Comments on: Saving Gas the Low-Tech Way

By: Bruno, observer of the Obvious

Bruno, observer of the Obvious — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 03:38:15 +0000

Conway the Trucking company mentioned in the article, won’t save any gasoline by dropping fleet speeds from 65 to 62 miles an hour. In fact they wouldn’t save so much as a drop if they stopped completely.

Conway’s Trucks burn diesel fuel.

By: Tdave

Tdave — Fri, 16 May 2008 08:45:02 +0000

I couldn’t get to the weight study. Did they take into account that people are taller, and just plain bigger, than they were in the 60’s? In the mid 60’s the average height for a male high school senior was probably about 5ft. 9(or10)in. I recently met a recent HS grad who complained that he’s too short because he was one of the shortest guys in his class. He’s “only” 6 feet tall.

By: G

Thu, 15 May 2008 20:11:17 +0000

Public transportation is not always an option. I comute 80 miles a day but even if I took the train into the city where I work (I live outside the metropolitan area) my office is not even near the train station, it’s probably 5 miles away.

Perhaps if everyone stopped buying SUVs that get less than 20 miles per gallon it would help a little. If nothing else it might help the envrionment.

By: Kevin H

Kevin H — Thu, 15 May 2008 15:35:21 +0000

Supply and demand doesn’t really apply to fuel…check this out from snopes
snopes.com/politics/gasoline/eggs.asp

By: Doc

Doc — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:58:50 +0000

To Rob:

I disagree. My friends say I drive like an old lady because I accelerate slowly and brake lightly, take advantage of hills, and don’t worry if the guy in the SUV behind be is pissed because I drive the speed limit. My spousal unit is quite the opposite.

I was raised in a time (60s) when there was something called the MobileGas economy run – where large gas-guzzling cars achieved rather phenomenal mileage. I took those messages to heart.

When I drive our V6-powered ‘06 Tundra I get 19 MPG combined city/highway. When she drives it she gets 15. Those 4 MPG can save a lot of cash.

I laugh a lot when some clown blasts away from a traffic light, then sees me next to him/her at the next light. Does it matter to me that he/she got there first? Not a bit.

Where I live, the traffic light system gets stupid whenever it rains – the computer that “runs” the system is old, antiquated, and prone to failure at the least provocation. Ghods know how much the city would save if they’d upgrade the system, but they’re more interested in promoting downtown festivals (with inadequate parking and no public trans) and attracting the elderly to come live in beautiful South Carolina with their Caddies and Lincolns and duallie diesels to pull their horse trailers. There are no busses. There is no light rail. The only public trans are taxis.

We are dependent on oil, whether foreign or domestic. We have been in this condition for over a hundred years.

I like the convenience of being able to go where I want, when I want. But I combine trips. I don’t run to the store (10 miles) when I’m low on milk – I wait ’till I can do a complete grocery run. If more people were to do this we would cut our petroleum consumption by a substantial percentage.

By: fixedgear

fixedgear — Wed, 14 May 2008 18:55:37 +0000

Or we could adopt the European model and live near our place of work. I don’t think folks in Copenhagen worry too much that their neighbors think they are wierd for riding a bike everywhere. Only in the US is a bike a kid’s toy, a mark of poverty or the last resort when your license is suspsnded for DUI.

Maybe if we didn’t live 45 miles from where we work we wouldn’t cry about spending an hour in the car each way.

Oh, I forgot, we’re making a better life for our kids. Meanwhile, they need to be chauferred from swim meet to piano lesson to soccer practice because it’s dangerious for kids to ride bikes in suburbia. If they don’t get run over by another soccer mom in a huge fucking ugly SUV they might get snatched, because, hey, don’t you watch the news, it’s a dangerous world out there. I hope gas goes to ten bucks a galon, it’s the only way we’re gonna wake up.

/rant off

By: ziggy

ziggy — Wed, 14 May 2008 13:10:04 +0000

these are all great ideas, however, they are at best shortsighted…we need to think of the big picture and start making considerable efforts NOW to decrease our dependency on foreign oil..if we started to make major changes 30 years ago during the last crisis, we would probably not be in this situation now..why haven’t we been able to develop a more fuel efficient car in the last 30 years?? a better public transportation system? more energy efficient appliances, homes, etc?…because all these thing require REAL effort and a countrywide/global social awareness change..we NEED to check our insecureties at the door, stop worring about what our neighbors will think becuse we bought a small fuel efficient car, take the bus, walk to work, carpool, etc and start concentrating our efforts for the long term..if we start to do that, maybe in 30 years, we won’t be in this situation again..

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 14 May 2008 03:03:13 +0000

Lindsey: Do the calculations for your daily commute include costs for insurance and vehicle repair & replacement? If not, you might want to have another look at your ROI.

I live about 6 miles from where I work; easily within biking range, but hate riding to work then smelling like sweat the rest of the day (no shower facilities at work.) So I added an electric hub motor and batteries to my bike. Now riding the bike is like riding downhill the whole way and it uses only a few pennies worth of electricity to get me there.

Oh, and my knees are happier too.

By: Pointy-Hatted Geek

Pointy-Hatted Geek — Wed, 14 May 2008 00:36:00 +0000

Of course, we could alleviate the problem with truckers by simply using trains. Think about it. How many truckloads of junk could you fit on a train? My guess is an awful lot. And how many truckers are needed to move all that junk normally? Quite a few. How many people would be needed to work the train moving all that junk? Quite a few less.

By: Rob

Rob — Tue, 13 May 2008 20:38:54 +0000

@Lindsey -
To the contrary; accelerating faster actually saves fuel. Accelerating twice as fast does not use twice as much fuel, and your vehicle shifts into the optimal gear more quickly. Try it sometime if your vehicle has an average fuel economy display.