HP, 60 mph, level ground

Awl --

KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late. One can only hope the
bliss will continue, but it may just be the lull before another hysterical
menstruating storm.....
Hopefully this will shut him up a little bit longer.... or act as a
maxi-pad.....

Previously I estimated my Honder Fit hp at 60 mph at about 12 hp, and some
proly thought that this was ridiculously optimistic, but in fact, it was
proly conservative.
Consider http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm , which calculates the hp
for a Corvette at 65 mph at 11.8 hp..... !!!! From the chart at the very
end of the article.

If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient ,
you'll see the CdA for many cars is 5-6+.

Thus, interpolating between 55 and 65 mph, and figgering the CdA of a Fit is
proly a bit less than the Vette, the hp req'd for the Fit at 60 mph is proly
between 8 and 9, ie, under 10 hp!!!!

Not that this is such a big deal (vs. 12), but it does illustrate just how
low steady-state hp requirements can be. It is only acceleration and hills
that really amp this requirement up.
Oh, yeah, and being an asshole.

You may find some varying results with different tables, analyses, but the
near-universal consensus is very low hp is required for modest speeds. Note
that hp requirement for a Vette drops to 1.16 -- Yup, one point one six --
at 30 mph. And jumps to 31 at 90 mph..... and even that seems
surprisingly low. The table shows 344 hp for 200 mph, which def'ly seems
low, so maybe this chart is skewed a bit. But you get the idea. Mebbe
others can provide other tables.

The wiki article shows how CdA can vary, with a few surprises, such as the
very impressive CdA for the Honda Insight -- lower, even, than the Honda
NSX.

Bottom line is, fuel efficiency is *inversely* proportional to the CdA, so
that if you halve the CdA, you double the car's efficiency -- which is what
the Aptera et al are all about -- regardless of the underlying power plant
strategy. In fact, the mpg ROI from CdA proly swamps power plant
considerations.

Had GM spent that $1.++ BILLION on the Volt's CdA rather than its
3-clutch/two-motor/multi-planetary gear system, we'd proly be bankrupting
Saudi Arabia just about now.

Also from the hp article, you see the dramatic savings from going from 65 to
55 mph. Or, the other way around, from 55 to 65, you will burn 65% MORE GAS
per unit time, and 40% more fuel per unit distance (basically 55/65 x 11.8,
subtract 7.14 from that, then divide by 7.14). The figure per unit
distance is the mpg-relevant factor. Note that fuel consumption is *directly
proportional* to horsepower, virtually by definition.

Funny, the old DOT admonitions about saving 10% by driving at 55 mph seem
*awfully conservative*, given the above.
But this is why you see these much higher mpg claims from Prius drivers,
with very light feet. Just a little driving aggression (ie, driving like an
asshole) drops mpg like a stone.

So, once again, hybrids, EVs that INSIST on maintaining 100++ hp totals (150
for the Volt) are simply sabotaging the Green premise/effort, as illustrated
by the low-power 60s/70s Beetles. Yeah, they won't zoom up steep hills, but
given gas/economic situation today, chillin up hills may not be such a bad
idea.
--
EA

"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
> Awl --
>
> KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late. One can only hope the
> bliss will continue, but it may just be the lull before another hysterical
> menstruating storm.....
> Hopefully this will shut him up a little bit longer.... or act as a
> maxi-pad.....
>
> Previously I estimated my Honder Fit hp at 60 mph at about 12 hp, and some
> proly thought that this was ridiculously optimistic, but in fact, it was
> proly conservative.
> Consider http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm , which calculates the hp
> for a Corvette at 65 mph at 11.8 hp..... !!!! From the chart at the
> very end of the article.
>
> If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient
> , you'll see the CdA for many cars is 5-6+.
>
> Thus, interpolating between 55 and 65 mph, and figgering the CdA of a Fit
> is proly a bit less than the Vette, the hp req'd for the Fit at 60 mph is
> proly between 8 and 9, ie, under 10 hp!!!!
>
> Not that this is such a big deal (vs. 12), but it does illustrate just how
> low steady-state hp requirements can be. It is only acceleration and
> hills that really amp this requirement up.
> Oh, yeah, and being an asshole.
>
> You may find some varying results with different tables, analyses, but the
> near-universal consensus is very low hp is required for modest speeds.
> Note that hp requirement for a Vette drops to 1.16 -- Yup, one point one
> six -- at 30 mph. And jumps to 31 at 90 mph..... and even that seems
> surprisingly low. The table shows 344 hp for 200 mph, which def'ly seems
> low, so maybe this chart is skewed a bit. But you get the idea. Mebbe
> others can provide other tables.
>
> The wiki article shows how CdA can vary, with a few surprises, such as the
> very impressive CdA for the Honda Insight -- lower, even, than the Honda
> NSX.
>
> Bottom line is, fuel efficiency is *inversely* proportional to the CdA, so
> that if you halve the CdA, you double the car's efficiency -- which is
> what the Aptera et al are all about -- regardless of the underlying power
> plant strategy. In fact, the mpg ROI from CdA proly swamps power plant
> considerations.
>
> Had GM spent that $1.++ BILLION on the Volt's CdA rather than its
> 3-clutch/two-motor/multi-planetary gear system, we'd proly be bankrupting
> Saudi Arabia just about now.
>
> Also from the hp article, you see the dramatic savings from going from 65
> to 55 mph. Or, the other way around, from 55 to 65, you will burn 65%
> MORE GAS per unit time, and 40% more fuel per unit distance (basically
> 55/65 x 11.8, subtract 7.14 from that, then divide by 7.14). The figure
> per unit distance is the mpg-relevant factor. Note that fuel consumption
> is *directly proportional* to horsepower, virtually by definition.
>
> Funny, the old DOT admonitions about saving 10% by driving at 55 mph seem
> *awfully conservative*, given the above.

Oh, yeah, the *increase* from the lower number to the higher number is
always a more dramatic number.
Ito SAVINGS from 65 mph to 55, that figure works out to 24% -- still more
than the DOT, iirc, and indeed substantial.
But in the ballpark.

Iow, in this case, "40% more gas per mile from 55 to 65" is the same as
"24% less gas per mile from 65 mph to 55".
--
EA




> But this is why you see these much higher mpg claims from Prius drivers,
> with very light feet. Just a little driving aggression (ie, driving like
> an asshole) drops mpg like a stone.
>
> So, once again, hybrids, EVs that INSIST on maintaining 100++ hp totals
> (150 for the Volt) are simply sabotaging the Green premise/effort, as
> illustrated by the low-power 60s/70s Beetles. Yeah, they won't zoom up
> steep hills, but given gas/economic situation today, chillin up hills may
> not be such a bad idea.
> --
> EA
>
>
>
>

On 05/08/2013 12:39 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
<snip pointless irrelevant drivel>

attention whore.

--
fact check required

On Wed, 8 May 2013 02:53:41 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> wrote:

>Awl --
>
>KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late.

Some of us have lives, and mine recently included a gorgeous spring
road trip. It's good to know that your slavery to your obsession
continued during my absence. It seems like you could save time and get
empirical results by springing for a ScanGauge. But yeah, I know,
they're $150! This article might get you started.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8224728AAg73Cr In
the meantime, carry on "designing" your zero percent Volt, and should
you ever tire of the process I'll report on the effect it had on my
enjoyment of a 100% version.

By the way, I took my ScanGauge
http://www.carbibles.com/productreviews_scangauge.html out of my
motorhome and loaned it to a friend who's wants to try it on his
pickup, jeep, and econobox. What a chump he is to do that when he
could be imagining numbers instead, eh?

On Wed, 08 May 2013 07:06:05 -0700, jim beam > wrote:

>On 05/08/2013 12:39 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
><snip pointless irrelevant drivel>
>
>attention whore.

LO His point seems to be that if maximum available hp is higher,
then far higher hp is required at all times. Or something. He has a
Honda Fit, and despite all road tests to the contrary, he believes
it's outrageously overpowered, and should only have half as much hp.
Because that would greatly increase his mileage. Or something.

See the episode of Top Gear where the fella takes the Bugatti Veyron to
251+MPH on a test track.
He explains some interesting HP/speed numbers and how many radiators the
engine requires.
The quieter fella was driving (not the little one or the big one).

A lot of daily driver cars (in all of this time since the '30s) would be
more than adequate with a Model A engine with some minor modern
engineering/design changes made along the way.
A diesel version coulda reduced the need for a lot of gasoline in all this
time (kerosene or anything that readily ignites), because a lotta farmers
(and still owner/operators) woulda most likely been growing/using a biofuel.
Don't drink outta that blue jug Vern.. that's high-test.

When ya gonna calculate how much the additional costs are, just due to the
high rate of obesity in this country?
I couldn't give a FRA, but I'm sure some folks are regularly working on
numbers like that.

--
WB
..........


"Existential Angst" > wrote in message
...
> Awl --
>
> KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late. One can only hope the
> bliss will continue, but it may just be the lull before another hysterical
> menstruating storm.....
> Hopefully this will shut him up a little bit longer.... or act as a
> maxi-pad.....
>
> Previously I estimated my Honder Fit hp at 60 mph at about 12 hp, and some
> proly thought that this was ridiculously optimistic, but in fact, it was
> proly conservative.
> Consider http://phors.locost7.info/phors06.htm , which calculates the hp
> for a Corvette at 65 mph at 11.8 hp..... !!!! From the chart at the
> very end of the article.
>
> If you look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automob...ag_coefficient
> , you'll see the CdA for many cars is 5-6+.
>
> Thus, interpolating between 55 and 65 mph, and figgering the CdA of a Fit
> is proly a bit less than the Vette, the hp req'd for the Fit at 60 mph is
> proly between 8 and 9, ie, under 10 hp!!!!
>
> Not that this is such a big deal (vs. 12), but it does illustrate just how
> low steady-state hp requirements can be. It is only acceleration and
> hills that really amp this requirement up.
> Oh, yeah, and being an asshole.
>
> You may find some varying results with different tables, analyses, but the
> near-universal consensus is very low hp is required for modest speeds.
> Note that hp requirement for a Vette drops to 1.16 -- Yup, one point one
> six -- at 30 mph. And jumps to 31 at 90 mph..... and even that seems
> surprisingly low. The table shows 344 hp for 200 mph, which def'ly seems
> low, so maybe this chart is skewed a bit. But you get the idea. Mebbe
> others can provide other tables.
>
> The wiki article shows how CdA can vary, with a few surprises, such as the
> very impressive CdA for the Honda Insight -- lower, even, than the Honda
> NSX.
>
> Bottom line is, fuel efficiency is *inversely* proportional to the CdA, so
> that if you halve the CdA, you double the car's efficiency -- which is
> what the Aptera et al are all about -- regardless of the underlying power
> plant strategy. In fact, the mpg ROI from CdA proly swamps power plant
> considerations.
>
> Had GM spent that $1.++ BILLION on the Volt's CdA rather than its
> 3-clutch/two-motor/multi-planetary gear system, we'd proly be bankrupting
> Saudi Arabia just about now.
>
> Also from the hp article, you see the dramatic savings from going from 65
> to 55 mph. Or, the other way around, from 55 to 65, you will burn 65%
> MORE GAS per unit time, and 40% more fuel per unit distance (basically
> 55/65 x 11.8, subtract 7.14 from that, then divide by 7.14). The figure
> per unit distance is the mpg-relevant factor. Note that fuel consumption
> is *directly proportional* to horsepower, virtually by definition.
>
> Funny, the old DOT admonitions about saving 10% by driving at 55 mph seem
> *awfully conservative*, given the above.
> But this is why you see these much higher mpg claims from Prius drivers,
> with very light feet. Just a little driving aggression (ie, driving like
> an asshole) drops mpg like a stone.
>
> So, once again, hybrids, EVs that INSIST on maintaining 100++ hp totals
> (150 for the Volt) are simply sabotaging the Green premise/effort, as
> illustrated by the low-power 60s/70s Beetles. Yeah, they won't zoom up
> steep hills, but given gas/economic situation today, chillin up hills may
> not be such a bad idea.
> --
> EA
>
>
>

In rec.crafts.metalworking Existential Angst > wrote:
> Oh, yeah, the *increase* from the lower number to the higher
> number is always a more dramatic number.
> ..."40% more gas per mile from 55 to 65" is the same as
> "24% less gas per mile from 65 mph to 55".
> --
> EA
>
> > ...(ie, driving like an asshole)...
> > EA

Cool.

Well, since I just rejoined Usenet Newsgroups after a really long
absence I don't know who I'm supposed to hate and like and to make
fun of and all that childish kind of crap. LOL

I'm a skeptic in pretty much everything but that doesn't keep me
from enjoying something well written like that.

I thought the post was cool.

....but I am easily entertained tho!!
I'm really st00pid like that. :/

But, EA, how'd you know I drive like an asshole? :/

Alvin in AZ drives like an asshole but thought it was a secret.

"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 8 May 2013 02:53:41 -0400, "Existential Angst"
> > wrote:
>
>>Awl --
>>
>>KiddingHisSelf has been awfully quiet as of late.

Gawd, the Bliss is over.....

>
> Some of us have lives, and mine recently included a gorgeous spring
> road trip.

Did your period get in the way??

It's good to know that your slavery to your obsession
> continued during my absence. It seems like you could save time and get
> empirical results by springing for a ScanGauge. But yeah, I know,
> they're $150! This article might get you started.
> http://answers.yahoo.com/question/in...8224728AAg73Cr In
> the meantime, carry on "designing" your zero percent Volt, and should
> you ever tire of the process I'll report on the effect it had on my
> enjoyment of a 100% version.
>
> By the way, I took my ScanGauge
> http://www.carbibles.com/productreviews_scangauge.html out of my
> motorhome and loaned it to a friend who's wants to try it on his
> pickup, jeep, and econobox. What a chump he is to do that when he
> could be imagining numbers instead, eh?

How do you know the scanguage is accurate?? Do you know how the scanguage
calcs hp??
Btw, I have a scanguage, but not the most recent one. Dudn't do hp, but you
can infer relative hp.... Well, you couldn't, but I can....

As far as numbers go, apparently you aren't so quick with numbers, given
your mis-calc'd ROI on the volt, AND given all the **** you COULD have
slammed me for if you knew a fukn thing about anything.

Not to worry.... I'll post the omissions.
Study hard..... but pace yourself, please, you don't wanna readjust yer
meds.... again.....
--
EA

> wrote in message ...
> In rec.crafts.metalworking Existential Angst > wrote:
>> Oh, yeah, the *increase* from the lower number to the higher
>> number is always a more dramatic number.
>> ..."40% more gas per mile from 55 to 65" is the same as
>> "24% less gas per mile from 65 mph to 55".
>> --
>> EA
>>
>> > ...(ie, driving like an asshole)...
>> > EA
>
> Cool.
>
> Well, since I just rejoined Usenet Newsgroups after a really long
> absence I don't know who I'm supposed to hate and like and to make
> fun of and all that childish kind of crap. LOL

Don't worry, DAT will become clear in no time at all.

>
> I'm a skeptic in pretty much everything but that doesn't keep me
> from enjoying something well written like that.
>
> I thought the post was cool.
>
> ...but I am easily entertained tho!!
> I'm really st00pid like that. :/

It's called having a (rare) sense of humor, as opposed to the amazingly high
%-age of character-disordered circle-jerking menstruating egomaniacs running
around here.

>
> But, EA, how'd you know I drive like an asshole? :/

We're ALL assholes, just some of us manage to keep the AQ (Assaholic
quotient) around some tolerable mean, whilst Kidding et al are, like, 4
standard deviations to the right. Kidding thinks his 190 AQ is his IQ, but
then he confuses many many things, like his ass with his elbow..

I was into fast bikes in the 80's, had the fastest production bikes made at
the time, one a bit tricked out.
Once you've gotten used to your face shield pressed to yer nose, there are
very few cars in the world that can impress, speed-wise or
acceleration-wise.
And bikes today, out of the showroom, have 0-60s of near-2 secs, and 1/4
miles in the 9's, I believe....
The kawasaki 750 H3 two-stroke triple, in the 70's, had a 0-60 of 2.9 secs!!
Cars essentially just stand still relative to that.
Consequently, I drive cars like an old woman..... I can just park a bit
better..... lol
And, now, after these hp threads, I'm driving even slower!!!! LOL!!
--
EA


>
> Alvin in AZ drives like an asshole but thought it was a secret.

"whoyakidding's ghost" > wrote in message
news
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 07:06:05 -0700, jim beam > wrote:
>
>>On 05/08/2013 12:39 AM, Existential Angst wrote:
>><snip pointless irrelevant drivel>
>>
>>attention whore.

Ahhh, so we have TWO math-phobic menstruating assholes here....

>
> LO His point seems to be that if maximum available hp is higher,
> then far higher hp is required at all times. Or something.

Man are u confused.....

He has a
> Honda Fit, and despite all road tests to the contrary, he believes
> it's outrageously overpowered, and should only have half as much hp.
> Because that would greatly increase his mileage. Or something.

Dood..... it's called optimization.
Didn't I post a link on optimization?? Taking derivatives'n'****????
Oh, yeah, I know, <whooooooosh>. Sorry.....

Ackshooly, the Fit is not so much underpowered as it is improperly geared.
'tis what 'tis.
--
EA