Fuel efficient driving.

Kilty_2

cyclonebri1 wrote: »

Ah but assuming you were driving normally, you would likely not be in the exact gear to give you maximum accelaration at that exact instant.;);)

In spite of having had fast cars in the past the argument of driving out of trouble has always seemed flawed to me. But then again we all drive differently

Not maximum acceleration but in the right car - plenty

A TDCI Mondeo is faster from 30-70 than a BMW 328i don't you know

AndyGuil

Acceleration does affect the economy of the car. There is more than just kinetic energy, driving efficiently means around 30-35% of the fuel consumed is transferred to kinetic energy. The rest of the energy is heat and noise. Accelerating hard will increase the amount of heat the engine produces considerably, the higher RPM means there is more friction within the engine and gearbox and there is a much higher amount of noise. Heat energy is the highest energy loss in the process.

Harry_Flashman

Hammyman wrote: »

If you dip the clutch to freewheel then you are wasting fuel as the engine is ticking over. If you keep the clutch engaged and just lift off the throttle, the engine management cuts all fuel to the engine as long as it is above idle speed.

Heavily dependant on the type of engine.

Harry_Flashman

DirectDebacle wrote: »

And the dangerous junk bolted to the front will ensure maximum damage to a pedestrian who can't get out of your way. Good way to have negated 25 years of vehicle safety research and development though. Nice one.

But surely Limey's primary concern is the maximum safety of his motor and its occupants?

It surely is to me.

DirectDebacle

Harry_Flashman wrote: »

But surely Limey's primary concern is the maximum safety of his motor and its occupants?

It surely is to me.

In that case an approved FPS should be fitted.

optimus primera

Yeah, cos getting hit by a flat fonted 2 ton vehicle without a bull bar will be much safer .........

How did you learn a safe method for running pedestrians over. Was it trial and error or the voices in your head, that told you.

cyclonebri1

Kilty wrote: »

Not maximum acceleration but in the right car - plenty

A TDCI Mondeo is faster from 30-70 than a BMW 328i don't you know

Right car, wrong decision equals disaster;););););)

Overtake or brake?? not difficult

If it goes wrong you hit a slow car going in your direction or a fast one coming towards you. No brainer mate.

And again if it goes wrong imagine the legal/insurance issues.


Right side of road, car pulls out you can't avoid and hit his rear. Oncoming traffic witnesses this.

or

Your car pulls out to overtake at a junction and collides with an innocent car travelling in the opposite direction.

Which position would you rather be in??

OK, I'm playing devils advocate but it needs bearing in mind, drive carefully;)

Wig

skiddlydiddly wrote: »

Car coming towards you, another car suddenly pulls out in front of you.You can't brake enough to avoid hitting it up the ar** but putting your foot down going an exta 5mph would let you drive around on the other side of the road and still miss the oncoming car.Having to dip the clutch and pick a gear when you have no reference point takes time.

Thats one off the top of my head .

Sorry, but no, that makes no sense at all.

If a car were to pull out in front of you so that you had
'no time to brake' - And lets do a poll here, how many of us have had this happen and logically had to hit the back of that car? I haven't. - You also would not have any time casually change lanes, so logically you are saying you would have to violently change lanes with no time to check your mirrors - just hope for the best. But I could equally while coasting violently change lanes and (assuming I was in neutral) either my momentum would take me past the car that is now doing about 5mph or I could apply the brake and then move back in behind said car, whichever is most appropriate. Any other scenario and I dispute that you would have "no time to brake".

However I do coast with the clutch in so I am always just a few nano seconds away from being in gear anyway.

skiddlydiddly

Well my dad has had someone pull out in front of him before and he hit them as he couldn't slow down enough and they tried to blame him too, so it can happen.
Plus, I already said that in my example(not the best I agree)that there wasn't enough time to brake and that an additional 5mph would have got you past, coasting at the same speed wouldn't.Its fine to disagree with my example but try and keep to the parameters I used.

Wig

Keeping within your parameters, and keeping within my parameters, I would release the clutch apply accelerator simultaneously and be no different from you.

But you missed the point, the point was I could swerve out equally as you could and avoid a rear end collision in the first instance. It stands to reason that I am traveling a lot faster than the car who pulled out so I would go past. The problem is the car coming the other way. So applying sharp brakes now and then coming back onto my side of the road would be an option.

However (in the absence of braking) with the oncoming car at such speed and distance that a collision is inevitable unless you can apply accelerator and increase by 5mph instantaneously and subsequently violently swerve back onto the other side just before impact. I doubt anyone's first instinct in such a situation would be to apply throttle rather than brake. And you'll probably find the chap coming the other way also swerves right just as you do and you hit him anyway, like Bri said in such a situation I think I'd prefer the rear end of the girl in front (shes a girl right ) rather than risk a head on with the guy coming the other way.


And I just realised I am debating the "no control myth" contrary to what I said I would do. So apologies to anyone who is upset about that, there's not a lot I can do about it now.

Harry_Flashman

DirectDebacle wrote: »

In that case an approved FPS should be fitted.

What's FPS mate?