In deference to their age I have them at 36 PSI (max recommended pressure).
The worse mileage I have seen so far was the last trip to Fredericksburg on Sunday morning with no trucks to draft, and 300 pounds more cargo it was 50MPG. With a total of almost 800 pounds I was a little nervous about the tires, but so far they are showing no signs of any dry rotting. I dont think they have ever been rebalanced.
I will probably get some Sumi's just in case one of them decides to give up the ghost.
The tires are very noisy on certain road surfaces, but other than that they handle decently, and that car will roll on the slightest grade. Sometimes I have to be careful to not creep backwards into the car behind mine.
Rated at A-B-200 with 30 k miles they still have half the tread left.
My only real mod is the reversed intake snorkel, and I believe it makes a significant difference. It's not a super hot intake air but I think it is enough. I can't micro measure every small adjustment like some can with a scan guage, but I have been learning hypermiling for 6 years, and my two patents pending on hybrid drivetrains are based on the known advantages of hypermiling going back to a POP Science article I read in 1970 at age 20.
A motor glider is a hypermiling airplane, power up a couple miles and glide 80 miles, it's the same principle.
Even a skateboard is a form of hypermiling pulse and glide.
The secret is capacitive storage with infinitely variable transmissions, which allow you to get them most efficient energy you can accumulate, then apply it at the highest possible efficiency completely independent of its generation. My preference is accumulators or flywheels.
Even an electric car can get significantly greater mileage with an ivt and short term capacitive storage.
Capacitive storage and an infinitely variable transmission make it possible to pulse and glide the engine without pulse and gliding the vehicle. The EPA states 80 % potential improvement with no signficant engine changes for this powertrain design.
diver1972, yes people have in the past and present do get shot for unknown reasons.
Yeah, unknown reasons. I was previously referring to shots fired and targets either injured or killed specifically induced by "road rage".
Just in last 3 to 5 months 6 to 10 people have been killed on the Freeways by gun shots. Road rage over going slow, going fast, cutting people off, one gentleman stopped to help a lady with a flat, someone stopped got out of his car walked up an shot the poor man to death, turned around walked back to his car and left. He still has not been found. This is just on the freeways, i am not counting the drive by shooting on the city streets.
Again, these examples are not necessarily induced by "road rage". Besides, out of the many millions to billions of "interactions" that occur just on a given day across this country, these are all very small numbers. Stories like these are blown out of proportion. Stories like these sell newspapers and TV advertising on local news channels because people seem to enjoy "consuming" these types of stories. They just get blown out of proportion and people tend to think that they're more common than they really are.
I think you misunderstood what I was saying about the 'Vette.
Yeah, I did.
In particular, I was trying to describe why a trucker in that situation could feel under pressure to move over at the right time: not too early, and not too late. I'd rather not make myself dependent on his ability to time that properly.
I'm interested only in promoting safety, and being courteous.
I'm always in favor of that and practice it daily.
And since I'm traveling 20 under the limit, for no apparent reason, that makes me feel some extra duty to avoid inconveniencing him.
The speed limit is the maximum allowable speed for that stretch of road under ideal conditions (or so the lawmakers would have us believe). If you're really concerned, then wouldn't turning on your hazard lights (AKA "flashers") be a more effective way of achieving your objective? Wouldn't it be more effective to warn all other drivers and not just truckers; thereby, further increasing your safety and your courtesy to all?
I'm not claiming that his lane change would be a great risk. I'm only claiming that the risk (to me, in particular) entailed in him changing lanes is marginally greater than the risk entailed in him going straight ahead, while I step aside. Do you disagree?
Well, yes, given that he probably has more and better driver training than you do (i.e. commercial driver license). Please don't construe this statement as an attempt to discount any training/experience that you have had above and beyond a basic driver's education course. I'm just saying that, in theory and in general, he's the one who has more training. I'm not saying that he's perfect.
I think that's because it's an inherently unusual situation. I got my license in 1972, and I never ran into this situation until 2008. I also never drove across Nevada and Utah until 2008.
In the moment, I'm not thinking about job descriptions, and I'm not thinking about 'should.' I'm thinking about safety and courtesy.
The visibility and maneuverability constraints that apply to the driver of the LCV don't apply to the driver of the SUV. So I don't think the comparison is relevant.
If the person has decided to "ride [my] bumper while honking steadily" (have you ever run into anyone who drives that way?), then I have a chance to enhance my own safety by giving them a chance to pass me sooner, rather than later.
Well, I certainly don't practice this on two-lane highways (i.e. one lane of travel in each direction), if that's what you were trying to imply.
How does slowing down (while still in the travel lane with someone "riding your bumper"), then pulling off onto an unpaved (and likely a small drop-off/uneven) surface (where loss of control could be a factor), and then merging back into the travel lane (across the same drop-off/uneven transition) enhance your own safety?
In other words, you intend to continue your dangerous practice, even though you know it's dangerous, because the higher priority for you is teaching the other guy a lesson.
Your strategy is to get really close and teach them a lesson.
I usually stay back about 2-3 car lengths (more or less, depending on speed) or just far enough that nobody else can enter between us (if it's on a more congested section of highway). Oddly enough, this is the approximate distance that many other drivers regularly drive behind other cars near where I live (i.e. it's common to see two vehicles doing 70mph with just 1-2 car lengths between them near here). I want them to be able to see my headlights flashing at them and, if they look in their mirror, to see me motioning them to change lanes so that I can safely pass.
By the way, when you tailgate you're not "obeying the law."
And one day when you rear-end one of these characters, the law will properly blame you, and tell you that the accident was "a natural consequence to [you] for not obeying the law."
Agreed. I certainly take my chances and am aware of the risks. I've had a couple people try to brake-check me. I've had some pretty close calls, but that was when I was driving my sports car that could out-manuever (i.e. brake faster and hold the road better in a quick turn) any vehicle that I happened to be following while doing this.
Good point. So you're going to persist in trying to teach these other folks a lesson, even though you realize that you're probably not going to accomplish anything.
I suppose. I guess it's just my little way of practicing road-rage without packing a pistol. I like to "give back" to the dummies out there.
Road-rage shootings are not unusual. Google it (again, I see holycow already said this).
That may be true. But they don't happen "every day" either.
It's possible you could enhance your life expectancy by adjusting your attitude about what constitutes "bother."
There's something called return on investment. I utilize this approach. For example, assume that we lived in a world where putting on your seatbelt takes 3 minutes, how many people would take the 3 minutes to put it on for a 4 minute trip to the store? This is an obviously ridiculous example, but the point is that the investment (in either time, money, or both) must outweigh the risk of not doing so.
It's also because the driving test in Europe is rigorous and costs like $2000. here it's basically a joke and costs $15.
Yeah, I forgot to mention that. Excellent point.
Originally Posted by 1993CivicVX
We simply live in a culture that has put no value into safe and courteous driving--and it's a vicious cycle--even the people who *do* wish for people to drive according the rules (like me) often don't, because it's easier to join em than beat them: when you are constantly trying to set an example or drive properly and it is hindering you and going unnoticed--one simply gives up and resorts to the practices they were just shaking their fist at.