I think this is the beginnings of an economy based on perpetual growth and fossil fuel energy running headlong into geological energy constraints. Basically I see an undulatory downward path for the rest of my life. From here out, I think any rallies in our economic condition are going to be met with spiking commodity prices that knock us right back down.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:20 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
lper100km wrote:
Until the day comes, barring mandated intervention, that the majority of people realize that truly basic, low fuel consumption transportation trumps air conditioning, speed, size and so on, there is likely to be little change in the fleet average.
I rest my case. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:42 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
lper100km wrote:
Since it was SPG who made the original point, I have to think that it is you who is missing it.
Yes, the title iof this thread is History of Fuel Efficiency
Here's the history, in 1900 it was 4%
Today it is 32% _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:37 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
OK Monte. You win. You are more willing to keep repeating your wrong argument, than I am to keep trying to defend obvious reality. Congratulations. Thread jack effected. You win. The moon is made of green cheese and 21 mpg is more efficient than 25 mpg. _________________ "So while you sit and whistle Dixie with your money and your power.
I can hear the flowers a-growin in the rubble of the towers.
I hear leaders quit their lying
I hear babies quit their crying.
I hear soldiers quit their dying, one and all." - OCMS
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 6:39 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
OK Monte. You win. You are more willing to keep repeating your wrong argument, than I am to keep trying to defend obvious reality. Congratulations. Thread jack effected. You win. The moon is made of green cheese and 21 mpg is more efficient than 25 mpg.
You know, I feel sorry for you folks. I don't win, the laws of physics do. I have written threads on Energy Illiteracy, the Laws of Thermo Dynamics, and the law of diminishing returns.
If you can't grasp these concepts, you would do well to learn them.
21 mpg is much more efficient than 25 if you are moving much more mass. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
This is the kind of logic an economist would love "OK sure, it uses more gas, but really it's MORE efficient because now it has air conditioning."
You really lose me here with this logic. Who said a car with AC is more efficient because it has it?? Certainly not I.
Let me try to put this in a paragraph that is clear.
Cars today, on average, get less miles per gallon than the Model T.
Not because there has not been design improvements in engineering, from engine fuel efficiency, to aerodynamics, reduced friction from better bearings and lubricants, tires, and drivetrains, but because todays cars, on average, are heavier, have HP robbing AC, powersteering, smog pumps, and are driven much faster.
Physics tell us that to expect anything else is nonsense. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Joined: Jun 05, 2006 Posts: 237 Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
MonteQuest wrote:
Let me try to put this in a paragraph that is clear.
Cars today, on average, get less miles per gallon than the Model T.
I thought you had rested. However, you have returned to the original theme with apparent understanding.
No one is looking for an explanation that justifies this. In this context, it's irrelevant. The issue is simply how far does/did a gallon of fuel move an 'average' automobile plus passengers. It's astoundingly disappointing that there has been no improvement in 100 years. That's not physics or engineering. That's human arrogance.
No one is saying that it's not possible to achieve considerably improved individual auto model fuel consumption. This has been demonstrated world wide, even in the US. So the potential to improve the 'average' auto fuel consumption exists and has existed for decades. When and if that happens will have nothing to do with design, manufacturing, materials etc but at a minimum, with consumer acceptance. It may be too much to hope for consumer demand in a timely manner.
Anyway, there seems to be a determination to move in parallel universes on this rather simple issue. It's becoming tiresome to go over the same ground in different ways.
Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2007 10:45 pm Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
lper100km wrote:
I thought you had rested. However, you have returned to the original theme with apparent understanding.
No one is looking for an explanation that justifies this. In this context, it's irrelevant. The issue is simply how far does/did a gallon of fuel move an 'average' automobile plus passengers. It's astoundingly disappointing that there has been no improvement in 100 years. That's not physics or engineering. That's human arrogance.
No improvement?
Like I said, I feel sorry for you folks.
Let me try once more.
Cars today, on average, get less miles per gallon than the Model T because cars today, on average, are heavier, have more HP robbing gizmos, and are driven faster. Not to mention, few have 4 cylinder motors, and none have 20 hp motors.
A gallon of gas moves an average car today much farther than a gallon of gas moved an average car 100 years ago.
But it gets less mpg, you say?
So? It moves more mass/gallon.
It is more efficient as it does more work with the same amount of energy.
Your beef seems to be that because engineers haven't overcome the laws of physics that they are sandbagging and arrogant.
On the other hand, there is a minority of cars today with relatively the same mass, that get great gas mileage over the Model T due to engineering efficiency breakthroughs. The average buyer does not buy them, however....and if they do, they don't drove them 45 miles per hour. And this is significant.
Once the speed gets up into the 50-55 mph range each 1 mph increase in speed represents a significant increase in power required. Eventually, the power required increases more than the efficiency of the engine improves. At this point the mileage starts dropping.
The National Academy of Science says that to improve gas mileage in cars today, they would have to become smaller and down weighted, as the saying goes. That means that they become less safe. The NAS report states that for every 100 pounds you lighten a vehicle, there are 304 more deaths on the highway. According to the report, to implement these improvements would take at least 10 to 15 years.
Whether to increase fuel efficiency standards has become part of the energy debate now before the House of Representatives. This NAS report is in front of them. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Last edited by MonteQuest on Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:28 am; edited 1 time in total
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:02 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
Quote:
Fuel efficiency sometimes means the same as thermal efficiency, that is, the efficiency of converting energy contained in a carrier fuel to kinetic energy or work. But fuel efficiency can also mean the output one gets for a unit amount of fuel input such as "miles per gallon" or "liters per 100 kilometres" for an automobile (sometimes called fuel economy). While the thermal efficiency of petroleum engines has improved in recent decades, this does not necessarily translate into fuel economy of cars, as people in developed countries tend to buy bigger and heavier cars.
You guys are arguing two separate things. Fuel efficiency in its strictest sense, imo, is its thermal efficiency the point Monty, etc are arguing. Fuel economy, to me, is the better term for what SPG is arguing.
Joined: Jun 05, 2006 Posts: 237 Location: Over the tracks, left under the overpass, right, third boxcar on the left, ask for Jack
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 12:11 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
Monte, we know why autos are getting low mpg today despite real improvement in engine efficiencies over the years. But it's irrelevant today unless that knowledge is used to reap real improvements in mpg in future. We also know that there is a theoretical limit to engine efficiency and I believe that most auto engines are now as close to that as is reasonable.
Quote:
Your beef seems to be that because engineers haven't overcome the laws of physics that they are sandbagging and arrogant.
What absolute rubbish.
Why are you harping on engine efficiency when the topic is overall average unit fuel consumption for distance travelled? This statistic is the one that influences the national demand for gasoline, affects refinery capacity, affects pricing at the pump, the cost of transportation, the ability to travel and so on and eventually impacts the collision point of declining oil supply and future demand. The human arrogance is that knowing this, few care, not knowing it remain blissfully unaware, and not bothering to find out remain willfully ignorant.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 1:58 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
fletch961 wrote:
You guys are arguing two separate things. Fuel efficiency in its strictest sense, imo, is its thermal efficiency the point Monty, etc are arguing. Fuel economy, to me, is the better term for what SPG is arguing.
Thank you Fletch. It is amazing how long arguements can go on when people are using different definitions for the same term. This is fun when it applies to humour (especially puns and other word plays) but gets a bit depressing when it turns into a slugging match.
The challange we are facing (if we have not left it too late) is how to turn 'fuel efficiency' into 'fuel efficiency' (ie thermal efficiency into fuel economy) - as this thread has pointed out this is a daunting social challange even more than an engineering one. _________________ We should teach our children the 4-Rs: Reduce, Reuse, Recycle and Rejoice.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:06 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
smallpoxgirl wrote:
Efficiency of the Ford Model T: 25 to 30 mpg. link
Average Fuel Efficiency of Cars sold in 2006: 21 mpg. link
Clearly what we've been told about newer cars being more efficient is bogus.
Here's where this debate gets off track.
The response to these statistics should be.
Clearly, given all the advancements in car efficiency, it appears that, on average, since the time of the Model T, people have chosen vehicle safety, size, performance, towing ability, and vehicle amenities like powersteering and AC over fuel economy. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:13 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
lper100km wrote:
Why are you harping on engine efficiency when the topic is overall average unit fuel consumption for distance travelled?
I'm not, and haven't. Overall vehicle efficiency has improved over the years, not just with regard to engines. We have better and lighter materials, better tolerances, better tires, better aerodynamics, better fuel, better lubricants, better bearings, better drivetrains, etc.
The average unit fuel consumption for distance traveled has improved immensely when you factor in the increase in mass moved and HP losses due to amenties.
You think we can add all these things and still get better mileage?
Then you don't under thermodynamics. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 9:17 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
fletch961 wrote:
You guys are arguing two separate things. Fuel efficiency in its strictest sense, imo, is its thermal efficiency the point Monty, etc are arguing. Fuel economy, to me, is the better term for what SPG is arguing.
Then you didn't read her early arguments in this thread. She was arguing that overall vehicle efficiency has not improved over the Model T.
That's just not true.
SPG wrote:
I didn't claim that the engineers were sitting on their duff. I claimed that they were not working on making cars more efficient. If they were, cars would obviously get more than 21 mpg because cars got 25+ mpg back in the 1920s.
Obviously? How can anyone draw such a conclusion just looking at mpg then and now? If we were still making the Model T today, using modern day technology and materials, and gas mileage hadn't improved, then she might have a point, but only if increased driving speed had been ruled out as a factor. _________________ A Saudi saying, "My father rode a camel. I drive a car. My son flies a jet-plane. His son will ride a camel."
Live in Arizona? Check out: http://sustainablearizona.org and read my blog.
Posted: Tue Jan 30, 2007 10:10 am Post subject: Re: History of Fuel Efficiency
time to throw another monkey wrench in:
a gallon of "gasoline" today does not have the energy content it did in the past due to the addition of oxygenated additives for environmental concers, so adjustments must be made to the efficiency/economy calculation.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
News
Discussions
Resources
Members
Forum FAQ
Search
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
