from the Wir-fahr'n-fahr'n-fahr'n-auf-der-Autobahn dept.
Brought to the floor by Senator John Moorlach of Orange County, SB-319 would direct the state's Department of Transportation to build two unlimited speed lanes on each side of Interstate 5 and State Route 99, the main north-south arteries linking cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sacramento. The sections of the roadways in question run straight through the supremely flat Central Valley, making for ideal high-speed driving conditions.
Perhaps paradoxically, California's answer to the German autobahn would be paid for by the state's Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund. The text of SB-319 points out that the recent collapse of California's ambitious plan for a bullet train between Los Angeles and San Francisco, which was originally intended to trace the same route as the proposed unlimited speed lanes, has left residents without "access to high-speed, unabated transportation across the state."
http://www.thedrive.com/news/26554/california-might-add-lanes-with-no-speed-limits-to-major-highways
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 19 2019, @11:44PM (10 children)
Sane automotive legislation from CA? Not gonna happen.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:28AM (9 children)
A single lane of unlimited speed? So you go from one lane over where you're limited to 65MPH (if you're lucky) and have to accelerate before the guy 2 miles back doing 200MPH in the lane can hopefully react and slow down enough to avoid plowing into you. At least the German autobahns generally have progressively faster traffic over in the fast lanes, so you can use other lanes to come up to (and down to) appropriate speed before you move into (out of) the unlimited lanes.
And in CA (ie. not Germany), where idiot drivers abound that can't even merge properly, where do you go when some clown in front of you doing 55 decides to move into the 'unlimited' lane to overtake someone doing 54 one lane over - while you're coming up behind them at 200, close enough that even full anchors isn't going to slow you down below 150 before you reach the multi-lane 'blockade'?
Even if you made it a divided carriageway for that lane, there will still be choke points where you need special mid-speed min/max speed limit lanes to come up to speed to safely merge into the 'fast lane' where the slowest cars are doing 120+MPH.
(Score: 3, Informative) by fyngyrz on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:57AM (3 children)
From TFS, emphasis mine:
So, no.
Speaking as someone who drove in Montana all the years the speed limit was defined as "reasonable and prudent" during the day, which turned out to be measurably safer [motorists.org], and has also driven in California, where the [apparently batshit insane] drivers hover within a car length or so of each other's bumpers at freeway speeds... the number of lanes isn't going to be the actual issue here.
--
After my girl turned vegan, it was
like I'd never seen herbivore.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by pipedwho on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:41AM (2 children)
Two extra each side is reasonable. The difference with 'reasonable and prudent' speeds is that the entire carriageway is moving together. In CA, keeping the usual speed limit on some lanes, and then having a couple suddenly go unlimited means that people are no longer moving 'together'. It also implies there are no 'zero-skill' drivers on the road that will do something stupid to cause a pile up.
And I agree completely with you regarding the 'reasonable and prudent' rule with no actual limit. It means people are paying attention to their surroundings and not staring at the speedo worried about accidentally creeping a little over the limit and getting done at the next speed trap.
And on crowded roads, speed limits mean nothing since you're crawling along anyway. Infuriatingly, here in Sydney, we have variable speed limits all over the place. So people are constantly driving like idiots trying to speed up and slow down when/where it would normally make no sense (except to avoid being fined by a revenue camera). No real improvement on the accident rate beyond everything else done that is not speed related, but a big improvement to revenue haul from the cameras they put everywhere.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:09PM (1 child)
>It also implies there are no 'zero-skill' drivers on the road that will do something stupid to cause a pile up.
How do you figure? We already know the Dunning-Kruger effect is particularly strong among drivers, so I'd bet good money that there will be plenty of people who like speed, or are just in a hurry, driving well beyond their actual ability. One of the things that makes the German autobahn work is actually rigorous driving tests before you can get your license - the American standard of "you didn't completely fail to memorize and apply the most basic aspects of driving knowledge" seems unlikely to cut it.
Another interesting detail would be how they are connected with the normal highway - just adding a couple more lanes seems like it would be asking for trouble, not least of which because everyone knows the outermost lanes are the slowest. But also because you don't want normal drivers to be tempted to get on the autobahn to circumvent a traffic jam. Occasional transfer "ramps" seem like the best idea - presumably with warning marks on the autobahn at least a mile or two in advance so that drivers know there will likely be a slow patch coming up.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bob_super on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:24PM
> We already know the Dunning-Kruger effect is particularly strong among drivers
And they are not helped by car ads and reviews. Case in point : spent an hour, two days in a row, having to clear the mess that resulted from drivers who clearly didn't know that an iced-over windy mountain road with banked turns does require proper equipment and driving technique.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:09AM (4 children)
How many cars, or even motorcycles, do you think can run 200 mph? Yeah, they're out there, but there aren't so many that you have to worry about them much. More and more vehicles are capped between 95 and 110 mph. In all my life, I've only owned two cars that would run over 140 - one did about 143 or 144, the other would sit at right about 148. Motorcycles? I've flirted with that 200 mile mark, but never reached it.
What you need to worry about, in California, is the fog. Californians were having pile ups on their highways when the national speed limit was 55. At speeds over 100, the potential carnage when a fog bank rolls in is almost unthinkable. I'm not a nascar fan, but watching some of their more infamous crashes is informative. Things just keep rolling, tumbling, and smashing into stuff long after the initial impact.
If Cal builds an autobahn, they better adopt the attitude of Germans who drive their autobahn. They don't want a drinks holder, no entertainment system, no comforts. At those speeds, your attention is 100% on the road, or you die. No texting, people. Doesn't matter how wide and straight and flat your travel lane is - if you take your eyes off the road, you're out of your lane, and quite possibly out of this life.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:52AM (1 child)
Agree...in the central valley the tule fog in winter can be a real killer. People are used to driving 80~90 mph on that highway which is fine spring to fall. However it seems every winter there are big pile-ups on I-5. This guy Moorlach is batshit crazy if he thinks this is a good idea. Wonder how many times he's been been pulled over for going over 90 on I-5 going back and forth between Orange County and Sacramento?
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:51PM
Well, you could potentially close the autobahn whenever fog is present, or just all winter to be on the safe side. That's one of the benefits of it being an auxiliary roadway. Drops the expected ROI by ~25% though.
I've got a real problem with funding it from the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund though - the entire point is to let people drive faster, which means the trip is less efficient *and* more appealing, and will thus predictably increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially.
Sure, the abandonment of the bullet train plan means residents won't have high-speed transportation across the state - but a bullet train is dramatically more efficient than an automobile per passenger-mile, while the speed offers incentive to passengers to take the train rather than driving.
The only way I could see to even begin to reconcile the fundamental discrepancy in results is if the autobahn were restricted to only high-efficiency vehicles - e.g. motorcycles and electric cars. But then you've got the whole population subsidizing a massive fast-lane available primarily to the rich and reckless. Hardly seems like a good use of government funds.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Username on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:53PM
2019 is the last year of the department of transportation's intelligent transportation systems pilot project. You will see mandates coming soon for vehicle to vehicle and vehicle to infrastructure communications systems soon. Pretty sure these new lanes are going to coincide with, and require the use of these systems. Basically what these systems will do is broadcast the information being sent to your vehicles blackbox, letting everyone else know your location, speed, direction and probably whether or not your airbags have deployed.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:03PM
Writing this from actual southern Germany - Autobahn is generally kind of full and the unlimited speed is not really unlimited. Most sections are limited to 120 and sometimes even 80 (km/h, btw, you do your conversions).
And you have like 3 lanes and sometimes that can be even 2 lanes of traffic (each direction). Even at night, with lighter traffic, the right lanes is almost exclusively trucks going 80 (they are mandated to right lane and speed) and then middle lane is buses (limited to 100) and cars going maybe 120. The left lane can have people going maybe 160 or 180 (again, km/h)... and they have to watch from people moving over from middle lane to take over slower traffic which is far cry of the "unlimited" spouted around.
In Germany, if you want to go fast and not fly, you go on the train.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Germany [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:21AM (6 children)
I drove LA-SF route more than 7000% of the you lot, but never ever heard of route 99.
Enlighten me.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Sulla on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:29AM (3 children)
It's fuckin' awful thats what it is. Recently had to go down to California from up in Oregon while towing a 20ft trailer. Simple task right? Wrong. California is a hellhole.
The plan was to get to Porterville, the question was how. I didn't want to be taking a trailer through any major cities, so we figured it would be a whole lot easier to peel off from i5 as far north as possible and then take 99. My assumption was that both roads would be pretty good because in Oregon i5 and 99 are good, I made an ass of you and me. Endless construction, endless potholes, areas repaired were worse. It was impossible to merge and impossible to pass. California has a speed limit of 55 when towing, regardless of the vehicle or trailer being towed. Washboard roads the entire way from Chico to Porterville.
On the way back we were considering adding another day to our trip and going East as fast as possible to Nevada, but ended up making it straight for i5 and headed north. As soon as we got to the interstate and found federal funding, we encountered a fairly easy and pleasant trip north with the exception of the cities and their lanes so narrow a trailer barely fits. Anyone who thinks the federal government is inept need consider that California makes the federal government look efficient.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:13AM (1 child)
This is because 99 is a state route that runs through towns. It has the classic look of "freeways 1.0" that were built before the Interstates. In congested areas you've got interchanges that were designed so they wouldn't have to condemn too much land inside a city, and of course it's rather old so as you noticed it's got maintenance issues. What it does have going for it is an extra lane so you're a little less likely to get stuck behind rolling road blocks of people who think that the left lane is for cruising side-by-side with vehicles going slightly under the limit. OTOH, it's got a reputation for being dangerous.
(Score: 1) by Sulla on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:48AM
My concern was not that it would slow down for towns, this is normal to me as i live in Oregon. I was more bothered by how incredibly terrible the road conditions were.
Ceterum censeo Sinae esse delendam
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:15AM
As a trucker, I could have told you that staying on the interstates would be better in the long run. Put the rig in gear, settle into the seat, and keep an eye all around at all times. Stop for fuel, rinse and repeat. Even US highways often meander through little hick towns, wearing out your calm and patience, not to mention your clutch leg. Worse, those highways that pass through towns often put signs up that trucks are forbidden, and they shunt you onto even more neglected cow trails, with stop lights or stop signs every 1/4 mile. If an interstate highway runs anywhere close to where you want to go, just stay on it.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:32AM
Look at a map, you ignorant clod. 99 is the "other" way down the central valley to LA from Sacramento. It's the route of the original highway before I-5 was built. It's five miles longer than I-5 but I find it to be a more relaxing way to get there. It also keeps me awake when I'm tired because the road is not as straight.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by captain normal on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:01AM
Before I-5 was built Highway 99 was the main route between LA and Sacramento. It is still there and sometimes you can make better time using it between Modesto and Sacramento because of the I-5 - I-580 mess around Stockton and Tracy.
When life isn't going right, go left.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:28AM (2 children)
This idea is crazy. While I-5 and CA 99 can both benefit from being upgraded to 3 lines in each direction (indeed, the state is in the process of doing that to 99 at the moment), having an autobahn-style driving experience passing through all the cities along the CA 99 corridor is impractical. Autobahn-style roads also require something we don't do in the United States: built roads to autobahn standards. Autobahns are super smooth and very well maintained, something that cannot be said about roads in California. (Anyone driven I-5 from LA to Sacramento lately?) They are kept that way in order to allow the safe execution of high speed driving.
There is another barrier to implementing this idea. The governor just recently killed the high speed rail project, calling it an extravagance the state cannot afford. Does anyone with some sense actually think he's going to sign a bill into law that will build something almost as extravagant, not to mention something very, very expensive.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:17AM (1 child)
Plus there is so much traffic I often struggle just to reach the current speed limit. Maybe if it was a toll road, then they can limit traffic and fund the high maintenance cost. I am generally against toll roads but one with a higher speed limit for those willing to pay might not be a bad idea.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:55PM
Government-subsidized benefits for the wealthy? Sounds pretty standard, if not remotely right.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:31AM (10 children)
"Sir, is there some reason you're taking a mentally ill homeless man to a soup kitchen at one hundred forty miles per hour?"
"I like to drive."
My fine fellow's first initial - I'm afraid it was against his employer's police to tell me any but his initial and his last name was "W.".
My name fellow's name and job title to the extent I was permitted any of his name was:
"How in The Hedgehog did you remember Officer Godfrey's Badge Number?" you quite reasonably protest.
I struggled with that myself, in part because I wanted very much to send King City's Finest my dead-tree book - coming mid-August THIS SUMMER - when it was ready, but I knew all too well that I'd never get through to the right man without that Badge Number.
Worried, I gazed quietly at his nameplace and his badge as he stood quietly and patiently. Clearly he knew why I did so.
I stared at them for a full minute until I relaxed then with a mischievous grin:
Doubtlessly you yourselves discovered as cute li'l toddlers what I myself had no insight whatsoever into until I was - in 2012 - I was forty-eight years old"
I said to The Good Godfrey, "That's called Associative Memory."
For my having had such a an agonizingly poor literate memory - Given Names are the very worst for me, NOT first names: consider that I have no problem remembering Chairman King's Family Name, but it's only the last year or so that I've always known his Given Name is Un! - made my love life and my work life painful as well as Cold Molasses Slow to progress.
This because whenever a woman wants to date a new man, straight-away she lays her name into his hands, whether she - as A Close Friend _Always Did, until she met the man she wed - whether SHE EMPLOYED A BALL-POINT PEN TO WRITE HER NAME AND NUMBER ON HIS PALM!!!!! #OMGPONIES or whether she'd pop by her friend's home, knowing full well that her friend was not there.
As he opens the door...
Yes?
Is Chrissy in?
No, my sister's at work.
Oh, damn. That's a shame.
Well, it's cool. Could you tell Chrissy that her friend $I_WANT_TO_SUCK_THE_CHROME_OFF_CHRISSYS_BROTHERS_TRAILER_HITCH popped by?
Damn, I don't know that Chrissy's got my number!
Hey - would you have a Sticky? I'd like to leave my cell for her. It's important that we get together to study for $HUMAN_SEXUAL_BEHAVIOR
There was this one woman who by now I am quite certain not only wanted to date me, but hoped she and I would marry someday.
There was this one woman who by now I am quite certain not only that she and I would marry someday, but hoped that she and I would have children together.
"Hi! It's great to see you again. Your name is... Angela... am I right?"
To have just written that line led me to be overcome with grief just now.
For her face not just to fall, but for her - then, when while I did recall her name correctly, she herself incorrectly concluded that I did not think she was significant to me in any way - the way her face fell led me to - I am quite certain: PROFOUNDLY incorrectly - led me to conclude that I had lost ALL hope of dating to me.
Absolutely ALL I EVER require to fix that little clusterfuck:
"I am very very sorry! I am just TERRIBLE with names."
"ONLY Given Names, never Family Names."
"I am by now quite certain it's Neurological," and I really _am_ so-certain, "but what am I going to do? Ask a Neurosurgeon to perform brain surgery so I can remember the names of my very finest friends."
And yes, Soylent News, My Sparky Brain's grasp of given names as ALWAYS been that pathetic.
But now I really AM consulting a top-notch Neurologist!
That I've got stuff like Expressive Aphasia in my writing as well as in my speech, potentially DEADLY short-term memory loss - Do I hear the Firemen screaming, "MIKE! MIKE! MIKE!" in their most-desperate hopes to save my very life? Oh, I know I need to check my Bacon in a little bit!...
... and all manner of other I AM ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS!...
... symptoms that are VERBATIM IDENTICAL to those of Stroke, Brain Hemorrhage, Organic Brain Injury and the like...
... leads to MY MOST-DESPERATE HOPE...
... that I might join the rest of the very Human Race itself...
... by knowing, knowing very very very well...
... beyond all shadow of that very nanoscopically-fine doubt...
... Chairman Kim Jon Un's...
... FATHER'S IGNORANTLY MOTHER FUCKING FATHER'S GIVEN NAME!
My Fuck, Does It Always Have To Be so HARD?
The Mind Simply Reels.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 5, Funny) by krishnoid on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:06AM (4 children)
I'd like to request a new 'Meds' moderation option, because 'Offtopic' doesn't seem like it's cutting it here.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:17AM
Just go ahead and mod it +1 Good Lord!
(Score: 5, Touché) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:23AM (2 children)
Or the option I often wish we had: "WTF?"
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @09:31AM (1 child)
A neutral moderation (no +/-). Let's do this.
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Tuesday March 05 2019, @02:21AM
I thought that was "Disagree"?
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by PartTimeZombie on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:17AM (2 children)
You OK Michael?
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:59AM (1 child)
Google:
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 1, Redundant) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:46PM
Spiritual emergence? Isn't that what was happening with the dude in Hannibal the Cannible's movie? If that fasist FBI chick hadn't shot him to death, he might have emerged soon as a moth, probably a giant female moth sans tits. Or, something like that, I think. Just about all that was left to do, was to skin the yappy broad in the pit I think. Then, maybe eat that damned yappy dog. Chihuahuas probably taste better than the little ugly mutt in the movie, but, hey, if you don't have a Taco Bell around, you make do with whatever you have at hand.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:26PM
When you talk with someone with ADD/ADHD it can be a bit difficult to keep up, but it's pretty easy to follow except for the quick/odd change of topics. That wall of text, wandered here and there, and ended up in a different state.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @11:44PM
Please tell us you didn't type all that shit.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 20 2019, @12:40AM (16 children)
High-speed automobile driving increases greenhouse gas emissions. A car going 120 mph will use twice as much fuel as that same car going 60 mph. If this idiot senator is really serious about green house gas emissions, he'd sponsor a bill reducing the speed limit to 60 mph state wide. Cars would get much better mileage than they do now going 70 mph, the state's highest speed limit.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by krishnoid on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:08AM
Restrict use to electric vehicles. I bet it would increase sales!
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:38AM (5 children)
"A car going 120 mph will use twice as much fuel as that same car going 60 mph." No difference.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:07PM
Actually... I get an average 24mpg on congested Cali hwys where you're always transitioning from 50mph to 70mph, and 44mpg when traffic clears out and I cruise at 85mph. It's a steady speed that increases mpg. Even at 85mph... there are cars passing me.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:27PM (3 children)
There fixed that for you.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:32PM
Go back to Jr High science class, you failed the 1st time.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:01PM (1 child)
I hope I can offer a little insight here. Pretty much every model of car is engineered for a certain type of travel, and performance. I have found vehicles, such as you describe, which use inordinate amounts of fuel, when traveling at highway speeds. There are many cars which DO NOT use excessive fuel at high speeds. Engineering is everything, here. If your engine is cranking at 12,000 RPM, you're getting shit for fuel economy, even if you're only going 35 mph. If your engine is idling around 3,000 to 4,000 RPM at 80, 100, or even more, then you might be getting some pretty good mileage. Get with the engineers, and find out what the car was designed for.
The point that the other AC is trying to make, is that a car uses fuel quicker at high speeds - but it also goes more miles in that same time. You use more fuel to generate those extra horsepower, but you need those horses for a shorter period of time, so you don't have to feed them so long. Take that back to how the car is engineered.
Yes, wind resistance is a factor, but no, wind resistance is as big a factor as some people think.
All I ask is, before you conclude that faster cars are using twice as much gas, you should check those cars out. I have a few anecdotes about vehicles getting BETTER fuel mileage at higher speeds, and many more that got nearly the same mileage. Since I don't buy slow vehicles, I don't have examples of vehicles whose mileage went to hell between 60 and 100.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 21 2019, @02:02PM
Gear ratio counts for the most part. Low RPM, less fuel used, although engines have optimal RPM range, but you know. Now that cars have 6-7 gears, even high speed driving can be driven in low RPM.
As a side note, i don't know what kind of cars you drive, but normally cars run at 1000-3000 RPM in regular traffic.
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:22AM (8 children)
Nope, under ideal conditions, the dependence is quadratic.
1. a car accelerating to 120mph will use at least 4 times as much fuel as the same car accelerating to only 60mph (hint: kinetic energy scaling with the square of the speed)
2. the (aerodynamic) drag scales at least quadratic with the speed, the drag equation [wikipedia.org] guarantees it. It can scale even more if the Reynolds number also depends on the speed.
That being said, one needs to take into consideration, in extreme, the effect of idling your ICE while stuck in traffic.
In practice, there will always exist a speed that any car is the most efficient in terms of fuel economy (in given conditions). In considering this, on top of the drag, up/downhill, tire frictions, etc, the engine efficiency map plays a role (an example of efficiency map [nap.edu]).
Now, if we are taking about eVehicles, idling doesn't matter that much and "is it green or not" boils down to on the source of electricity you used to fill-up the battery.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by mendax on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:42AM
I stand corrected. Physics is not one of my strong points. But I think I made my point quite adequately.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:18PM (4 children)
Ok, let's talk about *speed* not *accelerating*. Don't confuse the two. KE is about speed, not accelerating. You want accelerating, you integrate. Also, don't talk about Raynold's number. That's from fluid mechanics and doesn't really apply here (think, speed of sound).
Also, you are wrong, it's 2x. It's 4x the energy (due to drag) to travel at 2x the speed. Since you get there 2x faster, 4/2=2.... ok? So, naively speaking, traveling at 2x the speed will burn 2x the gas, roughly speaking, for same journey.. Traveling at 4x the speed will burn 4x the gas...
ratio is v^2 (from drag) / v (from distance) so energy used to travel some distance is linear with speed.
Now, if you want to talk about accelerations, it's completely different game that is quite independent of the actual speed. ;)
QED.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:32PM (3 children)
Fuel consumption proportional with energy you spend to achieve the work.
Let's talk about energy:
- on the accelerating side of the travel to reach the cruising speed from zero, you'll consume an energy proportional with the final kinetic energy, thus the square of the speed. Integrate all you want you aren't getting anything else (and this expenditure is relevant driving in heavy traffic, when you have cycles of acceleration/braking).
- travelling at constant speed - for the same vehicle, the aerodynamic drag makes the only difference when it comes to travelling the same distance at different speeds. And the aerodynamic drag force scales with the square of the speed (in both laminar and turbulent cases, only the scaling factor is different between the two). Now, the energy expenditure against the aerodynamic drag is drag_force × distance (this is what your integration reduces to at constant speed). For the same distance travelled, will get to an energy expenditure going quadratic with the speed (plus the same energy in both cases lost due to friction with the road, which is independent of the speed)
Ummm... what exactly do you think you demonstrated?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:09PM (2 children)
Absolutely correct. Worth mentioning as well that by the time you hit around 60mph, air resistance is generally the primary source of energy loss. Quadruple that by doubling your speed, and while you won't have quite 4x the total energy consumption per mile, you will almost certainly be well over 2x.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:28PM (1 child)
Yeah, switching between algo complexity and physics equations becomes harder with age - that friction term isn't quite ignorable in physics.
A more refined model will take into consideration the mass of the fuel burnt by ICE over the travel - the crews in F1 races certainly don't ignore it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:54PM
Quite - without regenerative braking, acceleration can become a significant source of energy loss as well, especially if traffic speed fluctuates frequently.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:40PM (1 child)
A car going 120 mph will use twice as much fuel as that same car going 60 mph.
Sorry, he forgot to mention you should assume a spherical car in a vacuum.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday February 21 2019, @12:54AM
Ohhh ... so *that's* the idea behind the Boring Company.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Barenflimski on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:36AM (3 children)
Before you have people driving at 120MPH, you first need to teach them how to merge. How to use an acceleration lane. What to do if their car fails them at a high rate of speed. What a "passing lane" is. Why its better to move over than to flip someone off. Etc...
Every time I suggest that we would all be better off if people took refresher driver education, they look at me like I'm stupid. It's usually at that point that I remember that most people in the U.S. have never taken even the most basic drivers education, much less one they took seriously.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Magic Oddball on Wednesday February 20 2019, @01:50AM (2 children)
I don't know about the rules in other states, but in California (where virtually everyone gets their license as a teenager) teens have to complete a driver's ed program, pass a written exam, have 6 hours of practice with an instructor, 40-50 hours with another fully-licensed adult, etc. before even applying to take the behind-the-wheel driver's license test, and AFAIK it's been that way for at least a few decades.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:39AM
And, given all that schooling, they still drive like maniacs.
Not all of em, but enough to keep everyone else on their toes.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:19PM
If it's anything like the (optional, but reduces insurance costs) drivers education program I took in New Mexico, it only covers the very basics, with absolutely nothing about the additional concerns of high-speed driving or how to deal with major equipment failures at speed. They never even mentioned the very fundamental fact that energy increases with the square of your speed, so that 2x the speed means 4x the minimum braking distance, and 4x the damage in a collision.
Plus, 40-50 hours driving with an adult isn't worth much when most of the adults never learned how to drive properly either.
Heck, I can't tell you how many near-collisions I've been in because some idiot doesn't grasp the basic fact that you should never change lanes while turning (And to make it extra special, I've actually been honked at or flipped off by said idiots). And yeah, sure, I'll do so occasionally myself, but only after making sure I'm not going to invade someone else's right-of-way.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:00AM (6 children)
The energy companies and, to a lesser extent, the auto manufacturers are getting exactly what they want.
No high speed train? More cars and gas are needed.
Unlimited speed lanes? There's no way something like that could match the capacity of a high-speed rail link.
But we need to support our wonderful oil and automobile companies if we're going to #MAGA
(Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:11AM (5 children)
mpg ∝ 1/v ^2
Double the speed, divide by 4 the mpg.
Profit!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @06:36AM
12 mpg isn't all that shabby.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Wednesday February 20 2019, @08:57AM (1 child)
I drove two hours at 80mph on Sunday, got 60mpg
Normally I average 20mph between refills and get 40mpg
Just Perhaps it’s not quite as simple as that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:53AM
The proportionality is not about averages. If you don't maintain a constant speed, the acceleration wastes a lot of extra fuel.
That proportionality is valid for the case we are talking of the Autobahn not city driving starting and stopping.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @02:21PM
No, check your math. 2x the speed, 2x the gas usage.
mpg is proportional to 1/v above about 70-80mph. Below that, it's not because the aerodynamics of the car play less importance than actual frictions in the systems.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @06:54PM
Do you not have a transmission in your car?
(Score: 2) by jimbrooking on Wednesday February 20 2019, @03:07AM
Doesn't "eco" and "green" give points for feeding CA carrion eaters?
(Score: 4, Informative) by ledow on Wednesday February 20 2019, @10:17AM (4 children)
I will support any speed limit you want to enforce. Literally, any. So long as you enforce it.
An "unlimited" autobahn isn't what you think it is. You have any accident over 100mph, and you are AUTOMATICALLY assumed to be to blame. Even if you hit another guy also at 100mph, you're both to blame. Even if you hit a granny reversing on the motorway, you're both to blame. Plus, your insurance may not pay out (unless you're already paying more for insurance that would pay out).
Autobahns work because:
1) Germans tend to stick to rules (I've made a car full of Germans scream because I did a controlled, slow, perfect U-turn, in an empty two-way road that wasn't indicating I couldn't do that. Apparently it's just "not the done thing").
2) German Autobahns are the best quality roads you'll ever see.
3) Germans know that if they go silly, it'll cost them not only their lives but every penny they have if they have an accident at those speeds (imagine you hit something at 101mph, you cripple a guy, and your insurance doesn't cover it... now YOU'RE paying for his lifetime care, by order of a court).
4) Germans who use the Autobahns regularly have the right car, tyres, maintenance schedules, etc.
5) The German Autobahns are not actually everywhere. There's a handful, and many of them are very short, or very windy, or have roadworks to resurface them (that's how they are so smooth).
The Autobahn is not the solution.
Set a limit. Enforce it. Everywhere. That means average speed cameras, not spot-checks that people brake hard for. It means zero tolerance if they go over. It means letting people know that this is a road and there are rules.
The M25 (an orbital motorway around London), at least the West part used to be quite lawless. Since they put in average speed cameras, it's just three-lanes of same-speed traffic, travelling quite smoothly and predictably.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:23PM
Let us all remember, that if we have a high top speed limit, we also need a modest low speed limit. Those have changed over the years, from locality to locality. I've seen 50 posted as a the minimum speed, I've seen 35. Rule of thumb, I think, is that the lower speed limit should be about half of the upper speed limit, absolute minimum. If the top speed is 100, no one needs to be dragging ass at anything less than 50, and even that is rather low.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday February 20 2019, @04:42PM
I believe there's also a
6) traffic fines are proportional to your income, so that they're not just a minor nuisance for the wealthy individuals who can afford really fast cars.
That's not necessarily relevant to speeding on the autobahn (though it is elsewhere), but it is relevant to reckless driving, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @06:57PM
"I've made a car full of Germans scream"
Sounds like fun!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 26 2019, @07:02PM
Zero tolerance? Are you retarted?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday February 20 2019, @05:08PM (1 child)
The way to pay for this is simple.
Tear out all the cycle lanes and bus lanes and sidewalks and put MOAR car lanes. Then cut taxes. It will all pay for itself.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday February 20 2019, @07:30PM
Silly person !
"We don't have money for high-speed train, let's put four high-speed car lanes!" - US logic