1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

"Hypermiling" to save fuel

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Ivartheboneless, May 21, 2019.

  1. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    While we are on the subject of "green" stuff, the Americans have named fuel saving driving measures "hypermiling". Bit of a daft name, and common sense to some. It is possible in any car and comes as instinctive. You can only do it within the limits of the car you have, so the more modern it is the better. I don't know when manufacturers figures for fuel consumption are supposed to change, but the old system (urban, extra urban, average) is nonsense and unachievable, at least in small cars. I had a Suzuki Alto 3 cylinder 1 litre petrol engined car for a bit, it was supposed to do over 60 mpg, but the best I ever got (with some hypermiling techniques) was 55. Mainly it is what you do with your right foot, whether it is diesel (spit) or petrol or some hybrid thing. It would also work in an electric car. Efficiency is the thing. I won't say what you have to do, that should be common sense, but there are websites which describe the techniques. If more people drove in this way fuel useage, and hence emissions would decrease.
  2. racroesus

    racroesus Star commenter

    Maleficent regularly berates me for driving below the speed limit in the inside lane.
  3. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    On my dreary daily drive to and from work I used to display the current mpg level on the dashboard and challenge myself to keep it as high as I could, I became very expert knowing which parts of the road to speed up on and when to coast along. There was a long shallow hill on the way home, speed up to 50mph after the roundabout then the hill would take me to 60 before the slope started to flatten and I'd be doing about 20 before the roundabout at the bottom, the display hit the limit of what it could calculate all the way down.

    It was all nose-to-tail traffic and I kept up with it all the way, not being the pain that it sounds like.
  4. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Yeah I do that...but the onboard computer keeps shifting the projected amount of fuel based on my actions. So I fill up and get told I have 520 miles of fuel... then I drive reasonably conservatively and it drops to 480.
  5. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Seems like I am not the only one. If only 25 million other drivers would do it.

    Ianokia, your car must have been programmed to show that figure if it is unacheivable. The "range" shown should be based on what your average has been for the previous miles.
  6. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    If I do a long drive ... say up to Scotland ... the range will go up towards 570 miles.

    But driving to work, stop starting, 30mph etc... that'll get me in the range of 480 miles.
    Nanook_rubs_it likes this.
  7. Nanook_rubs_it

    Nanook_rubs_it Star commenter

    In 2017, 'passenger cars' accounted for 69.6 million tonnes of CO2 equivilent greenhouse gas emmisions (MtCO2e). By comparison, UK commercial aviation accounted for 1.5 MtCO2e.

    Saving 3% on the daily commute saves more emmisions than completely ending commercial aviation.

    TCSC47 and lanokia like this.
  8. Mangleworzle

    Mangleworzle Star commenter

    I've just remembered now thinking about it, the biggest threat to keeping my mpg as high as possible was being stuck behind a lorry, I'd be forced to drive along with it 10-25% below optimal. Maybe the push to reduce emissions will encourage a move from road haulage and onto rail at last.
  9. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    A good argument there for more dual carriage ways.

    My commute would be considerably smoother with some investment in dualling the roads. That way lorries could go at 55/60 and I could go steadily at 65/70 [which seems to be around the right place for the engine to be optimal].
    Mangleworzle likes this.
  10. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    The problem with that is positioning. Yes at lorry speed (governed to 90 kph or 56mph) a car will be much more efficient on fuel, but it depends where you are behind the lorry. If you are really close (tailgating it) you may take advantage of reduced wind resistance as the truck pushes air out of the way and you don't have to. This is of course stupid from a safety point of view. A bit further back and you will be in turbulent air as the wind rushes back in to fill up the "hole" made by the truck, and you will use more fuel. For going at that speed behind trucks you need to be more than 100 metres back (then somebody cuts in front of you!). This is most noticeable on a motorcycle, and I avoid getting in the turbulent air behind trucks and even vans because you feel it more on two wheels. I am doing less motorway miles since my mother died and I don't have to go up to Manchester, but in daytime with loads of trucks I would set the cruise control to 65, so as not to really hold anyone up, but safely pass trucks. 50 on a motorway would use way less fuel, but wouldn't half frustrate other drivers.

    Where I live in North Wales some dual carraigeways have been hatched over to reduce them to single lane, and many speed limits have been reduced over the last ten or more years, but these were done after some nerk in a Corsa had attempted the Darwin award through ahedge backwards with his four mates on board. The "knee jerk" reaction being speed kills. But actually natural selection. However reducing speed limits may actually increase fuel use when the vehicle has to be driven in a lower gear. It does not matter what the speed limit is some drugged up nerk with his baseball cap on under his hoodie will still find a way to kill himself.
  11. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Also near where I live the so-called "Welsh road" linking the Wirral (Junction 5 M53) to the A484/A55 system is single carriageway, and up for dual carriageway since at least the 60s. The last time it was actually due to proceed in 1997, the Tories suddenly cancelled loads of road programmes thinking it was a vote winner. It wasn't, but Blair's lot did not reinstate the build. So I wouldn't hold your breath about any road building programmes that might make sense. There is supposed to be a new link road from the end of the M56 to the A55 being built, but that is a Welsh Assembly plan, and the "Welsh road" above is not part of it, cos its in England.
  12. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I remember that time... the papers were full of stories about eco-protestors... one of them got quite famous, can't remember his name. Wonder what he does these days?

    Blair's government promoted the railways pretty heavily and passenger numbers went up. I met a guy who works for TfL and he said there was no more room for growth. The problem is the station platforms can't be extended so no new carriages can be put on. There isn't the clearance space to go to double-decker trains and things like HS2 are too slow to coming through the pipeline... [and are basically money sinkholes]...
  13. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Do you mean "Swampy"? The eco-"warrior" who dug underground tunnels?
  14. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    That's him! Cheers.
  15. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

  16. peakster

    peakster Star commenter

    Speed limits in America are already very slow.
  17. Ivartheboneless

    Ivartheboneless Star commenter

    Thats because they can't be trusted with heavy machinery.
  18. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Copy and pasted from Quora.

    The historic legacy is the National Maximum Speed Law, a federal law which was passed in 1973, ie just after the oil crisis. This set a maximum of 55 mph (as a condition for receiving federal road maintenance funds). It was loosened in the late 1980s, and finally abolished in 1995 - so since then it has been up to the individual states, their geographies, and their politics.

    So the default position has been 55 mph up till 1987 or 1988, after which you can ascribe the differences to inertia (if it's still 55), politics, environmental considerations, safety, or whatever.

    So it was a response to the 1973 oil shock.
  19. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    Did you need to write any further?
  20. colpee

    colpee Star commenter

    I found them very similar to the UK, but each state sets its own, so I guess one’s experience will change per location.

Share This Page