Fuel Economy Techniques

Stumbled across a discussion of high mileage techniques here:-

http://www.insightcentral.net/KB/faq-efficiency.html#acceleration

Although its on a website dedicated to the Mk1 Honda Insight (I’d quite like one of those, BTW. Certainly much more than any of the current hybrid offerings) most of them seem to be applicable to any car. Two in particular caught my eye:-

Full throttle acceleration: The idea seems to be that this minimises pumping losses, so its foot-to-the-floor and change up as fast as you can.

I get the second bit, but I’d always thought that a light accelerator foot was the path to fuel economy, so that’s what I’ve practiced.

Have I been doing it wrong all these years??

Surfing

I’ve slipstreamed behind trucks in the past, but stopped doing it seriously because of the direct danger (trucks brake pretty fast) and the indirect danger involved in pissing off lorry drivers.

I’ve found it difficult to avoid entirely though, because at economy speeds on UK motorways, you are inevitably sharing the inside lane with the lorries. If you keep a safe distance from the one in front, the one behind will ALWAYS overtake into it, and then keep station with the truck you were following at exactly the same speed. Drop back and repeat, or close up.

Surfing involves riding the “bow wave” of a truck in the adjacent lane. Of course I’ve felt the “shove” of an overtaking truck, but never tried to exploit it.

Interesting, but perhaps Taiwan isn’t the best place to start.

shttp://www.insightcentral.net/KB/faq-efficiency.html#surfing

I’d read that studies indicated that using the throttle at around 80% open on average, when accelerating up to cruising speed was the most efficient method.
This is assuming that it is of course possible to maintain cruising speed once reached, and not then having to back off again or use the brake, in which case a slower acceleration may be more suitable to the situation.
I think that many of the basic fuel saving methods aren’t employed by most people though, even when they know how to employ them. We’re a funny lot in this sense. We like to moan about fuel prices, and then do very little in making the most of the fuel we have.

ride a bicycle - 100% fuel saving :discodance:

I covered this once before. I recommend reading about fuel economy associated with additional calorie consumption from food for bicycling.

jayhanson.us/page55.htm

I worked out for a talk that I gave once on this that there are a wide host of cars which work out to be more fuel efficient than two people bicycling, depending on where your typical food source is derived, but based upon American studies of average behavior.

I covered this once before. I recommend reading about fuel economy associated with additional calorie consumption from food for bicycling.

jayhanson.us/page55.htm

I worked out for a talk that I gave once on this that there are a wide host of cars which work out to be more fuel efficient than two people bicycling, depending on where your typical food source is derived, but based upon American studies of average behavior.[/quote]

Really? Are you doing a Tour de France stage each day to work? If so, this logic might actually stand, but the average commute is not too calorie intensive, especially since most people are in no rush to get to the office sweaty and exhausted. Besides, physical exercise is necessary, so why not fit it in by biking. And who’s to say drivers aren’t hitting the gym or burning calories elsewhere, as they should be. In my experience, I never ate noticeably more when I regularly commuted by bike 5-10 km. The main reasons for not commuting here in Taipei are the swarms of scooters, their attendant clouds of exhaust, rain, and sweat-box climate. No funny showing up to the office stinky and drenched.

I covered this once before. I recommend reading about fuel economy associated with additional calorie consumption from food for bicycling.

jayhanson.us/page55.htm

I worked out for a talk that I gave once on this that there are a wide host of cars which work out to be more fuel efficient than two people bicycling, depending on where your typical food source is derived, but based upon American studies of average behavior.[/quote]

Have you seen how many extra calories most people are carrying around? I think your analysis is pretty silly unless people are suggesting that you replace 20+ km trips with cycling. At that point it starts becoming impractical from a time standpoint.

Overall I dislike several of the suggestions on the website. They’re either dangerous or downright obnoxious to the normal flow of traffic. Easy on the gas and brake (in the city), drive the speed limit and keep the vehicle maintained (esp tire pressure).

I don’t doubt that there are personal health benefits to cycling. This isn’t my point. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than required. It’s fair to say that an obese person is using more fuel than need be through their own eating habits, based on scientific data.
It’s also fair to say what I already stated, which is that additional calories required to cycle can be more costly than two people sharing an economical car. This isn’t silly. These are figures based on scientific enquiry. If science is silly however, then there’s always religion. :wink:

Miles per gallon cycling is pretty consistant, regardless of the distance. You still require collieries burned, even to take a single step out of bed in the morning. Distance is irrelevant to the point I’m making, only that mile per mile, and in the U.S. at least, where the statistics are most relavent, a car with two people in it can be more economical on fuel than two cyclists cycling the same route. There may be slight differences in the types of sources of calories burned, i.e beef versus pasta, but the mpg rule stays pretty much the same over the average.
Of course there are ways to reduce fuel spent whilst cycling. For example if one were to cut out the transportation and industrial farming system from the equation. One could, for example grow their own calories in their back yard, and then use their own excrement to fertilize the same area. One could drink only water which falls on their patch.
Normally people don’t like to take this type of advice though, although people like the thought of cycling [as it is marketed to them], as at least it “sounds” economically viable. In some cases it may well be. In many cases however, it may be more economical to share an economical car, driven economically.

Almost everyone eats more than they need to, so cycling does not need any extra food to be taken on.

I am a regular cycle commuter (25 km each way), and I still eat far less than most of my colleagues and even less than my 40 kg wife.

I do still really enjoy driving, but I don’t justify it by spurious arguments that cycling uses more energy.

I don’t doubt that there are personal health benefits to cycling. This isn’t my point. Obesity is caused by consuming more calories than required. It’s fair to say that an obese person is using more fuel than need be through their own eating habits, based on scientific data.
It’s also fair to say what I already stated, which is that additional calories required to cycle can be more costly than two people sharing an economical car. This isn’t silly. These are figures based on scientific enquiry. If science is silly however, then there’s always religion. :wink:
[/quote]

I’m not talking about personal health benefits (which there are). I’m talking that it is a fact that there are plenty of extra calories ready to used that are not being used. Yours is just a silly rant because your sick of people spouting off about the clean energy of riding a bicycle. The bigger argument against is that it’s usually extremely impractical for a variety of reasons. All of the extra food needed is silly.

[quote]Miles per gallon cycling is pretty consistant, regardless of the distance. You still require collieries burned, even to take a single step out of bed in the morning. Distance is irrelevant to the point I’m making, only that mile per mile, and in the U.S. at least, where the statistics are most relavent, a car with two people in it can be more economical on fuel than two cyclists cycling the same route. There may be slight differences in the types of sources of calories burned, i.e beef versus pasta, but the mpg rule stays pretty much the same over the average.
Of course there are ways to reduce fuel spent whilst cycling. For example if one were to cut out the transportation and industrial farming system from the equation. One could, for example grow their own calories in their back yard, and then use their own excrement to fertilize the same area. One could drink only water which falls on their patch.
Normally people don’t like to take this type of advice though, although people like the thought of cycling [as it is marketed to them], as at least it “sounds” economically viable. In some cases it may well be. In many cases however, it may be more economical to share an economical car, driven economically.[/quote]

If you are simply comparing the cost of food consumed by a cyclist to make up for calories burned cycling vs. the cost of petrol to power a car, it may be true that under extreme circumstances cycling can be more expensive than driving, say if the cyclist gets all of his/her calories from expensive red meat. But such a simple calculation is somewhat specious since it does not factor in the much higher cost of buying, insuring and maintaining a car (even a shit one), or the calories you are burning while you sit in traffic, i.e. the basal metabolic rate (not trivial). And then there’s the fact that most North Americans eat a massive surplus of calories, many of which just go to waste (literally), others of which are converted to fat. So, they would not really need to increase food consumption for a moderate commute to work, and hence their real costs would not increase much either.

If this is a fact, then I’m sure there must be lots of evidence to suggest that the world has more food than it needs in order for everyone to use a bicycle for no extra demand on petroleum.

Actually I would say that a rant is a statement with no supporting evidence. I’ve provided evidence for your viewing pleasure. You can also help yourself to a number of sources which will tell you how much calorific demand cycling has. You can put the numbers together, as I did, as well as read some about global food demand and supply, the agro business, and so on and then form your own conclusions.

This is the argument I was putting forward in the first place, but I didn’t put the focus on food specifically, but the fuel cost of producing the food for additional consumption. The food of course is another looming disaster story, and could be the larger elephant in the room than a diminishing fuel supply.

The premise that some people are arguing here is that everyone is fat anyway, and so cycling can’t cost any more fuel.
If this is the argument we are going with here, then what happens when the fat is burned off? Or does it just miraculously stay where it is and provide some sort of limitless energy supply? Does it not need to be restored or replenished?

What about a different premise? How I about I suggest that people don’t consume “too much” food, and instead share a car to work/holiday/shopping trip? Would this not be even more efficient?

Note: When I mentioned red meat, in my earlier post, I wasn’t suggesting that only on a red meat diet, driving a car would be more efficient than two bikes. In fact red meat only makes cycling even less efficient, but it doesn’t change the original statement.

I cycle to work and back every non-rainy day and eat the same as those days when I don’t cycle.

If this is a problem for the OP then don’t cycle, use public transport.

[quote=“Tiger Mountaineer”][quote]Miles per gallon cycling is pretty consistant, regardless of the distance. [color=#FF0000]You still require collieries burned, even to take a single step out of bed in the morning. Distance is irrelevant to the point I’m making, only that mile per mile, and in the U.S. at least, where the statistics are most relavent, a car with two people in it can be more economical on fuel than two cyclists cycling the same route. There may be slight differences in the types of sources of calories burned, i.e beef versus pasta, but the mpg rule stays pretty much the same over the average.[/color]
Of course there are ways to reduce fuel spent whilst cycling. For example if one were to cut out the transportation and industrial farming system from the equation. One could, for example grow their own calories in their back yard, and then use their own excrement to fertilize the same area. One could drink only water which falls on their patch.
Normally people don’t like to take this type of advice though, although people like the thought of cycling [as it is marketed to them], as at least it “sounds” economically viable. In some cases it may well be. In many cases however, it may be more economical to share an economical car, driven economically.[/quote]

If you are simply comparing the cost of food consumed by a cyclist to make up for calories burned cycling vs. the cost of petrol to power a car, it may be true that under extreme circumstances cycling can be more expensive than driving, say if the cyclist gets all of his/her calories from expensive red meat. But such a simple calculation is somewhat specious since it does not factor in the much higher cost of buying, insuring and maintaining a car (even a shit one), or the calories you are burning while you sit in traffic, i.e. the basal metabolic rate (not trivial). And then there’s the fact that most North Americans eat a massive surplus of calories, many of which just go to waste (literally), others of which are converted to fat. So, they would not really need to increase food consumption for a moderate commute to work, and hence their real costs would not increase much either.[/quote]

That’s what people think up while sitting behind the steering wheel. But keep thinking and with a little exercise, it might even improve. Best you’d do some cycling.

If you eat one third of a bar of chocolate you’ll have to cycle at least 3 hours in order to get rid of the additional calories. How does this anyhow compare to the fuel consumption of a car?

Please read the earlier posts.

[quote=“trubadour”]I cycle to work and back every non-rainy day and eat the same as those days when I don’t cycle.

If this is a problem for the OP then don’t cycle, use public transport.[/quote]

I’m the OP. I cycle, but sometimes I drive an exceptionally energy-efficient car. There is essentially NO public transport for most journeys here in and around Tainan, so you can forget that one.

If there was a comprehensive public transport system, as in Taipei, I might still not use it, due to inconvenience, and specifically, due to my non-functional knees. I hired a scooter in Taipei last weekend for exactly that reason, and was extremely glad that I did.

Re the alleged superior energy efficiency of cars versus bicycles, we’ve been there before, and it is comprehensively discussed here, including the “cycling is free energy” cop-out counter argument.

http://forumosa.com/taiwan/viewtopic.php?f=75&t=97800&hilit=Routemaster&start=80

The car-superiority thing was essentially an unsupported statement then, and that doesn’t appear to have changed. For example, there is apparently (based on a text search) absolutely no mention of bicycling in the reference Mr S provides above.

I did some back-of-the envelope calculations in that original thread which did not support car superiority, though it was closer than I expected. They were crude and may have been flawed, but they were not, IIRC, refuted.

Other people found published studies which supported the energetic superiority of the bicycle.

OTOH I don’t think mildly abusive and equally unsupported counter-assertions are particularly productive either, but if you’re going to make them, it’d be better to take them back to the original thread.

Perhaps if I changed the title to something like “Hypermiling Techniques” y’all could get on your Bickertons and bike off?

Please read the earlier posts.[/quote]

I read them, still, too much pseudo scientific garbage. We don’t need disgustingly fat people driving around in ridiculous oversized cars in order to save energy.
Cycling will give them a healthier mind and make them lose weight. It will also keep them from eating too heavy foods because it’ll make cycling more difficult.
They will soon realize that after eating certain foods their cycling to work is much easier/more difficult. Therefore, they’ll start making healthier choices more often.

I eat more food sitting around at home. When cycling my food intake drops. The extra calories needed for the cycling come in most cases from the excessive food that was consumed anyway.
You’re hypothesis can only apply to regions in this world where people are starving to death.
They’ll have to stop moving in order to preserve energy. We fatties in the first world don’t.

[quote=“Hamletintaiwan”]
[/quote]

Geez, you really know how to turn a bloke on.

Yes, off topic. Anyways, to get back to your original post, the full-throttle acceleration thing (for a normal gasoline engine car) is new to me and surprising since it goes against every fuel-saving website I’ve ever read. I imagine it could be more efficient though as long as you’re not going from red light to red light, and the hypermilers in this thread seem to agree. They seem to stress that its the braking that kills your mileage, not the accelerating.

Yes, off topic. Anyways, to get back to your original post, the full-throttle acceleration thing (for a normal gasoline engine car) is new to me and surprising since it goes against every fuel-saving website I’ve ever read. I imagine it could be more efficient though as long as you’re not going from red light to red light, and the hypermilers in this thread seem to agree. They seem to stress that its the braking that kills your mileage, not the accelerating.[/quote]

Thanks. That’s essentially what Mr S. says above, too.

I’ll try it if and when I get the car back on the road. There are so many variables, however, that I doubt I’ll be able to detect any effect on long-term average fuel economy.

I’d probably need a car equipped with a meter showing continuous real-time instantaneous fuel consumption.

Anyone got one? Fancy giving it a try?

If you use a smart phone then you can purchase a blue tooth OBD2 connector such as OBDkey and plug that into many models of car. An app called Torque can be installed onto many phones and provides a live fuel economy update to your mobile.
I have tried this with some success but it doesnt work with all Taiwan built models.