Hypermiling goes mainstream
 

Article on front page of Yahoo about 'slowing down' has some good stats and info to let you know just how much speed affects FE

https://finance.yahoo.com/family-home...e-a-Lot-of-Gas

this wheeks there where two comertials on a radio station over here, one for Total exelion fuel, wich is supposed to be some sort of premium fuel...
and one from michlin for their "engergy saver" LRR tires.

both where advertising their products as being an aid to reduce fuel consumption and co2 emissions.
regardless of the motivations of the companies (wich is to sell as much of whatever it is they make) it does prove gassaveing is not some weird hobby anymore but something that appeals to a big audience.

good article

thx for the post

It's too bad most people simply don't think about the speed/economy relationship. But most cars simply don't have any form of immediate feedback, leaving drivers blissfully unaware of what their speed costs them.

Of course, getting to the last point of the article, the time savings of speeding adds up to potential hotel savings on extended trips.

Actually, most hotels chains are struggling due to ppl not pleasure tripping so much, and they might pick up on that. Like "hey, slow down and save gas on us, stay two consecutive nights in two different cities and the third is on us..."

I noticed a Mustang that I see at work everyday. On my new commute, I noticed the same Mustang on the highway. I was going at the speed limit 65 and the Mustang was probably pulling 70-75 for the next 6 miles. We ended up getting to work at the same time. The 50 MPH roads with traffic lights with some traffic doesn't allow you to use speed to your advantage.

Actually, I get pissed off at drivers going 55 in a 60 - 65 mph speed limit zone!

One "simple" justification I hear from my non-hypermiling family is to imagine that you've got a job to do at a distant location. Which is better, saving gas and getting to the destination late so you may lose out on a revenue opportunity versus travelling faster thus costing more in gas but making it to the destination on time or early enough to accomplish a revenue opportunity that would outweigh the extra gas cost? From a "simplistic" analysis, their argument "seems" to have a point but if you look at it from a conservative and safety perspective, it just doesn't make sense.

Well to start with there is the technique called leaving early. Also you may have to drive faster to get there on time, but you can still hypermile on the way back.

Hateful,

Yeah, I agree. Due to my current lack of a Scangauge, all I do is hypermiling techniques and notice changes of my mpg between refills. So I've become rather sensitive to the "effects" of violating hypermiling techniques to include going faster than 55 mph. So, in theory there may be some sort of "balancing out" going on by going faster first then hypermile back, but I'll find out the next time I refill my gas tank the direct effects of the "going faster" segment when my calculated mpg goes to heck relative to when I try to hypermile.

From a technological standpoint, here's what I've figured out. I learned from experience that a human being walks around 2 miles per hour. So let's theoretically apply the 8 hour work day into this equation. So during an 8 hour time frame, your one way range would be 16 miles. Now, if you decide to run, that raises the speed to about 4 miles per hour. Assuming somehow you can keep running for 8 hours straight, that's a one way range of 32 miles. Now imagine you're in a car travelling 55 mph. Assuming the same 8 hours, that's a one way range of 440 miles. That's 27.5 times the range of walking or in another words, a 2650% increase in range compared to walking. So I've got no problems going at 55 mph as recommended to hypermile. My previously mentioned family members do though. At least in my mind, I say "would you rather walk?"