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