• Welcome to the Two Wheeled Texans community! Feel free to hang out and lurk as long as you like. However, we would like to encourage you to register so that you can join the community and use the numerous features on the site. After registering, don't forget to post up an introduction!

$5.00 per gallon gas strategy

Researchers have found that you can actually get lower gas mileage by accelerating too slowly. My personal experience, how I accelerate makes little difference in mpg. Some of my best results were obtained by employing surprisingly brisk acceleration, both with my car and motorcycle.
The kinetic energy that your engine has to give your car is not wasted energy, it's stored energy, it's not wasted unless you throw it away with your brakes. Most people who have a habit of accelerating hard also have a habit of using their brakes a lot and that is why they get bad gas mileage.

When you accelerate a 2400 pound car from zero to 60 mph, your engine has to give that car about 290,000 ft lb of energy. That energy is exactly the same if it took 4 seconds to do the acceleration or if it took all day. Thinking that you can somehow get around having to provide that energy by slowly sneaking up on the cruising speed is a lot like thinking your house will cost you less if you take out the longest possible mortgage.

The basic physics may be sound, e.g. the overall energy to get to a given speed, but you're assuming a linear energy waste/acceleration rate, which may not be true. A faster rate of acceleration in an internal combustion setup may lose more energy to heat if it can't transfer it through the drivetrain as efficiently. Extreme example--doing a burnout, but never reaching a velocity of 60 mph. Also in city driving, the speed limit may be 45 mph between lights, but does it really benefit you to hit 45 mph between lights in heavy traffic--again wasted energy. I'm not completely arguing against the too slow rate of accel vs faster rate; just saying there's more variables to the equation.
 
Not true unless you take air pressure up to an extreme. Going from say 32psi to 40psi it won't happen and you'll actually get longer tire life. Manufacturer psi recommendations are a compromise for load, handling and ride comfort. If you can live with slightly reduced comfort of higher psi then your tires will have less rolling resistance and reduced heat which prolongs their life. You won't gain that much mpg though but every little bit helps, especially when it's free. For me going from 32psi to 38psi gave me a true 1-2mpg increase which translates to about $40 a year. Over 38psi and I felt handling diminished so I wasn't willing to give up any fun factor.

_

I run 38 in my Yaris's tires and the OEM tires lasted 70,000 miles. They weren't bald in the center, the wear was very even.
Steel stretches very little and steel belted radials don't really change shape very much with increased inflation. Mostly what changes is the length of the tire's footprint.
A lot of things that are true for old fashioned bias ply tires do not apply as much to radials.
 
Researchers have found that you can actually get lower gas mileage by accelerating too slowly. My personal experience, how I accelerate makes little difference in mpg. Some of my best results were obtained by employing surprisingly brisk acceleration, both with my car and motorcycle.
The kinetic energy that your engine has to give your car is not wasted energy, it's stored energy, it's not wasted unless you throw it away with your brakes. Most people who have a habit of accelerating hard also have a habit of using their brakes a lot and that is why they get bad gas mileage.

When you accelerate a 2400 pound car from zero to 60 mph, your engine has to give that car about 290,000 ft lb of energy. That energy is exactly the same if it took 4 seconds to do the acceleration or if it took all day. Thinking that you can somehow get around having to provide that energy by slowly sneaking up on the cruising speed is a lot like thinking your house will cost you less if you take out the longest possible mortgage.

Tracker said:
The basic physics may be sound, e.g. the overall energy to get to a given speed, but you're assuming a linear energy waste/acceleration rate, which may not be true. A faster rate of acceleration in an internal combustion setup may lose more energy to heat if it can't transfer it through the drivetrain as efficiently. Extreme example--doing a burnout, but never reaching a velocity of 60 mph. Also in city driving, the speed limit may be 45 mph between lights, but does it really benefit you to hit 45 mph between lights in heavy traffic--again wasted energy. I'm not completely arguing against the too slow rate of accel vs faster rate; just saying there's more variables to the equation.

Just because I don't waste time accelerating like an 18 wheeler it doesn't mean I accelerate all the way to the speed limit.
On back streets with 4-way stop signs at every intersection, I tend to pulse up to 20 or 25 mph and then let it freewheel to the next intersection instead of slowly accelerating to the 30 mph speed limit and then nailing the brakes at the next intersection. This results in nearly the same or possibly a higher average speed while using less gas.
 
Commute <2.5 miles each way, on a 75-80mpg TW200 with ethanol-free fuel. I couldn't care less about gas prices.

As for small bikes on city freeways, try 45,000 miles in 2 years around DFW on a TW200. Wear a high-visibility jacket so people can see you, and they'll go out of your way for the purely selfish reason of not having themselves be involved in a crash, which would make the kid late for cello lesson. Nobody intentionally crashes for the fun of it. Duh.

Those who suffer a long commute or inefficient vehicle will justify and rationalize to support their complaints of the expense. Just stop annoying the rest of us with the whining about the expense or stress of doing so, or not.

Those with long commutes can move or change jobs, but they choose not to do so, and that is entirely okay with me. There are plenty of good reasons for a long commute. Pay your money and choose your choices, but put your big boy panties on and man up to the consequences of those choices. Same goes for those who choose gashog vehicles, GSX-Rs as economy commuters, etc. Man up to the consequences of whatever you choose. It ain't rocket science.

Those who face a long commute and can't afford to trade for a higher mpg vehicle, it's their own fault. Shoulda bought something with better mpg in the first place, or bought a cheaper vehicle so you're not upside down over the first 5 years of a 6-year note. They musta had some stupid math teachers. 240 working days and per year and a, for instance, 50 mile commute each way, is 24,000 miles per year. Multiply that times the 6 years of your note, you get 144,000 miles on your vehicle. Not counting any other use, like taking the kid to soccer practice or going on vacation. Therefore, once the gashog is paid off, it won't be worth a significant down payment on a replacement. Sounds to me like cost of fuel isn't their problem for a lot of folks, but maybe entrapment by debt?

Come to think of it, debt is likely the reason many people with long commutes can't unload their rural homes, too. Seems rural real estate prices nosedive every time fuel prices rise, wiping out any recent gains and often putting owners upside down on their mortgages, even without considering the effects of the mortgage fiasco. Surprise, surprise, of a rather nasty variety. Good time to buy retirement property in the country for those with the cash to do so. Just remember that the three most important considerations of value of real estate are location, location, and location.

$5/gallon gas is way overdue in the U. S. of A. Obama stated high energy costs as a political goal way back when? :doh: Those who claim a political cause for high fuel prices are therefore right. They are also wrong.

The expansion of personal wealth of massive numbers of Indians and Chinese due to the recent economic booms in those countries has greatly increased the demand for fuel for the millions of people, who for the first time in history, are wealthy enough to afford scooters and econo-cars as well as western-style food choices, such as beef and pork, the production of which directly competes with bio-fuels for available agricultural production, which drives up the demand for conventional agricultural and transport fuels. Dern those greedy capitalistic communists! May the fleas of a thousand pandas infest their armpits. Those who claim a capitalist cause for fuel prices are therefore right. They are also wrong.

Sorry if this steps on toes, just describing the situation as it really is rather than as I want it to be. I could wish everbody's wishes would come true, but it ain't gonna happen.
 
Once again, ken knows the truth and the rest of us are whiny babies...
 
It may step on toes, Ken, but you're correct. I've been preaching fuel efficient cars since the late 70s when gas was surpassing a shocking 80 cents a gallon.

We've been through waves and waves of price escalations. Each time - when gas hit $2, when it hit $2.50, when it hit $3 - big vehicle sales tanked and people started bidding wars for Civics and Prius'. When the prices subsided, way too many people convinced themselves the higher prices were just temporary, and rushed to buy yet another 14mpg vehicle.

Gas prices go up & down because the market is so volatile. But we're kidding ourselves if we think this is going to miraculously go away. With or without Obama's policies, prices are headed upward. It'll take a mega game changer - either technological breakthrough, or discovery of massive oil fields somewhere besides the middle east - to alter the course of fuel prices, and there simply is nothing on the horizon that fills the bill.

So, don't plan your next vehicle purchase around $3 gas. Plan it around $4.50 or $5 gas.
 
Regardless of why fuel prices are rising, I'm surprised people are surprised they are rising. I may be in my early 20's, but I seem to recall that gas prices usually rise, not fall...
 
Commute <2.5 miles each way, on a 75-80mpg TW200 with ethanol-free fuel. I couldn't care less about gas prices.

As for small bikes on city freeways, try 45,000 miles in 2 years around DFW on a TW200. Wear a high-visibility jacket so people can see you, and they'll go out of your way for the purely selfish reason of not having themselves be involved in a crash, which would make the kid late for cello lesson. Nobody intentionally crashes for the fun of it. Duh.

Those who suffer a long commute or inefficient vehicle will justify and rationalize to support their complaints of the expense. Just stop annoying the rest of us with the whining about the expense or stress of doing so, or not.

Those with long commutes can move or change jobs, but they choose not to do so, and that is entirely okay with me. There are plenty of good reasons for a long commute. Pay your money and choose your choices, but put your big boy panties on and man up to the consequences of those choices. Same goes for those who choose gashog vehicles, GSX-Rs as economy commuters, etc. Man up to the consequences of whatever you choose. It ain't rocket science.

Those who face a long commute and can't afford to trade for a higher mpg vehicle, it's their own fault. Shoulda bought something with better mpg in the first place, or bought a cheaper vehicle so you're not upside down over the first 5 years of a 6-year note. They musta had some stupid math teachers. 240 working days and per year and a, for instance, 50 mile commute each way, is 24,000 miles per year. Multiply that times the 6 years of your note, you get 144,000 miles on your vehicle. Not counting any other use, like taking the kid to soccer practice or going on vacation. Therefore, once the gashog is paid off, it won't be worth a significant down payment on a replacement. Sounds to me like cost of fuel isn't their problem for a lot of folks, but maybe entrapment by debt?

Come to think of it, debt is likely the reason many people with long commutes can't unload their rural homes, too. Seems rural real estate prices nosedive every time fuel prices rise, wiping out any recent gains and often putting owners upside down on their mortgages, even without considering the effects of the mortgage fiasco. Surprise, surprise, of a rather nasty variety. Good time to buy retirement property in the country for those with the cash to do so. Just remember that the three most important considerations of value of real estate are location, location, and location.

$5/gallon gas is way overdue in the U. S. of A. Obama stated high energy costs as a political goal way back when? :doh: Those who claim a political cause for high fuel prices are therefore right. They are also wrong.

The expansion of personal wealth of massive numbers of Indians and Chinese due to the recent economic booms in those countries has greatly increased the demand for fuel for the millions of people, who for the first time in history, are wealthy enough to afford scooters and econo-cars as well as western-style food choices, such as beef and pork, the production of which directly competes with bio-fuels for available agricultural production, which drives up the demand for conventional agricultural and transport fuels. Dern those greedy capitalistic communists! May the fleas of a thousand pandas infest their armpits. Those who claim a capitalist cause for fuel prices are therefore right. They are also wrong.

Sorry if this steps on toes, just describing the situation as it really is rather than as I want it to be. I could wish everbody's wishes would come true, but it ain't gonna happen.

Thanks so much for your compassion! Lets see something
My wife drives a Kia Amanti 22-28 mpg-WASTEFUL!! But why? Could it be beacause her deteriorating spinal column needs the support provided by those big seats?
Move so we don't have to drive 60 miles each day to work? Lets see, tell my bride she has to move AGAIN after getting out of a marriage to a clown that made her move every time she started to make friends and get comfortable. Don't think so.
Oh yeah, make more money. Lets see, Just chopped down to half time at first of year because boss didn't like me showing up his chosen one for the slacker he is.
I think that about covers it except for one more thing; Leave my social security alone! It is NOT an entitlement, I PAID INTO IT ALL MY WORKING LIFE[55 years to date]
Rant over
 
Don't forget that when you choose to live 40 or 50 miles away from your job, you will be putting in 10-12 hour days for 8 hours of pay if you consider the commute as part of your job.
Factor in that extra 2 hours or so in your working day and suddenly your hourly pay isn't that much any more. Also, your real pay doesn't start until your commute is paid for.
Work far enough away in an expensive enough car and you are better off working a low pay job that you can walk to.
 
Don't forget that when you choose to live 40 or 50 miles away from your job, you will be putting in 10-12 hour days for 8 hours of pay if you consider the commute as part of your job.
Factor in that extra 2 hours or so in your working day and suddenly your hourly pay isn't that much any more. Also, your real pay doesn't start until your commute is paid for.
Work far enough away in an expensive enough car and you are better off working a low pay job that you can walk to.

If you'll secure bank loan and get my bride to OK it, happy to move, get another job in this tanked economy, and walk to work:trust:
 
Sometimes living close to work isn't a choice. In today's world, very few people have the luxury of working a career at one place. Realities dictate several job changes, maybe several career changes, in a 30-40 career span. The upside of living in a gigantic metro area is that jobs are, relatively speaking, plentiful. The downside is those jobs are scattered literally over hundreds of square miles. My career took me from downtown Ft Worth to downtown Dallas to Luna Road to Los Colinas. And my career was actually pretty stable compared to many. I did the best I could by living in the mid-cities so that, while work wasn't all that close, it was never all that far either.

@XCGates - My point exactly; it's naive to think prices are going to fall; they're not. Put a Republican in the White House and they'll still rise, albeit hopefully not as fast. I can't speak for Ken, but my comments are not meant to be unkind to your wife or anybody else; they're merely a call to the reality of the situation. Is a Kia at 22-28mpg wasteful? Not if it's what you need. I made my 30-mile commute for years in a string of comfy 4-bangers - 2 Altimas, a Grand Am, a Storm, a Celica, etc. There was always something slightly more fuel-efficient available, but these were cars that gave me mid-20s mpg while being both comfortable and fun. Some people may choose an econo-box; they're choosing gas savings over comfort and that's their right. Other people may choose to make the same commute in a Tahoe or Expedition. That is certainly their right and privilege, but buying said vehicle and then complaining about the cost of running it is - well, whiny.
 
Thanks so much for your compassion! Lets see something A lack of compassion is allowing people to escape consequences of their decisions by what boils down to stealing from those who live within their means to enable others not to do the same. The result is a population of entitlement babies, which are no better than trust fund babies when it comes to self-reliance.
My wife drives a Kia Amanti 22-28 mpg-WASTEFUL!! But why? Could it be beacause her deteriorating spinal column needs the support provided by those big seats? Medical necessity. Still, nobody else's responsibility to provide for her. Of course, if she lived close enough to walk to work, she wouldn't need a car at all. So, still a choice.
Move so we don't have to drive 60 miles each day to work? Choice. Kwitchurbellyakin. Lets see, tell my bride she has to move AGAIN after getting out of a marriage to a clown that made her move every time she started to make friends and get comfortable. Don't think so. Choice. Kwitchurbellyakin. You can move if you choose, or not if you chose.
Oh yeah, make more money. Lets see, Just chopped down to half time at first of year because boss didn't like me showing up his chosen one for the slacker he is. Choice. Kwitchurbellyakin. Maybe if you just brown-nosed at work like your boss's favorite slacker, you'd get full time pay.
I think that about covers it except for one more thing; Leave my social security alone! It is NOT an entitlement, I PAID INTO IT ALL MY WORKING LIFE[55 years to date] Not exactly choice, but you can do something about it. Kwitchurbellyakin and work to get people who would eliminate all national level government programs and the associated spending not specifically authorized by the Constitution. Too bad Social Security would have to go.
Rant over Choice, but not likely.

:rider: :rider:
 
Wow! Ken's back! I thought maybe you died :rider:

Actually, I've been busy starting another business to make more money to pay more taxes so you can live off the government teet. Can I claim you as a tax deduction?
 
Actually, I've been busy starting another business to make more money to pay more taxes so you can live off the government teet. Can I claim you as a tax deduction?

Let me guess, you don't have an honorable discharge for serving your country for 8 years[at a government job!!] And the love and compassion you show is priceless! Have a great life!:rider:
 
Sometimes living close to work isn't a choice. In today's world, very few people have the luxury of working a career at one place. Realities dictate several job changes, maybe several career changes, in a 30-40 career span. The upside of living in a gigantic metro area is that jobs are, relatively speaking, plentiful. The downside is those jobs are scattered literally over hundreds of square miles. My career took me from downtown Ft Worth to downtown Dallas to Luna Road to Los Colinas. And my career was actually pretty stable compared to many. I did the best I could by living in the mid-cities so that, while work wasn't all that close, it was never all that far either.

@XCGates - My point exactly; it's naive to think prices are going to fall; they're not. Put a Republican in the White House and they'll still rise, albeit hopefully not as fast. I can't speak for Ken, but my comments are not meant to be unkind to your wife or anybody else; they're merely a call to the reality of the situation. Is a Kia at 22-28mpg wasteful? Not if it's what you need. I made my 30-mile commute for years in a string of comfy 4-bangers - 2 Altimas, a Grand Am, a Storm, a Celica, etc. There was always something slightly more fuel-efficient available, but these were cars that gave me mid-20s mpg while being both comfortable and fun. Some people may choose an econo-box; they're choosing gas savings over comfort and that's their right. Other people may choose to make the same commute in a Tahoe or Expedition. That is certainly their right and privilege, but buying said vehicle and then complaining about the cost of running it is - well, whiny.

We're back to that change thing. Commuting is the worst and I feel for anyone that has to do it. When I was still a builder I lived in the neighborhood that I was building in. Often times I just walked to work, I didn't know how good I had it. If you visit old downtown areas especially in smaller towns, you notice an upstairs above many of the old store fronts. People lived above their businesses back then. It seems for many that we're slowly heading back that direction.
 
When I was still on active duty and living in the barracks, I had a Ford Expedition. I LOVED that thing. Of course, I walked 500 feet to work, and only drove it on the weekends, or when everybody piled in with me to go to lunch. I got out and had to drive that thing around Dallas for a couple of weeks and immediately got rid of it.

Long way to say, yeah, living right next to where you work is awesome. I wish we could live right next to where my wife works, but I don't like getting robbed.
 
Obama is back to blaming big oil for gas prices. Once again he pushes to reduce the "subsidies" for big oil. Wonder exactly what he means by that?

The most common tax break that I see is the one for stripper wells. Those are low volume wells that would be shut off because the taxes and expenses are greater than the revenue on these 10 barrels/day max wells. So they lower the taxes and it is a win-win; the government still collects more tax than they would if the wells are plugged and that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

If he takes that "subsidy" away, we increase our imports and lower tax revenues also.

Is there anywhere we actually give an oil company tax credits or is "subsidy" just a term for lesser taxes in politic speak?

Edit: forgot politics unwanted here. I saw the news about O and gas prices and this is the thread that came to mind.
 
4257639e-971c-ebfd.jpg
 
Obama is back to blaming big oil for gas prices. Once again he pushes to reduce the "subsidies" for big oil. Wonder exactly what he means by that?

The most common tax break that I see is the one for stripper wells. Those are low volume wells that would be shut off because the taxes and expenses are greater than the revenue on these 10 barrels/day max wells. So they lower the taxes and it is a win-win; the government still collects more tax than they would if the wells are plugged and that reduces our dependence on foreign oil.

If he takes that "subsidy" away, we increase our imports and lower tax revenues also.

Is there anywhere we actually give an oil company tax credits or is "subsidy" just a term for lesser taxes in politic speak?

I believe that taxes on corporations trickle down to consumers one way or another.
 
Either tax them or remove all subsidies. The oil companies are making an obscene amount of money. Why should they receive any subsidy at all?
 
Either tax them or remove all subsidies. The oil companies are making an obscene amount of money. Why should they receive any subsidy at all?

That is my question above, are they really subsidies? I can't imagine giving them money. More likely it is another "break" given to entice a change in their behavior. Does anyone know what exactly O means when he talks about these subsidies?
 
Back
Top