We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.

This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.

📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
The Forum now has a brand new text editor, adding a bunch of handy features to use when creating posts. Read more in our how-to guide

MPH and Gear Ratios - Audi

13

Comments

  • vaio
    vaio Posts: 12,287 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 15 June 2011 at 11:59AM
    Yep, and it’s a big effect too, if a car travelling at 50 mph needs 30 horse power to maintain the speed then the same car needs eight times the power so 240 horse power to cruse at 100 mph.

    On the 85 being more economical than 75, as per my post above about max efficiency “sweet spot” it is possible if moving from 75 to 85 brings the engine from a less to a more efficient operating point although in practice it’s only really likely to be true on a very highly tuned engine with a narrow power band and hence a very steep slope away from the sweet spot.

    On a normal road car any efficiency gain is likely going to be swamped by the increased drag (15% more speed needs [STRIKE]120%[/STRIKE] 52% more power)
  • Bongles
    Bongles Posts: 248 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    vaio wrote: »
    On a normal road car any efficiency gain is likely going to be swamped by the increased drag (15% more speed needs 120% more power)

    ?

    Your previous example was a cube relationship - double the speed requires 8 times the power. By the same relationship, 15% more speed would need 52% more power, not 120%...
  • vaio
    vaio Posts: 12,287 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    edited 15 June 2011 at 12:01PM
    Bongles wrote: »
    ?

    Your previous example was a cube relationship - double the speed requires 8 times the power. By the same relationship, 15% more speed would need 52% more power, not 120%...

    ??

    It’s been many years since I last did fluid mechanics in school but I thought…….

    [STRIKE]
    50 to 100 is 100% more speed times eight so 800% more power

    75 to 85 is 15% more speed times eight so 120% more power
    [/STRIKE]
  • spikyone
    spikyone Posts: 456 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    edited 15 June 2011 at 11:42AM
    vaio wrote: »
    ??

    It’s been many years since I last did fluid mechanics in school but I thought…….

    50 to 100 is 100% more speed times eight so 800% more power

    75 to 85 is 15% more speed times eight so 120% more power

    75 to 85 is 1.15 x the speed

    1.15^3 is 1.52 x the power

    So 52% more is right - you can't multiply 15 by 8 to get your answer.

    EDIT: and for your first example, it is 2x the speed, where 2^3 = 8, you need 8 times the power, not 800% more power (which would be 900% of the original power). You need to look at multiples, not percentages :)
  • spikyone
    spikyone Posts: 456 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture Combo Breaker
    FWIW the cubic relationship is correct:

    Aerodynamic drag force = 0.5 * ρ * Cd * A * v^2

    Where
    ρ = air density
    Cd = drag co-efficient
    A = frontal area
    v = speed

    So drag force is related to speed squared, and...

    Power = Force * speed

    ...giving the cubic relationship.
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    leosayer wrote: »
    How can 85mph be more economical than 70mph?
    IMO it can only really be 1.) Going down hill, more kinetic enrgy and 2.) Going up the other side, as you may be in or above peak torque, until you have to start making the engine work again.

    Heard a discussion on the radio re possible increase in Motorway Speeds recently, a contributor was adamant his high spec auto wouldn't actually change up until he was well over the limit and that it was more economical to actual keep that speed when it did. :rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl::rotfl:
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • grizzly1911
    grizzly1911 Posts: 9,965 Forumite
    spikyone wrote: »
    FWIW the cubic relationship is correct:

    Aerodynamic drag force = 0.5 * ρ * Cd * A * v^2

    Where
    ρ = air density
    Cd = drag co-efficient
    A = frontal area
    v = speed

    So drag force is related to speed squared, and...

    Power = Force * speed

    ...giving the cubic relationship.
    Off thread I know but it is worse with boats/ships as the drag becomes almost impossible unless it comes out of the water of course. Don't they hit a "brick wall" around 30 ish Knots require ridiculous increase in of power and fuel to take them faster?
    "If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....

    "big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham
  • jeferey
    jeferey Posts: 4,300 Forumite
    Mortgage-free Glee!
    leosayer wrote: »
    How can 85mph be more economical than 70mph?
    It can't 99% of the time in a normal car under normal conditions, this is from the states but the same hold true in the UK.
    In the June special edition (No. 1165) of Auto Express there was an interesting 24 page section on saving dosh which included how to use less fuel. They used a Honda Civic 1.8 and set a benchmark of 49mpg and got 3 readers to have a go and then gave them tips on how to improve.
    Usual advice - conserve momentum, anticipating the road ahead and traffic lights, using the brakes less, slow down, decluttering, use aircon at faster speeds only. Also interestingly removing a boot spoiler on a Vauxhall which they said would be costing fuel, particularly at higher speeds. The readers got between 39 and 45mpg!
    Thay also did a test at a constant speed with a Laguna round a banked track at 60, 70 and 80mph, the results were as you would expect - 47.7, 40.2 and 33.1mpg - hell of a difference though, 44% more fuel used at 80mph compared to 60mph icon_e_surprised.gif
    If at first you don't succeed, try, try, try - oh bu99er that just cheat :D
  • vaio
    vaio Posts: 12,287 Forumite
    Part of the Furniture 10,000 Posts Combo Breaker
    Off thread I know but it is worse with boats/ships as the drag becomes almost impossible unless it comes out of the water of course. Don't they hit a "brick wall" around 30 ish Knots require ridiculous increase in of power and fuel to take them faster?

    Not off thread at all (or a least no more off thread than others)

    I’d guess the same relationship applies to boats, the density of the fluid changes but the drag is still going to be related to the cube of the speed so to double the speed you need eight times the power.

    Fast boats are designed to “plane” which means the hull rises up out of the water as you go faster and ideally is just skimming the surface. This will have the expected dramatic reduction on drag (and can be very dramatic if they get it wrong as boats become planes)

    Something similar also happened with a car at the Le Mans 24 hour a couple of years, google will throw up lots of example of flying boats & cars

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLYIWY00X8M

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h0t5juiDfr8

    drag & aerodynamics generally is a very powerful force
  • Lawman99
    Lawman99 Posts: 14 Forumite
    Well i started a bit of a debate there! Thanks for all the help and advice.
    Its a 1.9 tdi A4 5 speed and at 70mph Im doing just over 2350 rpm in 5th. The sweet spot of the engine seems to be around 1900 rpm.
    It would just feel altogether better with a bigger ratio
    (sorry for the dealy in responding as i could not log in on my desk top- just tried it on on lap top and bingo !
    Hi, we’ve had to remove your signature. If you’re not sure why please read the forum rules or email the forum team if you’re still unsure - MSE ForumTeam
This discussion has been closed.
Meet your Ambassadors

🚀 Getting Started

Hi new member!

Our Getting Started Guide will help you get the most out of the Forum

Categories

  • All Categories
  • 353.9K Banking & Borrowing
  • 254.3K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
  • 455.2K Spending & Discounts
  • 247K Work, Benefits & Business
  • 603.6K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
  • 178.3K Life & Family
  • 261.1K Travel & Transport
  • 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
  • 16.1K Discuss & Feedback
  • 37.7K Read-Only Boards

Is this how you want to be seen?

We see you are using a default avatar. It takes only a few seconds to pick a picture.