Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1a 7/7/83; site rlgvax.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!seismo!rlgvax!guy From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: Re:Re:55 and Type A Behavior Message-ID: <863@rlgvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 22-Jul-83 04:23:07 EDT Article-I.D.: rlgvax.863 Posted: Fri Jul 22 04:23:07 1983 Date-Received: Fri, 22-Jul-83 21:02:27 EDT References: rlgvax.853, <312@5941ux.UUCP> Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA Lines: 24 The discussion was not about engine efficiency, it was about the appropriateness of a given speed (45MPH, 55MPH, 65MPH) in general. If you're really that concerned about fuel efficiency I suggest you start a campaign to turn the nation's road system into a grid of east-west straight roads at ground level and north-south straight roads elevated above them; car engines are most efficient when running under a constant load at a nice constant speed, but unfortunately such facts of life as intersections blow this away. There is a tradeoff between money spent on fuel and aggravation due to time spent on the road (by and large, driving is *not* fun for me.). I'm not an expert on this but I believe the efficiency of an engine at a constant speed is dependent on the load on the engine and the engine speed, *not* on something as simple as automobile speed. The combination of aero- dynamic drag and engine efficiency curves may put a bend in the curve somewhere but the drag curve alone is quadratic in speed so there's no inflection point there. In short, you've hardly proven the case that 45 is best from an efficiency standpoint, much less that it should be the National Maximum Speed Limit. Besides, if fuel efficiency is the prime criterion perhaps, by your claim, the speed limit for trucks should be raised to 65? A weak reply indeed, sir; you'll have to do Better Than That. Guy Harris {seismo,mcnc,we13,brl-bmd,allegra}!rlgvax!guy