are constant..so there is a fixed amount of gallons per mile you need to burn just to keep moving irrsepective of speed, and the only way to reduce that is with skinnier tyres and smaller cars and engines, and pumping the tyres up harder..and a part which is related to the velocity squared, which starts at zero, and increase accordingly. So given a *uniformly efficient* powertrain, in cruise the slower you go the less fuel you burn. Although the effects of aerodynamic drag are not that great up to 50mph or so. The next point is where are engines most efficient? |
#19
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 3:35*pm, Adrian wrote:
Nige Danton gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. Trust me on this... I've got plenty of experience with low-powered, unaerodynamic vehicles. It starts to come into play at about 60. I'm a cyclist and aerodynamic friction plays a huge role in determining speed and above ~30kph the benefits of drafting behind another cyclist are considerable. There's an energy saving of ~20% for the first cyclist in a pace line and that rises to maximum of ~30% for the fourth cyclist. I really would be surprised in cars are so slippery that aerodynamic friction does not play a significant role at speeds slower than 60mph. What sort of vehicles are you referring to? -- Nige Danton |
#20
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 3:28*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
I think that frictional losses including the rolling resistance are pretty much linear with speed, but aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Aerodynamic drag cubes with speed. -- Nige Danton |
#21
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ], Chris ] writes: I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. I've been playing with this, having recently got my first car which displays fuel consumption. It wasn't quite what I expected. Best fuel consumption is flat between 50MPH and 65MPH. Between 45MPH and 70MPH, efficiency doesn't drop off much. Below 45MPH, efficiency drops off significantly (even when you can comfortably stay in 5th gear, although I'm not sure it's making any difference if I stay in 4th instead at lower speeds). Urban driving (start/stop and never getting above 30MPH) is the worst of all. Before I actually measured it, I would have guessed highest efficiency would have been at lower speeds than it is. (The effect of start/stop driving is no surprise of course.) I suspect engine, gearbox, etc has probably been designed for good fuel consumption at higher speeds instead, and this is more than countering increased drag up to 65MPH. I think its more to do with having to meet targets set at 56mph speeds.. You can in theory optimize design for any speed..and I suspect thats the one thats chosen. I.e. they have set the motor to be geared optimally for 56mph on a flat road.. I used to notice similar on the last car I had with a consumption meter. There was little to be gained sub 50mph. My camper seems to be relatively unaffected whether I drive at 50 or 60 either, but does show a marked worsening at 70mph. I am scratching my memory for where engines are efficient..I am fairly sure with a diesel its actually lightly loaded but at reasonably high RPM..the friction loses in a slow revving diesel are low anyway, so you can go for the weakest mixture and the most complete combustion at the highest temp. Thats at lowish throttle settings. For petrol cars, with injection, I am less sure where they are optimal. It is certainly wasteful to rev to the limit. But whether flat out at 1500 RPM or half pedal at 3000 is better or worse I couldn't say. You might even find that periods of acceleration and periods of coasting is in fact a better way to drive. |
#22
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Nige Danton gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying: I really would be surprised in cars are so slippery that aerodynamic friction does not play a significant role at speeds slower than 60mph. What sort of vehicles are you referring to? There's a clue in my email address... |
#23
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 9:53*am, "dennis@home"
wrote: "Adrian" wrote in message ... Nige Danton gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. Trust me on this... I've got plenty of experience with low-powered, unaerodynamic vehicles. It starts to come into play at about 60. So why do large commercials use lots of fuel at a constant 30, more at a constant 40 and even more at a constant 50? If drag isn't the cause what is? It's all to do with the trans-dimensional (in)stability of the Yorkie Bar. MBQ |
#25
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 9:16 am, Nige Danton wrote:
On Oct 8, 3:03 pm, Nige Danton wrote: On Oct 8, 2:58 pm, Adrian wrote: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. My response would have been better phrased as "drag cubes with velocity; are cars really so slippery that drag does not become significant until 60mph?" I *think* that the force exerted by drag goes as the /square/ of the speed. That means the energy (and hence fuel consumption) per unit distance will also go as the square. I suspect what you are thinking of is that the /power/ (energy per unit time) is force * distance / time which is force * speed, and hence the power used by drag goes as the cube of speed. |
#26
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 11:30 am, Adrian wrote:
The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I'm not a truck driver, so I don't know if that's the case or not. If it was, I'm sure the haulage firms would be restricting their driver's speeds - yet they aren't. yes they are, I've seen several artics with stickers on the back saying "this vehicle is restricted to X mph" where X is lower than the 56 mph limit (and I don't mean the 40 mph limit on single carriageways). Is that for efficiency reasons or for PR to try to cut back on the "dualling artics"? I suspect the latter - because it would be FAR more widespread, especially amongst smaller/pikier outfits - whilst the ones who seem to do that seem to be the more "polished". The optimum speed for heavy duty trucks depends on quite a number of things: - fuel consumption - using the (expensive) truck as much as possible - urgency of the cargo - reaching the destination before the driver has to take a break. Certainly some North American fleets limit their trucks to below the legal maximum to improve fuel economy. |
#27
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Oct 8, 9:16 am, Nige Danton wrote: On Oct 8, 3:03 pm, Nige Danton wrote: On Oct 8, 2:58 pm, Adrian wrote: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. My response would have been better phrased as "drag cubes with velocity; are cars really so slippery that drag does not become significant until 60mph?" I *think* that the force exerted by drag goes as the /square/ of the speed. That means the energy (and hence fuel consumption) per unit distance will also go as the square. I suspect what you are thinking of is that the /power/ (energy per unit time) is force * distance / time which is force * speed, and hence the power used by drag goes as the cube of speed. I think we all agree. I have to often estimate drag in power terms in my hobby*..and thats where the confusion came in. * model aircraft,where someone always wants one that goes faster..which ultimately becomes how much power you can cram in without the thing needing a catapult or a mile of runway to get off the ground. Getting beyond 200mph is pretty hard for a powered one (though jets are up there), though the current unpowered speed record is about 300mph I think. Don't ask how...google 'dynamic soaring' and take out a loan with Northern Rock if interested. |
#28
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Martin Bonner wrote:
On Oct 8, 11:30 am, Adrian wrote: The Natural Philosopher gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: I'm not a truck driver, so I don't know if that's the case or not. If it was, I'm sure the haulage firms would be restricting their driver's speeds - yet they aren't. yes they are, I've seen several artics with stickers on the back saying "this vehicle is restricted to X mph" where X is lower than the 56 mph limit (and I don't mean the 40 mph limit on single carriageways). Is that for efficiency reasons or for PR to try to cut back on the "dualling artics"? I suspect the latter - because it would be FAR more widespread, especially amongst smaller/pikier outfits - whilst the ones who seem to do that seem to be the more "polished". The optimum speed for heavy duty trucks depends on quite a number of things: - fuel consumption - using the (expensive) truck as much as possible - urgency of the cargo - reaching the destination before the driver has to take a break. Add stability and safety to that. Very heavy loads on an articulated truck are not things to stop in a hurry. Certainly some North American fleets limit their trucks to below the legal maximum to improve fuel economy. And thats generally why the convoy each other as well. Up to 25% less drag in a 'train' |
#29
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... AJH wrote: On 08 Oct 2008 10:25:39 GMT, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote: I suspect engine, gearbox, etc has probably been designed for good fuel consumption at higher speeds instead, and this is more than countering increased drag up to 65MPH. I'm sure you are right, the engine is probably the first thing optimised for this speed, below the optimum the thermodynamic efficiency tails off significantly with a petrol engine, less so with a diesel. A smaller engine in the same car should move this part of the graph toward higher mpg. I think this is one of the reasons the original hybrids appeared poor in open road conditions they had smaller engines and did best at about 45mph on the open road. With an average drag I think the rolling resistance equals the wind resistance at less than 20mph (12mph for a cyclist) and intuitively this point is the best combination of energy efficiency and timeliness. Highly debatable. Light skinny cars with skinny wheels and small engines probably peak there, but heavier cars with fatter tyres and bigger engines probably peak - albeit at far worse consumption figures - somewhere in the 50-60 mph mark. AJH This link might help in understanding the effects of wind drag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE It's an episode of MythBusters, where they tested whether driving behind a large truck saved fuel. Very interesting results.. Mat |
#30
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Mat C wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... AJH wrote: On 08 Oct 2008 10:25:39 GMT, (Andrew Gabriel) wrote: I suspect engine, gearbox, etc has probably been designed for good fuel consumption at higher speeds instead, and this is more than countering increased drag up to 65MPH. I'm sure you are right, the engine is probably the first thing optimised for this speed, below the optimum the thermodynamic efficiency tails off significantly with a petrol engine, less so with a diesel. A smaller engine in the same car should move this part of the graph toward higher mpg. I think this is one of the reasons the original hybrids appeared poor in open road conditions they had smaller engines and did best at about 45mph on the open road. With an average drag I think the rolling resistance equals the wind resistance at less than 20mph (12mph for a cyclist) and intuitively this point is the best combination of energy efficiency and timeliness. Highly debatable. Light skinny cars with skinny wheels and small engines probably peak there, but heavier cars with fatter tyres and bigger engines probably peak - albeit at far worse consumption figures - somewhere in the 50-60 mph mark. AJH This link might help in understanding the effects of wind drag http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE It's an episode of MythBusters, where they tested whether driving behind a large truck saved fuel. Very interesting results.. A bit better than I expected, actually. but something every racing driver knows,and anyone who has driven anything resembling a commercial vehicle, and something that has been proven time and again in analysis of train efficiencies. Mat |
#31
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"Chris" ] wrote in message ]... I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. The equations and sample data are on my website. http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm -- Dave Baker |
#32
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
AJH wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:20:16 +0100, "Mat C" wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE It's an episode of MythBusters, where they tested whether driving behind a large truck saved fuel. It makes a fuel efficiency case for allowing long distance trucks to couple up! AJH It's called a railway... |
#33
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
AJH wrote:
On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 14:20:16 +0100, "Mat C" wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lttgT1XZVvE It's an episode of MythBusters, where they tested whether driving behind a large truck saved fuel. It makes a fuel efficiency case for allowing long distance trucks to couple up! AJH Start with two, and by the end of the journey you have the two big ones and a little one as well? Isn't this (coupling up) effectively what happens with the lorry and dangler arrangements? -- Rod Hypothyroidism is a seriously debilitating condition with an insidious onset. Although common it frequently goes undiagnosed. www.thyromind.info www.thyroiduk.org www.altsupportthyroid.org |
#34
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
Dave Baker wrote:
"Chris" ] wrote in message ]... I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. The equations and sample data are on my website. http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/TOPSPEED.htm Excellent site Dave. And it shows that for 100mph about 70bhp/ton is fairly close. and no more than 35 needed for 70mph. However it does seem to be a bit conservative - many cars exceed 60mpg at 56mph, and also the fact of the matter is that so long as the big heavy cars aero losses are well below the frictional losses it doesn't matter a damn what speed it goes at. I.e. my old Jaguar would never ever turn in better than 27mpg no matter how slow it was driven. Typically it did 19-20mg. To get 27mpgh required it to be trundled at - yas - 56mph constantly. One stop would ruin it! It does show that there is plenty of room fr improvement though. Low friction small turbo charged engine, and lighter more aerodynamic cars and skinnier tyres could still have the speed. motorcycle has the speed but not the fuel consumption, after all. |
#35
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
The message
from The Natural Philosopher contains these words: We know, that at idle, producing no actual acceleration, the powertrain is necessarily 0% efficient. WE suspect that, at full power, its less efficient than part power. So the curve of efficiency is definitely sort of parabolic. Where IS the most efficient part? Intelligent guesswork suggests its not close to idle at all. There frictional loses in the engine will be nearly all the losses. It is more than 40 years since I did any thermodynamics and we didn't do much on IC engines anyway but through the mists of time ISTR that an IC engine is most efficient at max bmep (brake mean effective pressure IIRC) and max bmep equates very closely to max torque. One of the reasons I remember this at all is because it seems to conflict with the age old advice that the way to save fuel is to get into as high a gear as possible as early as possible. -- Roger Chapman |
#36
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"Adrian" wrote in message ... Nige Danton gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying: within any given class are likely to be fairly similar. As a rough rule of thumb, increasing drag starts to come seriously into play from about 60mph upwards. Drag cubes with velocity and so it may become important at speeds lower than 60 mph. Trust me on this... I've got plenty of experience with low-powered, unaerodynamic vehicles. It starts to come into play at about 60. Well it's present at any speed and where we determine it becomes significant is actually a function of how large the drag force is compared to the rolling resistance one which stays pretty much a constant at all speeds. For an average modern streamlined but heavy car like my Focus the drag force is fairly immaterial below 30 mph. At 45 mph the engine power being used to overcome drag is about the same as that being used to overcome rolling resistance. At 65 mph it's twice as much and at 80 mph three times as much. However pick a light but less streamlined car like an old Fiesta or Golf from the 80's and the picture changes. At 2000 lbs with driver rather than the 3000 of the Focus but 15% to 20% higher drag the relationship is very different. The power being used to overcome drag is the same as that being used to overcome RR by 35 mph. At 60 mph it's three times as much and at 80 mph five times as much. Light cars therefore benefit from going slower much more than heavy ones in terms of fuel consumption. This is exacerbated by the fact that the large engines of large heavy cars, as with all petrol engines, only work efficiently at reasonable throttle openings and at low speed on a whisper of throttle the cylinders are not filling well. A small light car with a small engine is doing much better in all respects here. You want a diesel for good efficiency at any power output. What this translates into is my Focus doesn't really get much different fuel consumption whether I do 60 mph or 80 mph. It seems to peak at about 38 mpg and I just can't improve on that. However an old Fiesta XR2i I used to run which gave 34 mpg on average once achieved 51.5 mpg when I stuck to 40 mph on A roads and 50 mph on motorways during the fuel shortage in 2000. If I gave the Focus the same treatment I doubt I'd beat 40 mpg by much. It's just too heavy. The formula for good fuel economy is very simple. Small, light, aerodynamic cars with small low friction diesel engines. The 100 mpg practical car is a very easy thing to design but we'll only see them when fuel prices bite even harder. I've designed one in basic terms which would take me from London to Aberdeen, which I do fairly regularly, for 1/3 the fuel cost of the Focus. At present a round trip costs me £150. That's a big chunk of a holiday cost when you can fly abroad with Sleasyjet for a tenner. At £50 it wouldn't be much of a burden. -- Dave Baker |
#37
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
The 'official' tests for fuel consumtion were for 56mph. They haven't been urban/56/75 since the mid 1990s! The current urban/ extra-urban figures are done across a variety of speeds and loads, including acceleration and deceleration. |
#38
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Arfa Daily wrote: "The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message ... Chris wrote: I would like to make a graph of car fuel consumption versus speed. My driving is not smooth enough to gather the raw data myself. Do you know of any reliable figures, or graphs? I'm interested in relative values, rather than those for any particular car. I think that frictional losses including the rolling resistance are pretty much linear with speed, but aerodynamic drag is the cube of velocity. Or it might be the square. Hence economy driving broadly falls into these categories To reduce frictional losses - otherwise approximately constant per mile - lighten the car and pump the tyres up. And fit eco-tyres. You can probably get 3-4% this way - keep speeds below 60 mph at which point aero losses start to mount sharply. This is significant. On cars with consumption meters 50-70 represents about 10% increase in fuel consumption, over that it goes up massively. - strip all external junk like roof racks and the like. There is probably at 70mph a couple of percent to be had here. - try and drive at a gear and speed where the engine is most efficient. For a diesel that is at the lowest throttle setting IIRC where the fuel-air ration is leanest. That possibly means use revs and less welly to get acceleration and power, not slogging in a low gear at higher throttle settings. For a petrol it may well be the other way around I am not sure. This can net you about 5% from typical driving styles. - reduce acceleration and braking to a minimum by anticipating the road. Braking represents a net loss of energy that is never recoverable. This is as great a contributions as speed reduction. Especially in towns. There's been a lot about this on the radio in recent months, with people wanting to cut their fuel consumption because of the price of it (now that oil is back to $85 a barrel, why is petrol still £1.09 at the pumps?) and the consensus is that the greatest savings to be had are by using gentle acceleration. Fair enough. Unfortunately, a lot of people seem to have heard this, and have taken it to heart without any thought. When joining a motorway, or dual carriageway, your boot should be on the floor, especially where it is an uphill slip road. You need to get your vehicle up to at least the speed of traffic on the inside lane, so that you can make the judgement to slip in behind or in front of any vehicle near you in that lane, without causing any problem to them. I m not convinced that slow acceleration is as effective as its made out to be. the energy needed to get a car up to speed is the same. Its just whether the engine is operting more efficiently at high or low power outputs. Now very high power outputs ARE inefficient, that's without doubt. But whether 'tickover plus one' is more efficient than - say - half throttle - is a really moot point. We know, that at idle, producing no actual acceleration, the powertrain is necessarily 0% efficient. WE suspect that, at full power, its less efficient than part power. So the curve of efficiency is definitely sort of parabolic. Where IS the most efficient part? Intelligent guesswork suggests its not close to idle at all. There frictional loses in the engine will be nearly all the losses. You get better MPG in higher gears which gives less acceleration. You also get better mpg by using just enough gas to give the acceleration needed, not the maximum acceleration you can get. You need to be able to drive to know what acceleration is needed rather than just putting your foot down and this is where most come unstuck. I seldom need more than a quarter throttle to match motorway speeds on any of the slip roads I use. I have had to use the hard shoulder when some prat has decided to stop because he can't get into a gap. Using the hard shoulder is the correct way of doing it of course. |
#39
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
"Roger" wrote in message k... The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words: We know, that at idle, producing no actual acceleration, the powertrain is necessarily 0% efficient. WE suspect that, at full power, its less efficient than part power. So the curve of efficiency is definitely sort of parabolic. Where IS the most efficient part? Intelligent guesswork suggests its not close to idle at all. There frictional loses in the engine will be nearly all the losses. It is more than 40 years since I did any thermodynamics and we didn't do much on IC engines anyway but through the mists of time ISTR that an IC engine is most efficient at max bmep (brake mean effective pressure IIRC) and max bmep equates very closely to max torque. One of the reasons I remember this at all is because it seems to conflict with the age old advice that the way to save fuel is to get into as high a gear as possible as early as possible. That depends on the torque curves and old long stroke engines had their torque low down so it was true. My wife's corsa has the torque low down since I had the engine map changed. Its far better to have low end torque than a few extra bhp. Its pretty stupid to have high bhp at the expense of torque with 70 mph speed limits. -- Roger Chapman |
#40
Posted to uk.d-i-y
|
|||
|
|||
Graph of car fuel consumption versus speed
On Oct 8, 3:22*pm, Roger wrote:
The message from The Natural Philosopher contains these words: We know, that at idle, producing no actual acceleration, the powertrain is necessarily 0% efficient. WE suspect that, at full power, its less efficient than part power. So the curve of efficiency is definitely sort of parabolic. Where IS the most efficient part? Intelligent guesswork suggests its not close to idle at all. There frictional loses in the engine will be nearly all the losses. It is more than 40 years since I did any thermodynamics and we didn't do much on IC engines anyway but through the mists of time ISTR that an IC engine is most efficient at max bmep (brake mean effective pressure IIRC) and max bmep equates very closely to max torque. That's what my father always said (max torque). MBQ |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
update to poor fuel consumption on Camper FYI | UK diy | |||
Reducing Fuel use and Increasing your car speed with FFI MPG-CAPS | Metalworking | |||
Kero versus propane versus natural gas for heat | Home Repair | |||
Dadonator versus Forrest versus Freud -- comparisons | Woodworking | |||
Heat pump versus oil versus propane in southern NH | Home Ownership |