No, not what you think( riding a bike closely behind a car) as that is a very dangerous activity and should not be done.
I note with interest these days that the two fastest groups of cars on the highways are a)High performance sports cars and sedans and b) Huge SUV’s and pick-up trucks( often with double axles). The former group I understand, it is this latter group that has me confused. These people must have a bottom-less pit of money for gas, because I have to imagine that a half-ton with a double axle roaring along at 140 km/h has all the fuel efficiency of a sherman tank and handles about the same.
I was wondering the other day that if I jumped in behind one of these fast moving trucks if there could be further fuel savings on with my car( Toyota, Corolla) if a sat even a safe distance back from speeding truck. I fugure if these people have wads of cash to spend on gas, I am happy to hitch a ride when I can.
I actually find just the opposite. The people driving the expensive cars are driving normally while the people in the cheap cars are driving like maniacs.
Assuming you take into account the safety concerns (i.e. please keep a reasonable distance back!), there certainly is a benefit to drafting on the highway. We drive a little Acura, and often times on the 401, I’ve been behind some tractor trailers hauling at ~130km/h. I barely need to feather the gas to keep up (the analog to turning your legs over with no pressure on the pedals…). In fact, one time, we were almost on fumes (warning light was on) from just west of London to the Woodstock rest stop.
I think what is more likely than the bottomless pit is that their minds are incessantly rambling and that makes them drive pretty scatterbrained. You know what I mean; unnecessary lane changes, no rhythm to their speed, heavy use of the accelerator and the brakes, takes it personal when somebody gets in front of them, ample usage of the horn, etc. I really wish that a law would be enacted that would replace the speed limit with a mass*mph limit. For instance, let’s say that your Corolla weighs in at 2500lbs. and we don’t want any masses surpassing 200,000lbmph, then you are allowed to travel up to 80mph on the freeway’s. Hummers, weighing in at 6000lbs, would be limited to the same 200,000lbmph, and therefore only be allowed to travel at a maximum rate of 33mph. Motorcycles and tractor-trailers would obviously need their own classifications, but it would make things safer on the roads and help increase our efficiency.
I actually find just the opposite. The people driving the expensive cars are driving normally while the people in the cheap cars are driving like maniacs.
I think you might just notice one category of drivers more than others, because maniacal driving spans the entire spectrum. However, if somebody is going to be driving like a maniac I’d rather it be the guy in the BMW M3 than the guy with a 83 Honda Civic.
Great idea. However, that would be “taxing” people or charging them in terms of the real environmental cost that they are causing/creating - something that our western economy does not do, but that many environmentalists say that we SHOULD be doing. I agree, with them.
that would be “taxing” people or charging them in terms of the real environmental cost that they are causing/creating
More gas=higher taxes paid on the gas. So they do pay higher taxes for use of the environment. More money =more privilege. It pretty much always has. Even in Communist and socialist countries. Its why most people who work harder and start businesses do so. +It seems like the way most people are, there needs to be some advantage to getting ahead, besides giving it to the government so they can give it to people who don’t want to work as hard. This should not be interpreted to mean that there shouldn’t be programs for people who can’t or are “disadvantaged”, without meaning to get into a debate about what “disadvantaged” means. HOWEVER, I am a live-and-let-liver, so I don’t mean to take issue with any other ST’er, or claim any position is more right than another–I just get to vote with people who share my views, and hope we don’t get the kind of laws some would favor. Not meaning to be adversarial. That’s why I stay out of the Lavender Room.
…or claim any position is more right than another…
…as opposed to someone like me, who doesn’t mind being more right than the next guy; hey I can’t help it, i’m just better than most people. I think the more gas = higher taxes paid is about right. However, it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was applied like the wind’s resistance to a cyclist, increasing exponentially as we go through more of it.
By the way I’d be royally screwed if we were given government issued gas cards that kept track of how much gas we used and charged us accordingly. Say $1 a gallon for the first 100 gallons in a year, $1.20 a gallon for the next 100 gallons, $1.44 a gallon for the next 100, $1.72…, $2.07…, $2.48…, $2.98…, $3.58…, $4.29…, $5.15…, $ 6.19…, etc. You see, my daily route takes me just over 180 miles, and my Subaru gets 31mpg. So, at 6gallons a day I’d be in the $6.19 bracket midway through the year, and by the last week of December I’d be paying roughly $38.31 a gallon. Looks like I’d have to readjust the factor from increasing by 1.2x to something like 1.1x. I hear gas per one gallon costs in Cuba are equivalent to 1/3-1/4 of what the “average” Cuban brings home per month.
I am one of those people driving the big old gas hogs. Right now I get 15 miles per gallon and it costs about 52 bucks to filler’ up. If you are ever in Maine and see a grey Chevy Avalanche with a P3 on the roof, feel free to catch a ride in my wake.
I was wondering the other day that if I jumped in behind one of these fast moving trucks if there could be further fuel savings on with my car( Toyota, Corolla) if a sat even a safe distance back from speeding truck. I fugure if these people have wads of cash to spend on gas, I am happy to hitch a ride when I can.
In order to see any noticable benefit you’d have to be that close that it would no longer be ‘a safe distance back’. If you stayed ‘a safe distance back’ you’d be back in the turbulant (dirty) air and your fuel economy would actually be worse.
<< if there could be further fuel savings on with my car >>
yes, you can save a huge amount, but it is a tough strategy to execute unless you are driving quite a distance.
when i was in college, i would drive an old k5 from dallas to san diego to get home for summer and holiday breaks. no draft = 11 mpg. if i tucked in behind a semi with an enclosed trailer, my best average was 16 mpg. of course at that age, i was more aggressive about ‘tucking in’, but it saved me a lot of college money.
a corolla probably already has a much more aero profile than a '74 blazer, but you could improve. i don’t know if it would be worth the effort and risk though.
to give you a sense of how valuable college money was, i used to throw the truck in neutral to coast down hills so that the gear box wouldn’t hold it back, and that was all free miles.
…as opposed to someone like me, who doesn’t mind being more right than the next guy; hey I can’t help it, i’m just better than most people. I think the more gas = higher taxes paid is about right. However, it would be interesting to see what would happen if it was applied like the wind’s resistance to a cyclist, increasing exponentially as we go through more of it.
I think you speak with the voice of reason on this topic. However I think we could accomplish much the same thing through a much simpler, albeit unlikely mechanism. This would be undertaken on two fronts:
Revise the parts of the tax code (or the whole thing for that matter) that encourage people to buy truckzillas and SUV’s.
-I think this is unlikely as the economic interest of Detroit will far outweigh the voice of reason.
Produce an energy policy that will do more than encourage a token effort towards developing alternative fuels and stop subsidizing dinosaur fuel; O’ ye market fundamentalists, let the market determine the value of fuel in the U.S. and watch the consumption behavior change dramatically. Bike lanes will multiply, roads will be less congested and less dangerous and god forbid mass transit might become a viable option for non-DUI offenders in middle America.
-This will have the added benefit of sending fewer of our dollars overseas to finance mid-east terrorist factories.
Should I just go ahead and cross-post this in the lavender room?
I am one of those people driving the big old gas hogs. Right now I get 15 miles per gallon and it costs about 52 bucks to filler’ up. If you are ever in Maine and see a grey Chevy Avalanche with a P3 on the roof, feel free to catch a ride in my wake.
Why would you keep the P3 on the roof???
I know a popular STer who absolutely hates people doing that. You’re lucky he’s vacationing…
180 miles daily? Unless you are somehow forced to that for sales or something, then you should be ashamed. Thanks for driving up fuel costs, clogging the highways, and polluting. You’re forgiven if it’s not elective.
Back in the late '80s, I twice drafted long trucks at least 2/3 of the way across the US to save fuel in my '83 Civic. I got over 40mpg vs. a normal 30 or so. And being 10-20 ft back at 70mph has a way of keeping you awake and alert, too.
I am one of those people driving the big old gas hogs. Right now I get 15 miles per gallon and it costs about 52 bucks to filler’ up. If you are ever in Maine and see a grey Chevy Avalanche with a P3 on the roof, feel free to catch a ride in my wake.
Sigh.
Try living in England. Petrol is 89p per litre. That’s $1.89 per litre, or (I think) $6.36 a gallon.
My car has a 90 litre tank. Thats $151 to “filler’ up”.
I need to go and sit down in a quiet corner, and sob for a while…
