The usual ignorance being shown in Guardian comments

[G350]

There's a standard piece today in the Guardian motoring section about economical driving called: Cut your speed, cut your petrol bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/12/cut-yo...

But read the comments! Where do people get these ideas???

[Deano_BMW]

so0me of the comments at the bottom are, shall we say, interesting

[Z.B]

G350 said:

There's a standard piece today in the Guardian motoring section about economical driving called: Cut your speed, cut your petrol bill.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2011/mar/12/cut-yo...

But read the comments! Where do people get these ideas???

Er, from reading the Guardian?

[Blakewater]

These are exactly the people Jeremy Clarkson and Top Gear aim to wind up and they have no more sense than to rise to the bait. Why do they actually watch the program though? The trouble is they never have anywhere to go or anything to do so walking and cycling is an easy answer for them.

[KB_S1]

The article loses credibility to me here:

Sale says. "The exception to the rules are vehicles which have either a very high or a very low power to weight ratio. If the engine has a lot of power but very little weight (for example, the 1.6l Mini diesel) then the revs can be kept closer to 1,600 or 1,700 rpm rather than going right to 2,000 rpm.

[gareth.e]

this made me laugh:

idiot said:

All good advice, but what about clamping down on speeding? A car speeding at 80mph uses 10% more fuel than one cruising at 70mph, according to the Department for Transport, its also breaking the law. Why are these rules never enforced. I hate tootling along on the motorway at 65 only for some asshole to fly up behind me at 100, beeping and flashing.
Another good fuel efficiency tip, get an automatic, especially if you mainly drive around town.

[Mastodon2]

One of the comments made me laugh (referring to "boy racers" driving fast - because "boys" are the only ones driving fast...), "we are all thinking, "How small is your penis?"". No wonder driving standards are so poor - the mongs driving so fking slowly because they are fantasizing about your cock as you line up your overtake!

[Blakewater]

What gets me is that they want us priced out of our cars with high fuel prices so we use public transport. They don't take the issue of high fuel prices that little bit further and understand that using public transport will become more expensive as well, not to mention everything else they'll buy that needs to be transported around the world.

[craig7584]

My comments..

"A car speeding at 80mph uses 10% more fuel than one cruising at 70mph"

-but you get there 12.5% quicker and since time is money you actually make a saving.

"Drivers typically let the revs run to 3,000 per minute on a petrol car and 2,500 on a diesel before moving up a gear, but Sale says we should be changing up when we hit 2,500 revs on a petrol and 2,000 on a diesel"

-damn my VTEC would never get a look in! 9k FTW..

"Braking hard, accelerating, then braking hard for the next speed bump means you drink petrol, Sale warns. Drive along speed-humped roads at a steady 15mph-20mph instead"

-or remove the speed bumps so cars can do the signed speed limit of 30mph without incurring costs for road and car repairs?

"In a survey by BP, 10% of drivers thought that turning off the radio improved fuel consumption. It doesn't."
-nm

"pupils have typically been able to cut 10% from their fuel consumption (equating to savings of £160 a year based on today's petrol price)."
-unfortunately the long term effects can lead to being bored to death

Im not even going to go into the comments :|

[supersport]

I particularly enjoyed this one, and I couldn't agree more.

Drive at the speed of a geriatric with a Zimmer frame if you wish, but grant me two wishes please:

1. Leave enough room between you and the vehicle in front so I can get past you - it's not like tailgating is going to improve your petrol consumption that much;
2. Stop flashing your frikkin' headlights at me when I do - it doesn't make me feel guilty (quite the reverse actually, since it shows I've just passed a knobhead).

[Jerwatt]

This one was also good:

"70? Madness! Would you wind your driver door window down a half inch to slip £10 notes out as you drive? 60's where it's at. Also means you never hit a traffic jam."

No, they're behind you, that's why!

[Jakg]

craig7584 said:

"In a survey by BP, 10% of drivers thought that turning off the radio improved fuel consumption. It doesn't."
-nm

Except, it will (marginally) improve fuel consumption - reduced load on the alternator.

[gareth.e]

Jakg said:

Except, it will (marginally) improve fuel consumption - reduced load on the alternator.

hmmmmmmm.... lol

[davepoth]

gareth.e said:

hmmmmmmm.... lol

It's true. Huge stereo systems can draw enough current to stall the engine.

[renrut]

gareth.e said:

Jakg said:

Except, it will (marginally) improve fuel consumption - reduced load on the alternator.

hmmmmmmm.... lol

Technically correct but completely insignificant - typical car stereo 500W. Typical energy in 1L petrol = 34MJ/litre. At say 10% efficiency to account for all losses = 0.5L per hour. At maximum power output. I think you'd save more fuel by taking a p155 before you set off.


The bit I love is the constantly touted "A car speeding at 80mph uses 10% more fuel than one cruising at 70mph, according to the Department for Transport." My jag must be the most efficient car out there as it gets about the same at 80 as it does at 70. Interestingly none of the manufacturers ever mention anything like that. Taking the extreme a Jag XJS V12 is probably far more efficient at 120mph than 50 because you get there faster and can turn it off sooner.

And then you have the arbitrary gear upchange points 2000rpm in a diesel, 2500 in a petrol. My old diesel would have died horribly under that regime, the VNT turbo would never moved the vanes into the higher speed angles and so the first time you do it its clogged with soot, can't then overspeeds *bang* it goes. And the car I have in the garage would be a nightmare - 2500rpm, peak torque is at 8000rpm. Its all about peak torque points and efficiency graphs but they don't show them.

I do love the example of a light car with a powerful engine - that mighty petrolhead object of desire - the 1.6L Diesel Mini! 110bhp and 1100kg???

And then they complain about hard acceleration. In the solar challenge where efficiency is key they accelerate as hard then coast as that has proven to be the most efficient mode of transport. Slow acceleration isn't fuel efficient as you're putting the engine and drivetrain under load but not making use of that. With no load the drivetrain free wheels so the friction is far reduced.

Speed bumps - I drive over them at 30mph. Pick a car with soft suspension, normal profile tyres and wide enough track to avoid the 'pillow' type and you don't notice them. Oh and a decent ground clearence. In fact the ideal car for fuel saving in areas with high numbers of speed bumps is ironically a 4x4

And lastly the air-con vs open windows argument. Mythbusters did this one and its the most scientific one I've seen, they found that at 55 you were still better off with the windows open. But it still wasn't that scientific.

I'd have been interested to have a commented and seen what backlash I got but it's closed now :-(

So instead I have reported one of the comments as trolling:

metrosexual leaf eater said:

I`ll vote for anything that pisses off the Clarkson knuckle dragging lobby. x

My explanation I have given to the mods as thus:
"Kissing people they don't like. I suspect they are a slut."