Quote:
Originally Posted by SPL
Droid13 — One's trip average FE (in L/100 km in the metric TCH) will be lowest if the distance-averaged Stan
|
Absolutely I agree. Since FE calculations involve volume and distance, time and speed are actually completely irrelevent mathematically. However, in typical city driving accelerating from stop signs and lights, time also ends up being roughly comparible to distance. I thought it would be easier to comprehend, but now that you've challenged my feeble math skills
...
It would have been more correct for me to suggest that I believe that accerating to speed in x distance and cruising for 2x distance is usually better than accelerating to the same speed over the equivalent 3x distance.
For example, accelerating steadily for 3km (works the same for shorter distances too, easier numbers to read) at a rate of 20L/100km (11.7mpg) will use 0.6L of fuel. If you decide to accelerate to the same speed in a third the distance (1km) and cruise for the remaining 2km at 6L/100km (39.2mpg) (the cruise would use 0.12L of fuel) then as long as you used less than .48L of fuel to accelerate in that first 1km (48L/100K or 4.9mpg) you would be more efficient. Sounds quite doable to me. Even assuming the slow steady accelerating only registered 10L/100km (23.5mpg which is almost what dlbrrb is getting for total FE) that would still leave a consumption up to 18L/100km (13mpg) to be allowed for the quicker, shorter acceleration to still be more efficient.