115 replies to this topic

[Martinracing98]

Here's what more research would have shown you, instead of guessing. Would prefer not to become the fact police here, but I will counter false assumptions.

 

Road fatalities per 100,000 people (10.9 US vs 2.9 UK) ~4x worse

Road fatalities per 100,000 vehicles (12.9 US vs 5.1 UK) ~2x worse

Road fatalities per 1 billion vehicle kilometers (7.3 US vs 3.8 Ireland) ~2x worse.      (UK did not publish their data so I used Ireland as reference instead)

 

edit: I work in driver education programs for a racing school, and we do contract work that requires us to test and evaluate adult drivers for accident avoidance maneuvers. It is funny to watch them destroy the exercise cones during a simple braking exercise, but later, it scares the **** out of you when you realize how unprepared most Americans are for the road. Including a simple exercise of hitting the brakes hard enough to engage ABS. This doesn't come as a surprise when our driver evaluations require reversing along a curb and thats pretty much it. Not to mention getting 7 questions wrong out of 40 on your drivers test still results in a passing grade (California). I don't think we need to go as crazy as Finland and require 360 degree skid control on a wet skidpad, but a simple one day exercise at an airport parking lot would go a long way to helping people understand the limits of their car.

 

 

 

The 42-43MPG statistic for the United Kingdom was for gasoline vehicles only. Diesel did not account for their 70+% efficiency advantage, but here's that information.

 

Diesel vehicles in the UK average 51MPG (US units).

Wikipedia had the same numbers you show for UK. But my comment was in response to your initial comment about Europe. The site shows 9.3 per 100k capita for Europe(15% better), but 19 per 100k cars(47% worse). I did not look further for a second source. If we shrink the sample size I am sure we can find an area in the U.S that measures favorably with UK. Maybe some place like New York where there are lower speeds, fewer miles, etc. Did you know highway deaths dropped when speed limit was dropped to 55. It also dropped when max speed of 55 was done away with. That is because it has regurarly dropped since early 70s. I guess the point is with the modern access to data it usually possible to find data to tell the story you want to tell. It is also easy to see data and draw incorrect conclusions. 

[ECOBRAP]

Or, because we are land rich as well as prosperous I can get around daily in something fairly efficient and clean with enough utility for my daily activities, and buy something better suited to towing for the serious work. Seems to me that works better both ecologically and economically.

 

My Ecodiesel is only used for towing. Some occasional trips here and there when I am with a group of people and need to transport all our gear.

 

My daily driver is a 2003 Prius I bought for $2000 with 200k miles on it. Gets 43MPG, drives like it is brand new, has a killer sound system, touch screen, front and side airbags, and women find it super attractive.

 

One of those was a lie 

 

I'll drive the cheapo Prius till the wheels fall off, or the hybrid battery dies. Then I'll get a 1.2L Mitsubishi Mirage and still get 43MPG. I have seen them for sale brand new less than $10k, with a 10yr/100k warranty!

[Steve Scheifler]

A Prius, ‘nuf said.

Traffic fatalities is simply not comparable, or at least not simply compared. I didn’t even get to that but Martin has been covering it. Sure, they are better drivers on average but I don’t believe that explains most of it. Our typical driving environments are apples and oranges, so of course fatality stats are different.

[callumhay]

For anyone who is interested, a little perspective from someone who grew up in the U.K

 

Owning a car as long as I can remember always was very expensive. I think a large part of that is taxation (read that as Vaue Added Tax or VAT which I think is 20% now), cost of gas (petrol) ..which is taxed also (go figure) and the fact that everything is just plain expensive in the UK (read that to mean more tax....and even tax on tax). As a result most familes had one car and a second car would often be (if you were lucky enough) a company car, as a perk from work. To save money (since for a long time people would not finance cars) they would have to be small and economical.   Factor in also that the UK has approx. 60 million people in a country that is about 600 miles from top to bottom, roughly the size of FL and a little bit of GA....so the population density there is quite high. You will find small towns and villages dotted all over and driving 60 miles there would not be considered an easy thing. In fact any trip over 25 miles one way (for us growing up) was always considered a long way.  Many of the roads in the villages and towns were built for horses and have not been widened since!. It its common in some towns to see the front door of a house empty right on to a street or tiny sidewalk. As a result space is at a premium especially for parking (commonly done in the street). Small cars in the UK just make life easier in terms of cost of operation, driving and getting around. However, over the last few years I have seen a trend to BIGGER cars in the UK with it becoming more common to see SUV or bigger Land rover-type vehicles. 

 

In terms of safety I'm not entirely sure you would be safer in the UK compared to the US. In the UK, for sure you have to be able to drive because most cars are stick shift and the roads are windy and close quarters...it is not uncommon to need to be able to position the car a few inches from the edge of the road for oncoming traffic to pass , with maybe a foot or so between you and the other car in the middle of the road. Also they have speed cameras everywhere and the real PIA is the constant speed cameras that can calculate your travel speed over a stretch of road...so there is no point in speeding when you know you are out of sight of a known speed trap. If that were not bad enough they have plainclothes police in unmarked vans taking speeds by the side of the road. Consequently, people drive the speed limits (mostly) over there. Your biggest risk driving, is a head on collision because many roads are 2 lane, windy  and have limited passing areas. It's not uncommon for trains of traffic to develop and then for some chancer to pop out into oncoming traffic. There are roads that are notorious for deaths and when I am visiting family it is common to read about fatal crashes (and this is in a small rural area). 

 

I think the reason why things are the way they are in Europe is a combination of economics, culture and infrastructure. The fact that it just happens to be a good idea for the environment, in my opinion, is a benefit rather than the original cause. In addition once the ball was rolling with that, it became easier (and popular) for politicians to tout the benefits of improving fuel economy. (I'm not saying its bad by any means to reduce CO2 emissions)

 

The US clearly is a country that needs roads due to the vastness in size. I can tell you that I love the way we build roads in the US. Maybe we are not great at maintaining the roads but we know how to build new ones, that are straight, have 4 lanes and easy to drive. Plus since a 200-300 mile trip is a walk in the park here, you need a 5000 pound vehicle for comfort instead of being rattled around in some Renault as well as to compete with the other behemoths on the road. Physics don't lie and I'd rather take my chances putting my Toyota Tundra against another beast if I get rear ended or side swiped compared to turning in to a ping pong ball just because I wanted to "do my part" . That won't pay my hospital bills unfortunately. So in the US we do things out of culture, infrastructure and economics, it's just that the outcome is different because even though the recipe is the same, there are different amounts of the ingredients. 

 

The discussion here on saving CO2 emissions via racing is really good and I am glad you are doing it. I think no matter what, for everyone, thinking about how each of us could help is not a bad thing. Just driving the speed limit and being easy on the gas can make a big difference. Whatever anyone does as long as there is conservation in mind, it can't hurt to try.   We should count our lucky stars that we are living in a period where access to oil and using it is easy because I think we can all agree that it won't be like that for ever. Maybe some of us will still be around in the future to gather round the fire (electric) and regale the grand kids of the "good old days" of the gasoline engine and how wonderful it was....Yeah right like any younger generation is going to want to listen to what the old folks have to say. Wishful thinking. 

 

Cal

[Ron Alan]

Yeah right like any younger generation is going to want to listen to what the old folks have to say...and Visa versa! Wishful thinking. 

 

Cal

Fixed it for you Cal! Best sentence in this whole thread!

 

Keep up the project Matt...and be prepared to learn from some of the old guys who really are as smart as you   

And to all the old guys...give me Matt's passion and occasional "preaching" over many of the soon to be alcoholic twenty somethings I run across all the time...thank god he knows the difference between a catalytic converter and the "quick" minute on the microwave!

 

And one last note...my wife is convinced the US government is geoengineering with all the "chemtrails" in the sky's...because people write the truth on the internet!

[gerglmuff2]

After reading this thread I decided to see what my rig could do while maintaining a safe and respectful highway speed as many roads were 2 lane state highways or 75mph US highways (god bless Texas). Instead of the ~72mph I usually run at I kept it between 60-65. I saved 1.5mpg and ended the trip at 9.2mpg. The savings paid for my race gas for the weekend including practice day. Thanks!

 

F150 3.5 EB w/ 8000lb 24ft toyhauler.

this is what this thread is for. steve asked what was the point of making it a youtube channel and posting about it, and it "taking off" .. well its right here. 

change and improvements to our lives rarely come in revolution. tomorrow morning every race team isn't going to suddenly be 30% more efficient. they come in a series of small things that only slightly change how we do things, but lead to measurable and noticeable improvements. losing 5 mph in towing even on a long trip, 3-4 hours is about 20 minutes, to save a whole race weekend's of gas ... thats real. and its something we can all do if we are so inclined. 

feel free to not do anything, or poo poo the project like the internet tends to do to anyone doing anything slightly outside of the norm. 

[Jamz14]

Matt, you are not choosing to compete "off the track as well". You are choosing to only compete off the track. Race on track to win just like you normally would, along with doing your towing work, and then you are competing in both worlds.


Your "or" option to my zeitgeist opinion are the exact same thing. And absolutely nothing wrong with it! I support you doing what you want with your racing.

[gerglmuff2]

Matt, you are not choosing to compete "off the track as well". You are choosing to only compete off the track. Race on track to win just like you normally would, along with doing your towing work, and then you are competing in both worlds.


Your "or" option to my zeitgeist opinion are the exact same thing. And absolutely nothing wrong with it! I support you doing what you want with your racing.

 

gotta love bullshit gatekeeping too. 

really, really confused why this gets under everyone's collar. 

[Jamz14]

Dont know what you mean by bullshit gate keeping.

As for me, not under my collar at all. I support Matt. I think Matt should race. I love watching him drive. Few people have the natural talent he does.

[Steve Scheifler]

gotta love bullshit gatekeeping too.

really, really confused why this gets under everyone's collar.

Not getting under my collar either. What I don’t get is why you are so sensitive about a little intelligent debate and challenges to boldly stated facts. Seems it’s your collar that’s agitated. I’ll ask again, is it really better to just smile and say nothing when one suspects that information being disseminated might not be accurate? I just don’t get it.

[Cnj]

Not getting under my collar either. What I don’t get is why you are so sensitive about a little intelligent debate and challenges to boldly stated facts. Seems it’s your collar that’s agitated. I’ll ask again, is it really better to just smile and say nothing when one suspects that information being disseminated might not be accurate? I just don’t get it.

Steve,

I’ve enjoyed your posts for years. Your stuff is intelligent and well thought through. Stylistically you are all about the facts, and won’t let the bone go till you’ve squeezed everything out of the dialogue - which can be a test of endurance for the person debating with you! And if you are proven wrong without a shadow of doubt, you will own it.

But unless someone knows your style, it’s pretty easy to read “curmudgeon”.....

FYI I like what ECOBRAP is doing.

CNJ

[Chris Lefferdink]

I just towed an open Trailex with a Mazda CX-9 from Chicago to Daytona and back this past weekend.  Because of this thread, I paid much closer attention to my speed and MPG, so thank you for creating it. I found at 60-65 MPH, I could average 18 MPG.  At 65-70 MPH, it was closer to 14 MPH.  The extra few MPH over 65 really decreased my mileage.  

 

I didn't do the math to determine if getting better mileage allowed me to make fewer fuel stops, but someone should create an app for that.

[callumhay]

www.mpgforspeed.com

 

Kind of ironic that the MPG/speed curve looks a lot like the tire traction vs slip angle. On track we try to manage one curve and off track another.....

[Cnj]

www.mpgforspeed.com

Kind of ironic that the MPG/speed curve looks a lot like the tire traction vs slip angle. On track we try to manage one curve and off track another.....

This is interesting. It sort of reflects the curve I get at various speeds of towing. I use a Macan S to tow an open Trailex aluminum trailer (which I like a lot by the way). The Macan S on its own, at highway speeds of 70ish in Texas, gets around 25mpg. With a trailer at say 65, it plummets to around 15mpg. If I speed up to speed limits (75 on many roads on the way to COTA and 80 for a while) then it drops to around 12 or 13. If I place tires on the tire rack which raises them above my SM, then I lose another 2mpg.

So the lesson for me is to slow down a little - it’s safer anyway - and load as many tires as I can in Macan and/or in my SM.

And no, I don’t need a semi to tow all my spares like some cause I usually have a Haldeman at the track.

CNJ

[Steve Scheifler]

Hopefully it’s not a surprise to anyone that reducing highway speed saves fuel. The mpgforspeed site is thin, even relying on a quote from CNN of all authorities to confirm that aero drag exists and increases exponentially with speed. But they in turn referenced the fueleconomy.gov site which has a lot of information, a database of cars and calculators. Worth a look if you are interested in this topic.

All this has me thinking about better ways to be more fuel conscious. Actually more emissions conscious, or perhaps more specifically more carbon footprint conscious. But each of those steps brings in magnitudes more complexity for an obsessive annoying pedant like me to pick apart. Personally I think the details matter and the “just do SOMETHING” mentality is the source of many costly mistakes, but I’ll try to dial it back for the moment.

So focusing on the simplest measurement of our individual environmental impact from the use of combustion engines, what’s an effective way to think about it and manage it? I think for me it would be to treat it much like a financial budget. I wouldn’t propose rationing as such, but treating it as if we had a fixed allotment would bring everything that’s dependent on it into better focus in terms of consumption and force prioritization and choices.

So for me, there is zero chance that I would give up seat time on a race weekend unless at a track and with a car with little or nothing to be gained, which is pretty much never. I simply wouldn’t race, or I would do fewer races, but not short-change an event I attended. But I might very well slow down 5mph or more towing and try to stay out of other’s way. Worth it to buy a more aero-friendly trailer or improve the one I have? Maybe. I know I wouldn’t without a limited fuel allotment. I’d probably spend a LOT more time drafting tractor-trailers. Simply driving below the rate of the flow of traffic can be quite difficult. Cruise control, which I expect is far more efficient than my right foot, is more difficult to use and there tends to be a lot more moving over and lifting behind even slower cars while the rest roll by then accelerating back up to “normal” speed. That significantly decreases the advantages of a slower average pace. But I digress into those pesky details again.

Between races I’d be forced to make constant choices and decisions to ensure that I will have fuel to race after life’s essentials and other daily activities. Which car do I drive under what circumstances? How often do I combine multiple stops rather than single-purpose trips? Eat out, or stock the fridge and pantry better? (Delivery of course counts the same as going out). All these things are very similar to what one might be considering anyway if trying to budget $$ but the focus is a little different. For example, shopping close to home might be significantly more expensive than driving further to a big-box store even considering the cost of fuel, but with fuel more important than $$ I might use the mom & pop hardware store or walk to the 7-11 and pay more to pad my fuel reserves. Would I carpool, take a bus, buy a smaller car? Go out for the evening or stay home and stream my entertainment? At what point do I abandon racing because it no longer makes the cut? That depends on how I define my fuel consumption budget.

I guess the sensible first step is to start logging my consumption in as much detail as possible, then set an initial budget that’s within reach with a longer term goal to further decrease it to the point of offsetting the net increase attributable to my racing. Not that extra fuel used for racing is the only reason to do better, but it provides some motivation and a convenient target, much like I think Matt is doing already. For me it would just be more effective to treat it like a finite resource which is used in almost every aspect of daily life rather than a bottomless well if you have enough money. There is no need for my favorite hobby to suffer if I can “earn” credits another way. (I know, that opens a new can of worms but like Matt’s project this is about being better, not perfect) Set aside all politics, statistics etc. that can be debated and just stick with “burning less fuel is better”. It won’t stop people like me, but it will give us a lot less fuel, so to speak. I’d probably be compelled to go a little deeper and compare gasoline emissions to diesel, older tech to newer, etc. so best to start with the assumption of keeping whatever cars & trucks I already have for now.

[Chris Lefferdink]

This is interesting. It sort of reflects the curve I get at various speeds of towing. I use a Macan S to tow an open Trailex aluminum trailer (which I like a lot by the way). The Macan S on its own, at highway speeds of 70ish in Texas, gets around 25mpg. With a trailer at say 65, it plummets to around 15mpg. If I speed up to speed limits (75 on many roads on the way to COTA and 80 for a while) then it drops to around 12 or 13. If I place tires on the tire rack which raises them above my SM, then I lose another 2mpg.

So the lesson for me is to slow down a little - it’s safer anyway - and load as many tires as I can in Macan and/or in my SM.

And no, I don’t need a semi to tow all my spares like some cause I usually have a Haldeman at the track.

CNJ

I noticed the tires on the rack make a big difference as well.  It would be interesting if someone made a fairing for the front of the trailer.  It would need to be very light though.  Something like a small aluminum frame with a canvas covering.

[Chris Lefferdink]

www.mpgforspeed.com

 

Kind of ironic that the MPG/speed curve looks a lot like the tire traction vs slip angle. On track we try to manage one curve and off track another.....

This is interesting, but doesn't consider fuel stops on a road trip.  I.E. if driving 5 mph faster requires you to make one more fuel stop then you have wasted time and fuel and money.

[LarryKing]

Hard to beat a motorcycle for commuting. Most any medium displacement bike will get 70+ mpg. It's somewhat weather dependent but when I commuted full-time in Ohio I could usually ride from March to November, some years longer. I could make a 50 mile/daily round trip for less than $10 gas per week. Plus it's a lot more fun than a 4-wheeled vehicle.

 

Some of the new electric bikes look interesting.

[Martinracing98]

This is interesting, but doesn't consider fuel stops on a road trip.  I.E. if driving 5 mph faster requires you to make one more fuel stop then you have wasted time and fuel and money.

I do not remember if it was 5 or 10 mph, but dropping the speed definetely got me from St. Louis to Blackhawk with one less fuel stop as a result got me there quicker.

[Steve Scheifler]

I do not remember if it was 5 or 10 mph, but dropping the speed definetely got me from St. Louis to Blackhawk with one less fuel stop as a result got me there quicker.

You stop between St. Louis and Blackhawk? There’s your problem, get a biigger vehicle with dual tanks!

Fewer stops is good but I’d guess we could rarely if ever save a stop by slowing down a few MPH, a lot of people need the occasional stop to stretch and such anyway. Worth giving some thought while planning a given trip though. On the other hand, sometimes it seems that between regular traffic, tolls and endless construction on the highways in this part of the country there isn’t much full-speed cruising to begin with.