Having had an “Aufbauseminar” for speeding when I was young. That was eye opening. We timed going as fast as possible versus going 100 kph tops on a distance of some 50 km (30km Autobahn, mostly unlimited). In the end it made a difference of like 2 minutes. But for that you spend like 50% more on gas and arrive completely exhausted.
There’s no time to be gained. On a long distance at night you could save some time, but then again: if you really observed how exhausting it is to concentrate at high speeds and really made a pause to account for that and not keep on driving, endangering yourself and others…you would be even slower.
But nobody does the latter anyway.
My mother is very prone to speeding, she regularly boasts about how she could go 250 last time. Then she’s like “I made it in only 28 minutes home” and I’m like…well, it took me 33 minutes, going only 100, but my average fuel consumption was 4.7 L/100km ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Having had an “Aufbauseminar” for speeding when I was young. That was eye opening. We timed going as fast as possible versus going 100 kph tops on a distance of some 50 km (30km Autobahn, mostly unlimited). In the end it made a difference of like 2 minutes. But for that you spend like 50% more on gas and arrive completely exhausted.
Absolutely this.
I did a lot of traveling by hitch-hiking when I was younger, and had a lot of opportunity to study this. “Sporty” drivers would do speeding for one hour along a half-busy Autobahn section. Then have a five-minute coffee break.
And then, we would have the same slow cars again in front of us that we did overtake one hour ago…
I’m the same. I think there are two types of drivers.
Those that don’t enjoy driving (like me). I tend to cruise at 100 km/h and just disconnect from the experience. The less I have to do the better. Cruise control is great. Empty road is great. I find constant overtaking and adjusting speed tiring.
Those that like driving. Those people want to drive actively all the time. Cruising is boring to them. They need the constant stimuli that comes with driving at the limit, when you need to constantly anticipate what can happen and react real fast. Without it they get tired and distracted.
I’m not sure if one way of driving causes more accidents than the other. Driving fast doesn’t necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you’re focuses on the road and don’t do anything stupid it’s probably as safe as cruising below speed limit. The problem is that both styles of driving are not compatible. I don’t like people driving 1 meter behind and they don’t like that I drive at the speed limit. Not much we can do about it though.
Yes, you’re right. I meant that someone driving 140 km/h while focusing on the road is not necessarily more likely to cause an accident than someone going 80 km/h while looking at their phone. But yes, if both crash the accident at 140 km/h will be more deadly. So yeah, I definitely would support taking away driving licenses from people that are unable to drive at the speed limit because it’s too boring for them.
Yes, you’re right. I meant that someone driving 140 km/h while focusing on the road is not necessarily more likely to cause an accident than someone going 80 km/h while looking at their phone
First, that’s scientifically wrong. When you drive faster, it is clear that your field of vision narrows and that you simply see less things, because of the speed.
Also, even if the risk for an accident happening would be the same, the consequences of an accident are larger, therefore the expected value of accident effects, which is risk times expected consequences, is larger.
And lastly, what you say with “people that are unable to drive” or “focusing on the road”, that is what all unsafe drivers tell themselves - that they are in control, that they drive better than average, that they know the risk, and so on. In reality, if they were safe drivers, they would drive slower, because speed is the factor number one in accident risk.
As I said, I tend to drive below speed limit and I hate drivers that think they’re the next Schumacher. Yes, assholes that think they are the best drivers and can get away with dangerous maneuvers are the most dangerous ones. I’m not defending them.
What I’m saying is that skilled drivers can drive faster safely. Because people in Germany do drive faster than in many other countries:
but have less accidents:
That doesn’t mean that you can remove speed limits everywhere and not have more accidents. Most probably some discipline and training is needed. But discipline and skills can compensate for the reduced field of vision at higher speeds. Obviously up to a limit. Even the greatest driver can’t drive safely at 200km/h on a highway.
Germany has better (and very, very costly) road infrastructure in parts with the motorways. On Landstrassen, die statistics are pretty bad even if the same people are driving there.
And, I don’t think it is not a convincing argument that “actually, that are not so many people that are dying, only about 3000 people per year die”.
Country roads have more accidents everywhere. But yeah, maybe it’s the better infrastructure that impacts number of accidents, not better educated drivers. I don’t think there are any statistics that can compare this fairly.
But if both of the persons you’re talking about are focused on driving, the one doing 140 km/h is probably more likely to end up in some kind of accident. Of cause this will vary on the given situation.
I hope that people driving 140 km/h are more focused on driving then I am. Driving 100 km/h in normal conditions in Spain I barely have to overtake any cars. I have to be aware of what’s more than 100 m in front of me most of the time because there’s simply nothing closer. Driving at 120+ km/h you overtake all the time, you drive way closer behind other cars and you have to check mirrors all the time. So there’s different level of focus required at higher speeds.
Exactly, more focus is required. Meaning that people are more likely to screen things up. Also, other cars around might not be so focused on the car coming from behind at high speeds, making accidents more likely - even if the high speed driver is focused.
From experience, having started half hour later and having arrived about an hour earlier over 500ish km going the same exact roads at the same time, that doesn’t sound right. Is car dependent.
Going as fast as possible with a family car will consume as much petrol as a sports car of similar engine size going max speed, however the sports car is going to be about 50% faster.
If you drive a Prius at a speed which is “just cruising” for a sports car, it will use more fuel.
So… You are saying that a family station wagon going 200kmph consumes as much as a sports car going 300kmph with the same engine size?
Sir I call your statement utter bullshit and here’s why:
Let’s take the Mercedes AMG A 45s 4Matic+ with 1991cm3 and 421hp. Not really a sports car but who the heck produces sports cars with the same engine size like normal station wagons? And the VW Passat Variant with the 2.0 TSI engine and 190hp.
The VW consumes up to 20L/100km at 200kmph and the Mercedes going 270kmph (I know not even 50% faster) consumes 50l/100km going full throttle.
Give me any other modern good quality cars that prove me wrong and I’ll apologise but till then that’s not even close to make sense. Heck the sport’s car’s have to cool the engine with fuel to not overheating, how on earth will your claim ever work?
You have a vastly different opinion of family car and sports car than I do. Take a “normal” and affordable family car with a 2l with around 130hp and compare it with a “normal” affordable sports car, with a 2l producing 200hp. The sports car will go faster for the same amount of fuel consumed, even if you ignore all the other things and just focus on the aerodynamics.
You can compare something like a TT8j and a Golf maybe. That’s the same engine, tuned differently, in a different body. If you are going to be disrespectful, just refrain from replying.
Well sorry how I phrased that. But explain to me how that works.
I already did some math.
Ok the golf is going what? 130? Then the TT goes 195kmph.
The VW EA888 is not available as 130hp edition, especially not in a Golf, there it’s used in the R Models or as 190hp edition. The smallest equivalent engine I could find was the Golf VI 1.8T with 160hp. The CDAA engine.
But ok, let’s just ignore the engines for now, focus on resistance.
In this calculation I use a density of 1.29kg/m³.
Audi TT8J with the spoiler retracted has a drag coefficient of 0.31 and that’s really impressive. We have a surface area of 2.09m² and a speed of 195kmph.
That results in 1226.12N drag force applied to the Audi TT
The Golf has CW values ranging from Golf 1 with 0.42 to 0.27 Golf 7 Blue motion.
But let’s assume we have a Golf 6 from 2010 with 0.31 CW (sounds familiar) a surface area of 2.23m² and the speed of 130kmph.
That results in 581.44N drag force.
Explain to me like, how will the Audi manage to go that fast, with that drag force applied and consume the same amount of fuel like the Golf? I mean even the engine should be the same size. So either the Audi TT has a magical rolling resistance that he can compete with the golf fuel consumption. Don’t know how the math here work’s, especially in regard that the golf is 100kg lighter.
Are there much more efficient air conditioning systems/assistant systems in the sports car that reduce the fuel consumption?
I don’t know… The Audi you mentioned consumes 7,7L/100km. Let’s take the worst engine the Golf 6 has, that has less horsepower that the Audi: the VW EA 113 1.6L with 102 hp. Btw the same engine plattform like the Audi’s engine. That consumes 7.1L/100km.
So please, enlighten me.
How can the “sports car” go 50% faster and consume the same amount of fuel?
The drag force is more than doubled. The engine consumes by default more. How?
As I wrote: on long distances it can make a difference. But blasting for 3,5 hours 200 is not safe, so if people do that, they’re endangering themselves and others.
And obviously different cars use different amounts of fuel to achieve the same feat. But if you took the sports car at 100 only it saves a lot. Power (phys.) is dependent to the third power of 3 of the velocity. It’s just physics. When you double the velocity it’s thus way, way, WAY more fuel than just double the fuel.
General physics apply to the sports car as well, though. The sports car still uses way, way, way more gas for a higher velocity.
My point is: gas usage is not proportional with speed. It is factor ^3. People underestimate that.
So when I cruise on a flat surface at 100kph, I use some 4.7 litres with my car. If I go 120kph, a lot of people would expect an increase of 20%, at max, so roughly 5.6 litres. But it gets to some 6.5 litres, an increase of almost 40%. And if I went 150 or above that shit gets crazy.
The same applies to the sports car. If people calculate “I drive twice as fast, it’ll cost me twice as much”, that’s a crazy miscalculation.
Nobody said that though. It’s just not always to the power of three. It can’t be, if you consider aerodynamics and the shape of the car. A pointy rocket doesn’t use the same amount of fuel to go at a certain speed as a G wagon, all other things remaining equal.
The sports car has a better drag coefficient and less surface area, that is why at the same speed it needs less power. The “aerodynamics” are factored in only in those coefficients. But the velocity is the dominating part, as it is cubed in that equation.
But still, I am not comparing a sports car to a station wagon. I compare a sports car to itself at higher velocities. And contrary to popular belief, higher speeds result in an unproportional excess in fuel consumption.
Having had an “Aufbauseminar” for speeding when I was young. That was eye opening. We timed going as fast as possible versus going 100 kph tops on a distance of some 50 km (30km Autobahn, mostly unlimited). In the end it made a difference of like 2 minutes. But for that you spend like 50% more on gas and arrive completely exhausted.
There’s no time to be gained. On a long distance at night you could save some time, but then again: if you really observed how exhausting it is to concentrate at high speeds and really made a pause to account for that and not keep on driving, endangering yourself and others…you would be even slower.
But nobody does the latter anyway.
My mother is very prone to speeding, she regularly boasts about how she could go 250 last time. Then she’s like “I made it in only 28 minutes home” and I’m like…well, it took me 33 minutes, going only 100, but my average fuel consumption was 4.7 L/100km ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Absolutely this.
I did a lot of traveling by hitch-hiking when I was younger, and had a lot of opportunity to study this. “Sporty” drivers would do speeding for one hour along a half-busy Autobahn section. Then have a five-minute coffee break.
And then, we would have the same slow cars again in front of us that we did overtake one hour ago…
I’m the same. I think there are two types of drivers.
Those that don’t enjoy driving (like me). I tend to cruise at 100 km/h and just disconnect from the experience. The less I have to do the better. Cruise control is great. Empty road is great. I find constant overtaking and adjusting speed tiring.
Those that like driving. Those people want to drive actively all the time. Cruising is boring to them. They need the constant stimuli that comes with driving at the limit, when you need to constantly anticipate what can happen and react real fast. Without it they get tired and distracted.
I’m not sure if one way of driving causes more accidents than the other. Driving fast doesn’t necessarily mean driving dangerously. If you’re focuses on the road and don’t do anything stupid it’s probably as safe as cruising below speed limit. The problem is that both styles of driving are not compatible. I don’t like people driving 1 meter behind and they don’t like that I drive at the speed limit. Not much we can do about it though.
There is a lot of data on that one. To start with, the consequences of a collisions are always larger if you are faster. That’s just physics.
Yes, you’re right. I meant that someone driving 140 km/h while focusing on the road is not necessarily more likely to cause an accident than someone going 80 km/h while looking at their phone. But yes, if both crash the accident at 140 km/h will be more deadly. So yeah, I definitely would support taking away driving licenses from people that are unable to drive at the speed limit because it’s too boring for them.
First, that’s scientifically wrong. When you drive faster, it is clear that your field of vision narrows and that you simply see less things, because of the speed.
Also, even if the risk for an accident happening would be the same, the consequences of an accident are larger, therefore the expected value of accident effects, which is risk times expected consequences, is larger.
And lastly, what you say with “people that are unable to drive” or “focusing on the road”, that is what all unsafe drivers tell themselves - that they are in control, that they drive better than average, that they know the risk, and so on. In reality, if they were safe drivers, they would drive slower, because speed is the factor number one in accident risk.
As I said, I tend to drive below speed limit and I hate drivers that think they’re the next Schumacher. Yes, assholes that think they are the best drivers and can get away with dangerous maneuvers are the most dangerous ones. I’m not defending them.
What I’m saying is that skilled drivers can drive faster safely. Because people in Germany do drive faster than in many other countries:
but have less accidents:
That doesn’t mean that you can remove speed limits everywhere and not have more accidents. Most probably some discipline and training is needed. But discipline and skills can compensate for the reduced field of vision at higher speeds. Obviously up to a limit. Even the greatest driver can’t drive safely at 200km/h on a highway.
Germany has better (and very, very costly) road infrastructure in parts with the motorways. On Landstrassen, die statistics are pretty bad even if the same people are driving there.
And, I don’t think it is not a convincing argument that “actually, that are not so many people that are dying, only about 3000 people per year die”.
What you also have to consider is that about 3.5 times more people die of bad air quality caused by traffic, than by traffic accidents.. So, adding to the 3000 deaths per year by traffic, we have 11,000 deaths by pollution caused by traffic. Yes, if you are speeding, you are killing other people, even if you don’t have an accident.
Country roads have more accidents everywhere. But yeah, maybe it’s the better infrastructure that impacts number of accidents, not better educated drivers. I don’t think there are any statistics that can compare this fairly.
But if both of the persons you’re talking about are focused on driving, the one doing 140 km/h is probably more likely to end up in some kind of accident. Of cause this will vary on the given situation.
I hope that people driving 140 km/h are more focused on driving then I am. Driving 100 km/h in normal conditions in Spain I barely have to overtake any cars. I have to be aware of what’s more than 100 m in front of me most of the time because there’s simply nothing closer. Driving at 120+ km/h you overtake all the time, you drive way closer behind other cars and you have to check mirrors all the time. So there’s different level of focus required at higher speeds.
Exactly, more focus is required. Meaning that people are more likely to screen things up. Also, other cars around might not be so focused on the car coming from behind at high speeds, making accidents more likely - even if the high speed driver is focused.
From experience, having started half hour later and having arrived about an hour earlier over 500ish km going the same exact roads at the same time, that doesn’t sound right. Is car dependent.
Going as fast as possible with a family car will consume as much petrol as a sports car of similar engine size going max speed, however the sports car is going to be about 50% faster.
If you drive a Prius at a speed which is “just cruising” for a sports car, it will use more fuel.
So… You are saying that a family station wagon going 200kmph consumes as much as a sports car going 300kmph with the same engine size?
Sir I call your statement utter bullshit and here’s why:
Let’s take the Mercedes AMG A 45s 4Matic+ with 1991cm3 and 421hp. Not really a sports car but who the heck produces sports cars with the same engine size like normal station wagons? And the VW Passat Variant with the 2.0 TSI engine and 190hp. The VW consumes up to 20L/100km at 200kmph and the Mercedes going 270kmph (I know not even 50% faster) consumes 50l/100km going full throttle.
Give me any other modern good quality cars that prove me wrong and I’ll apologise but till then that’s not even close to make sense. Heck the sport’s car’s have to cool the engine with fuel to not overheating, how on earth will your claim ever work?
Are you even allowed to drive a car yet?
You have a vastly different opinion of family car and sports car than I do. Take a “normal” and affordable family car with a 2l with around 130hp and compare it with a “normal” affordable sports car, with a 2l producing 200hp. The sports car will go faster for the same amount of fuel consumed, even if you ignore all the other things and just focus on the aerodynamics.
You can compare something like a TT8j and a Golf maybe. That’s the same engine, tuned differently, in a different body. If you are going to be disrespectful, just refrain from replying.
Well sorry how I phrased that. But explain to me how that works.
I already did some math. Ok the golf is going what? 130? Then the TT goes 195kmph.
The VW EA888 is not available as 130hp edition, especially not in a Golf, there it’s used in the R Models or as 190hp edition. The smallest equivalent engine I could find was the Golf VI 1.8T with 160hp. The CDAA engine.
But ok, let’s just ignore the engines for now, focus on resistance.
In this calculation I use a density of 1.29kg/m³.
Audi TT8J with the spoiler retracted has a drag coefficient of 0.31 and that’s really impressive. We have a surface area of 2.09m² and a speed of 195kmph.
That results in 1226.12N drag force applied to the Audi TT
The Golf has CW values ranging from Golf 1 with 0.42 to 0.27 Golf 7 Blue motion.
But let’s assume we have a Golf 6 from 2010 with 0.31 CW (sounds familiar) a surface area of 2.23m² and the speed of 130kmph. That results in 581.44N drag force.
Explain to me like, how will the Audi manage to go that fast, with that drag force applied and consume the same amount of fuel like the Golf? I mean even the engine should be the same size. So either the Audi TT has a magical rolling resistance that he can compete with the golf fuel consumption. Don’t know how the math here work’s, especially in regard that the golf is 100kg lighter.
Are there much more efficient air conditioning systems/assistant systems in the sports car that reduce the fuel consumption?
I don’t know… The Audi you mentioned consumes 7,7L/100km. Let’s take the worst engine the Golf 6 has, that has less horsepower that the Audi: the VW EA 113 1.6L with 102 hp. Btw the same engine plattform like the Audi’s engine. That consumes 7.1L/100km.
So please, enlighten me. How can the “sports car” go 50% faster and consume the same amount of fuel? The drag force is more than doubled. The engine consumes by default more. How?
deleted by creator
As I wrote: on long distances it can make a difference. But blasting for 3,5 hours 200 is not safe, so if people do that, they’re endangering themselves and others.
And obviously different cars use different amounts of fuel to achieve the same feat. But if you took the sports car at 100 only it saves a lot. Power (phys.) is dependent to the third power of 3 of the velocity. It’s just physics. When you double the velocity it’s thus way, way, WAY more fuel than just double the fuel.
A sports car doesn’t have the same aerodynamics as a family hatchback though. You can’t compare them like this directly.
No, that’s why I didn’t.
General physics apply to the sports car as well, though. The sports car still uses way, way, way more gas for a higher velocity.
My point is: gas usage is not proportional with speed. It is factor ^3. People underestimate that.
So when I cruise on a flat surface at 100kph, I use some 4.7 litres with my car. If I go 120kph, a lot of people would expect an increase of 20%, at max, so roughly 5.6 litres. But it gets to some 6.5 litres, an increase of almost 40%. And if I went 150 or above that shit gets crazy.
The same applies to the sports car. If people calculate “I drive twice as fast, it’ll cost me twice as much”, that’s a crazy miscalculation.
Nobody said that though. It’s just not always to the power of three. It can’t be, if you consider aerodynamics and the shape of the car. A pointy rocket doesn’t use the same amount of fuel to go at a certain speed as a G wagon, all other things remaining equal.
It is, see e.g. here
The sports car has a better drag coefficient and less surface area, that is why at the same speed it needs less power. The “aerodynamics” are factored in only in those coefficients. But the velocity is the dominating part, as it is cubed in that equation.
But still, I am not comparing a sports car to a station wagon. I compare a sports car to itself at higher velocities. And contrary to popular belief, higher speeds result in an unproportional excess in fuel consumption.