55MPH?

[crabbait]

Saw a piece in today's Oregonian saying that the administration could do something right now about the fuel situation: Change the limit back to 55mph.

What do you think about that concept?

[Chromaflage]

Road Rage!!!!

CrF

[brshooter]

They don't enforce what the speed limits are now. I don't think it will make a big difference. Some of us will obey, others won't regardless of the posted limit.

[Chrome Bumper]

Great idea, 55 and stay alive. At lower speeds lighter more fuel efficent cars would be safer among the SUV and truck behemoths people with small self esteems insist on driving to haul their single behinds around. This would reduce the money and blood we need to spill in the sands of oil producing countries to try to maintain our standard of living. Not to mention the reduction in CO2 emmissions, which will destroy our salmon habitat. Doubling or tripling the price of fuel would help modify peoples behaviour also. Don't call me a tree hugger either, I burn em in the woodstove, kind of a solar power thing.

[Norm]

It makes a 2-3 MPG difference in my truck, it's a pretty easy way to get a big impact. Although I hate driving slow, I would support it if it stops drilling in the arctic refuge.

[Pete]

I heard the story and the question I have is whether the fuel savings would come from better economy at slower speed or if driving slower would result in fewer total miles driven. My guess is it's the latter, which doesn't benefit users much, so the motivation to comply isn't significant enough to support the policy.

[mustang66]

I agree with Pete on the guess of fewer miles driven. I've checked out my car as far as miles/gallon at different speeds. My old mustang is best at around 60, while my fiancee's nissan is best at 70. (highway fuel economy)
I think it really depends on your individual vehicle.
Overall, I think road rage would be the overwhelming result.

[Chrome Bumper]

That's what the cruise control is for, reducing speed from 65 to 55 saves 20% and extends the life of the vehicle (it takes alot of energy to turn rocks and scrap into vehicles).

I want a diesel hybrid and low sulfur fuel. 2 liter displacement, 4WD with a clutch electric motor on the second axle. Should be good for 70 gpm city/highway with a highway speed of 50, and capable of towing a boat. Should be out in 2012? Feul at $8.25 9/10 per gallon. Let the arabs keep thier oil. Reducing length and frequency of trips helps too. How many vehicles do you see with more than 1 person on the morning commutes? 15%?

[GRUMPYR]

I believe the saying is "I'd drill through a sack of puppies if it meant the price of gas drops below $2.00" :grin:
G

[hartebreaK]

I cant believe anyone would even consider making this a law. If someone is sick of high gas prices then they can CHOOSE to drive slower if they want. I think lowering the speedlimit would cost everyone more money due to the fact that the number of speeding tickets would skyrocket. At a savings of 1-3mpg you can buy a whole lot of gas for the price of a $200 ticket, not to mention the insurance issue. Stupid idea.

[Chrome Bumper]

I've got a sack of puppies, but I don't think it will help.

[Chrome Bumper]

Enforce a 50 mph speed limit, fine the violators big time, lower property taxes, and get our children educated with the fines, easy. Works with liquor, cigerettes, and gambling. Would work with energy addicts too. Could also afford jails to house the road ragers and replace obsolete vehicles that are not fuel efficient.

[Cool Texan]

"I'd drill through a sack of puppies if it meant the price of gas drops below $2.00"

[Thumper]

It's called "social engineering". I just love it when somebody decides how I should live my life.

[Chrome Bumper]

social engineering or user's fees. Pay as you go.

[RvW]

Wow Chromeb, thats a lot to swallow in one sitting.

Silly Q:

So If the speed limit is reduced from 65 to 55 people will now actually DO 65 instead of 75?

Assuming so, How exactly does a trip that used to take an hour and now takes 70 minutes save any fuel? I'd think if the motor has to run an additional 10 minutes it needs to use fuel for that 10 minutes too doesnt it? I doubt a 10 MPH reduction would save any fuel at all.

Most motors get better fuel efficiency at greater consistant rates of speed right?
@ 55 MPH my toyota shifts back and forth from 4th gear to overdrive. Lower gears burn more fuel right?

Next Q...how does being on the hiway an additional 10 minutes an hour make you "safer" as oposed to an already established rate of speed that people are used to which gets you to your destination quicker?

Final Q
Did Ross Perot come up with this plan?


I think this is a folish plan compared to real solutions to real issues.

I think Gov is ignoring real options such as higher fuel taxes to fund more mass transit options, more carpool lanes, and tax breaks for people who own and drive vehicles with better EPA ratings and higher MPG numbers and more occupants. More reasonable legislation to encourage not only consumers to buy fuel efficient vehicles, but for manufacfturers to make them more available and appealing to the consumer. Local gov can initiate a parking tax in bigger cities, meter prices can go up to generate revenue for transportation options.

TOll booths can be set up on hiways with increased fares for single occupant vehicles. The list is endless.

Im glad theres millions of big SUVs and trucks with single occupants commuting to work every day...why? the less fuel we consume the more the prices go up and without the transportation options we need to keep from buying more fuel, the more it hurts people who really are effected by how much it costs to get from point a to point b as oposed to those who are merely inconveinienced by how much it costs in a ford excursion to do it.

I guess there is one benefit to a reduced speed limit. Maybe those hybrids over in the right lane already doing 55 will get more looks.

[Otolith]

Nobody in Portland drives over 50 anyways, so I don't think it will have an impact.

[Cool Texan]

How exactly does a trip that used to take an hour and now takes 70 minutes save any fuel? I'd think if the motor has to run an additional 10 minutes it needs to use fuel for that 10 minutes too doesnt it? I doubt a 10 MPH reduction would save any fuel at all.

Its not a function of time, but distance...which is constant. So yes, it takes you longer, but you do it with lower engine work....thus fuel savings.

[Chrome Bumper]

Silly Q:

So If the speed limit is reduced from 65 to 55 people will now actually DO 65 instead of 75?

Reduce it to 50, 55 is jail time, I think people would slow down.

Assuming so, How exactly does a trip that used to take an hour and now takes 70 minutes save any fuel? I'd think if the motor has to run an additional 10 minutes it needs to use fuel for that 10 minutes too doesnt it? I doubt a 10 MPH reduction would save any fuel at all.

With a hybrid the motor does not constantly run, reduced speeds reduce loads which reduce fuel consumption. Energy expended moving air around increased in proportion to the square of the speed, Go 1/2 as fast you use energy at 1/4 the rate and take twice as long resulting in a 50% energy saving. Good question.

Most motors get better fuel efficiency at greater consistant rates of speed right?
@ 55 MPH my toyota shifts back and forth from 4th gear to overdrive. Lower gears burn more fuel right?

Internal combustion gasoline engines get best efficiency near rated horsepower, which is typically near thier redline speed, hence better efficiency with smaller displacements. Your toyota's transmission design is obsolete, it overall the vehicle is not designed for good fuel efficiency.

Final Q
Did Ross Perot come up with this plan?

No this plan came from a bored engineer.

I think this is a folish plan compared to real solutions to real issues.

Global warming, the war on terror, road safety, the need for tranportation and limited energy sources are real issues

I think Gov is ignoring real options such as higher fuel taxes to fund more mass transit options, more carpool lanes, and tax breaks for people who own and drive vehicles with better EPA ratings and higher MPG numbers and more occupants. More reasonable legislation to encourage not only consumers to buy fuel efficient vehicles, but for manufacfturers to make them more available and appealing to the consumer. Local gov can initiate a parking tax in bigger cities, meter prices can go up to generate revenue for transportation options

Ya, that's a start. I would love to ride the rails that now exist between my home and place of work.

TOll booths can be set up on hiways with increased fares for single occupant vehicles. The list is endless.

I hate toll booths, of course they can be built into the vehicle and road and automated so you don't have to stop

Im glad theres millions of big SUVs and trucks with single occupants commuting to work every day...why? the less fuel we consume the more the prices go up and without the transportation options we need to keep from buying more fuel, the more it hurts people who really are effected by how much it costs to get from point a to point b as oposed to those who are merely inconveinienced by how much it costs in a ford excursion to do it.

Keynsian economics does not agree with you there. Price increases with demands. Remove the excursions and the price will fall with the demand.

I guess there is one benefit to a reduced speed limit. Maybe those hybrids over in the right lane already doing 55 will get more looks.

The hybrids will be in the left lane passing the fuel cell motorcycles.

Oh oh 4 o'clock, salmon bonkin' time

[Norm]

Final Q
Did Ross Perot come up with this plan?

No it was Carter, remember the last time we had a real energy policy?

[Jennie@ifish]

Pete likes to drive fast, though... so I dunno about his ideas. :smile:

I think it's a great idea. What's everyone in such a hurry for?

Jen

[RvW]

Im just assuming here CT, shooting from the hip, but it would be my guess that at a rate of speed of at least 55, and no more than 65, the difference in engine "labor" would be insignificant compared to increased travel time with the engine running.

Im guessing its all a wash. The RPMs of an engine at 55 might save drops of fuel compared to 65, and then you have to consider the addition run time of the motor.
I think it compares to putting a smaller prop on a boat in an attempt to save fuel. It doesnt work.
But, for the second time in my life, I could be wrong.

[Chrome Bumper]

Im just assuming here CT, shooting from the hip, but it would be my guess that at a rate of speed of at least 55, and no more than 65, the difference in engine "labor" would be insignificant compared to increased travel time with the engine running.

Im guessing its all a wash. The RPMs of an engine at 55 might save drops of fuel compared to 65, and then you have to consider the addition run time of the motor.
I think it compares to putting a smaller prop on a boat in an attempt to save fuel. It doesnt work.
But, for the second time in my life, I could be wrong.

Studies indicates a 20% increase in mpg when the operating speed is reduced from 65 to 55 mph with existing vehicles. The fuel my car doesn't burn going 55 instead of 65 fuels my honda outboard. Oh MC is calling, conditions look great, hope I find a biter.

[slugbait]

Milage vs speed is different for every vehicle, In my pickup from 55-65 their is a difference in milage, in my wifes cherokee there is not. Anyone remember when the 55 mph speed limit was first introduced? It was called the ecology law or something along those lines, it was intended to reduce fuel consuption. I have a cousin who beat 13 speeding tickets with a letter from Porche stating his 356 got better milage at 75 than a 55, which it did.

[GRUMPYR]

Maybe we need to look at this from a supply side perspective.
We already have the troops in place in the Midlle East so lets just seize the supply and send it to our side. We could still send some to China but I'm afraid we will have to charge them "out the ying yang" :shocked:. Everyone else can just line up for seconds. Rhiad can be the 51'st state. Then we can ship them some of our un-documented laborers from south-o-de-border to mow thier grass and clean thier pools.
Why not Global Domination? We didn't build all of those pretty nukes just to sit in storage!!! Oh wait, yes we did. My bad! :whazzup:
Calm down, deep breaths...
I feel better now.
G

[The Chub]

If you want to drive 55, go right ahead. I am so tired of people trying to push their ideas on the masses lately!

[hartebreaK]

chub, exactly my thoughts.

[Salmonator]

My suburban gets SIGNIFICANTLY better mileage at 55 compared to 70. At $2.60 a gallon for diesel, I now drive slower than I ever have in my life.

[Jennie@ifish]

It's called "social engineering". I just love it when somebody decides how I should live my life.

We all love you so much, Thumper. We just want to take care of you!

Jen

[someguy29187]

I graduate in less then a month from High School and this is the mess you old people leave me with...thanks, thats a real nice graduation present.

Here's an idea write your congressmen and tell them to introduce a bill that would give a billion dollar incentive to one of the big three American automakers. The incentive would go to the first American company (my money is on GM) to make the first hydrogen fueled car. The theroy sounds hard but it's really easy, hydrogen acts exactly the same as gasoline, the only problem is fuel storage it takes up to much space. However the big three are close to a solution. Imagine a suburban that looks the same except the Vortec engine under the hood is fueled by hydrogen, we are within ten years of seeing this, if we give the big three a reason to change over to hydrogen. Another plus is it's very simple to convert existing gas stations and the existing gasoline infastructure to handle hydrogen. So another billion dollar incentive should be given to the first American oil company to convert their system to produce and distribute hydrogen fuel. By the way the whole use fines to pay for school funding...I learned that all last year in my Chemistry class, plus a little from my Government class.

[Thumper]

I graduate in less then a month from High School and this is the mess you old people leave me with...thanks, thats a real nice graduation present.

Yep, it's your problem now. But you oughta see the mess our folks left us. This is nothing, my boy.

[duckboy]

You guys are forgetting something, wind resistance.

Remember that the amount of energy expended to move a car 1 mile at 55 mph and 1 mile at 65 are exactly the same (when there is no wind resistance).

As your vehicle increases in speed, the amouont of force it must exert to move through the air must also increase.

That is why it takes less energy to move 1 mile at 55mph than at 65 mph.

[Cool Texan]

The incentive would go to the first American company (my money is on GM) to make the first hydrogen fueled car.

I heard they're making a hydrogen powered Pinto...

[RvW]

Now thats funny right there, I dont care who y'are

Well, at ducks age I doubt any humor was found. You had to be there duck. Enjoy your youth!

[DanS]

If a dude wants to pay to drive 65 or 70, let him. You want to save money by driving 55? Then move right and take it easy, my man.

But what's next...........you can only buy 12 2x4's? I mean, any more than that and you'd be depleting more than your share of the resource, right?

Preposterous.

[backlash442]

A billion? GM just lost that in 3 months. Gonna take a heck of a lot more than that to get them motivated.

As for the oil companies they couldn't be happier. Making more money than ever before. Record profits every quarter. Funny how that works....higher the price of oil the higher their profits.

[Norski]

You all have given me some insight here, but I have (1) problem, I CAN'T DRIVE-----55 IT'S BORING.

[Chrome Bumper]

Sorry someguy2987 hydrogen is not the solution. (I graduated from Hillsboro in the 70's) It takes energy to make hydrogen, from hydrocarbons, water etc. This energy must come from another source, oil, elctricity (from a power plant) etc. And energy is lost in the process. No free lunch here.

Maybe you want to go to the middle east as grumpyr suggests. And China to as they might not enjoy being "dominated" any more than when Japan was there. I went to Iraq in 03 and the mess there would make you appreciate the gifts you have been granted here, wasn't very clean. I will be in Beijing this summer, that town is more fun, what with fishing for fancy goldfish in the pond at the imperial temple and all. World war three so we can drive big cars really fast, great.

Maybe we need to look at this from a supply side perspective.
We already have the troops in place in the Midlle East so lets just seize the supply and send it to our side. We could still send some to China but I'm afraid we will have to charge them "out the ying yang" . Everyone else can just line up for seconds. Rhiad can be the 51'st state. Then we can ship them some of our un-documented laborers from south-o-de-border to mow thier grass and clean thier pools.

Oh by the way Grumyr, they already have workers from the south of their border to clean pools in Ryad.

I can drive 55, I can walk at 3 too. Ya, prez is an oil man, oil companies make dough, follow the money.

[skybuster]

Actually the computer in my truck tells me that I get the best mileage at just under 2000 RPM's and at right about 70 MPH. In my van I have actually found about the same to be true. The van will get 19.7 MPG on the highway at 70 MPH, and the truck will get 17.6 MPG on the highway at 70 MPH, so that is pretty much where I set the cruise control when I am in an area that it is suitable for.

I have found that especially in the truck it doesn't like to cruise at 55 very well. The engine lugs a little and the transmission works harder as it is shifting more often.

[Chrome Bumper]

Duckboy the rolling resistance of an auto increases with velocity also.

[Chrome Bumper]

Skybuster that is typical for a 5+ liter engine, auto trans in a 3 ton vehicle. How many tons of cargo have you hauled this week?

I've got a big van too, love it. Can drive it all day with out my rear getting numb or back hurting. Tows great, good visibility, feels safe. I does drive well at 50-55

Ninety percent of my driving I am alone with maybe 50 lbs of cargo, do I really need a 3 ton 4 wheel drive vehicle to this, no. I ussually drive the taurus, which can go pretty darn fast (it has the police package from 94) it also goes 50-55 well.

When I can get a good used nice looking diesel hybrid that get 70 mpg for under 3 grand I am gonna jump on it though.

[skybuster]

Actually the truck is a diesel and most of its driving is to haul trailers. The van is used for work and doesn't haul a lot of cargo unless you count my 240 pounds, plus about another 40-50 pounds of equipment. The engine in the van is actually a 4.6L I believe.

My profession requires me to be in Bellingham, WA one day and then Klamath Falls 2 days later, and then back over to Kennewick to finish out the trip. You guys that commute 20 miles a day have a good point about how 10 miles an hour difference doesn't save enough time for you. When you commute 400 miles a day, 10-15 miles an hour can shave an hour off your workday.

[Tilla]

55.....been there done that.....of course I was driving a 53 Willy's station wagon with an F head 4 cyl. About 48 MPH was enough for her! :grin:

[Ryan Pultz]

Dab and I drove to the mac and over to sisters on Sunday the trip we averaged about 65 to 70 and my 2002 ford focus got 39 miles per gallon on the way home. that’s an 6 mpg increase from out daily driving so I say if you want to drive 55 then drive 55 if your card does better at fast speeds then vroom vroom! rp

[Penobscot]

The problem with the hydrogen solution is this:
The automakers rely on the oil companies and the steelmakers
who rely on the automakers and the oil companies who rely on the steelmakers and the automakers. Three huge industries who make a killing by all working together, to supply our demand. None are about to break up the love triangle. Now if any of the three were to suffer significant long term losses, the effects on the economy, which affects everyone would be devastating. There is not an easy solution.

[Chrome Bumper]

Skybuster the folks in North Dakota and Montana have similar issues. Long distance and limited time, actually using thier trucks to haul stuff.

More fuel efficent better designed vehicles, high surcharges to generate revenue for alternate ttransportation and discourage waste woould be a place to start. This won't happen without a good energy policy.

Hydrogen won't help, it is a smoke screen since it takes energy to generate hydrogen.

Currently signs of global warming are everywhere, with a major cause being automobiles. We can't stop it but we can reduce it's effects. We are sending billion of dollars and our young to people who consider us second rate hired help and would like to see us dead. The reason for this is our dependence on foriegn oil.

We need a landmark energy policy, we have come a long way with our environment, and we need to keep moving foward.

Part of this policy should include reducing fuel consumtion by directing people to drive slower. If your vehicle doesn't run well at lower speeds it should be repaired, modified or scrapped. Lower speeds will also allow lighter fuel efficient vehicles to operate around older heavy vehicle with more safety since accidents do happen.

The details, such as exceptions for farm and commercial vehicles will need to be worked out. Also alternate transportation is required. How bout if you can put your car on amtrak in Bellingham and ride to K Falls and kenniwick for the price of a tank of fuel? They got a nice diner car.

A good first step to protecting our enviroment, future and economy would be to reduce the speed limit to 55 here in the Willemette Valley.

[Jennie@ifish]

I've started to just call a tow truck every time I need to drive somewhere. I'm not broken down. It's just cheaper than buying gas.

[GRUMPYR]

Oh by the way Grumyr, they already have workers from the south of their border to clean pools in Ryad.

I meant south of our border.
The one common theme throughout this thread seems to be that everyone has a unique situation that renders the simplistic solution ineffective.
More Mass Transit? Sorry, my commute doesn't fit that model.
55 MPH Speed limit? OK for urbanites but what about the folks who live in Montana and have to drive 200 miles just to buy gas?
Hybrid Cars? Sure they're more efficient for short trips but they have small payloads and cost a lot $$$.
Or is it? Time/Space travel? Not invented yet.
As for those who would have some Bureaucrat devise a solution and then impose the results onto everyone else? I'm afraid you weren't paying attention in school during American History Week. One size never fits all.
my $0.02
G

[skybuster]

The problem with the current train system is that it would take about twice as long to go by train. My dad actually worked on a small project a few years back that looked at the possibility of a high speed train between the Seattle area and down to about Eugene. Imagine going from Portland to Seattle in about 45 minutes!

Americans like the convenience of their cars and unless a more attractive alternative is offered we aren't going to change. Offer a guy the alternative to hop on a train and make it to Everett, WA in 45 minutes through rush hour traffic and I am in. That drive would normally take at least 3-4 hours.

[skahorse]

Mass transit sucks. My office recently got transplanted to the Lloyd district, from Beaverton. I live in Hillsboro I tried the MAX route for about 3 months, total one-way trip time was about 1:15. After getting sick of the people one must put up with riding through the "fareless" square, I decided to drive the Honda Civic in. Total one way trip time, :35. (driving at 6:00am, and 3:00pm). The kicker of it all... 1 month bus pass, $60. 1 month of gas, $60. Not only did it not save me any money, it took more time, and I was stuck to the trains schedule, and location whenever I wanted to go anywhere. It just plain sucked.

Now, if they would institute some type of hi-speed train, that stops at say 185th, downtown, eastside downtown, and 181st. Think of how fast that would go! I would literally be at work in 10 minutes. Now that would be worth it.

Currently signs of global warming are everywhere, with a major cause being automobiles.

:lurk:



--Skahorse

[skybuster]

Your right. My dad works for MAX and he is critical of the way the whole system is designed. The problem with Portland's rail system is that it runs on the same streets as cars do. Instead of helping traffic flow those trains actually cause about as many problems as they cure. Just look at the Interstate line. It was a total waste of money. That area was served very well by buses, but now we spent a bunch of money to convert it into one lane each way with trains down the middle. The buses were doing fine.

They are going to keep adding on to MAX and it is not a good system. I had a free pass for many years on Tri-Met and pretty much only used it to get to the Rose Garden so I wouldn't have to pay for parking. High speed trains would definitely be an option I would try if they were available.

[The Chub]

Kind of like how they killed any kind of lane increase on the banfield with Max. We need a Monorail system!

[Chrome Bumper]

As for those who would have some Bureaucrat devise a solution and then impose the results onto everyone else? I'm afraid you weren't paying attention in school during American History Week. One size never fits all.
my $0.02

Have you noticed the ranges of insect moving north, the earlier springs, albacore closer to shore or the vanishing glaciers? Global warming is here, check the geological record, and american history.


Bureaucratic devices have given us cleaner safer more efficient cars, cleaner rivers, a few wild salmon, saved the bald eagle, collected money and people to defend our freedom and developed lifesaving medical procedures. It is time to use them to reduce the impact of our society on the enviroment and dependency on foriegn oil. The survival of our society depends on it.

BTW MIT is having a time space travel conference last year in Boston, you are welcome to attend.

Maybe the folks in Montana can grow thier own fuel right there on the farm and not drive 200 miles to get some store bought gas, and sell the excess.

I don't want to send my children to the desert so people can exercise thier 'right' to drive gas hogs about willy nilly. $5 tax per gallon of gas, if you can't or chose not to conserve, you pay, unless you have a legitimate reason not to.

There are also abandoned rail right of ways all over that currently just grow blackberries.

[duckboy]

Sorry someguy2987 hydrogen is not the solution. (I graduated from Hillsboro in the 70's) It takes energy to make hydrogen, from hydrocarbons, water etc. This energy must come from another source, oil, elctricity (from a power plant) etc. And energy is lost in the process. No free lunch here.

We used to make H Bombs in Jr High school with Chunks of Zinc and drop them into a bottle of Hydrochloric acid.

We would tape a glad bag to the bottle to catch the gas as it was generated.

We accidentally blew out a window of my friends garage when we went outside and lit the bag.

Shook the whole neighborhood.

[slugbait]

I've got it I've got it
The teleporter. No car, no oil, and short commute time. Beam me up Scotty.

[1pump]

I grew up and learned to drive during the OPEC embargo of the 70's. What misery. Nothing was worse that driving from PDX to LA at 55 mph.
But I could understand it back then. Cars and pickups were heavy, with 3-speed autos or 4-speed manuals and low rearend ratios that caused them to buzz along at 3000 rpm on the freeway. Not to mention the low compression ratios and the crude smog equipment back then. No wonder we sucked gas. Complaining about your Suburban getting 12-15 mpg? No way a Suburban in 1975 would get anything close to that. Maybe 8 on a good day.
Now we have 4 and 5-speed automatics, lockup torque converters, high compression engines that run on regular unleaded, and computer controls that keep your engine in perfect tune for 100K miles or more. Slowing down to by 10 mph isn't gonna help like it did in the mid-70's. I don't buy that for a second.
There's more than enough blame to go around for oil prices. You can blame me, since I work for one of the biggest oil refiners in the country. I'll probably get a big fat profit-sharing bonus at the end of the year, but I won't feel real good about it. I'll need it to buy gas.
My favorite scapegoat is the government and their foreign policy, especially toward the Arabs and OPEC. It needs to start there.

[24 on/ 48 off]

Here's my take on this.......

YOU may be a good driver at 65+ mph

and

Your family and friends may be good drivers at 65+ mph.

But I can tell ya this: There are a lot of people who aren't.

That's what causes bad crashes.