[u00mem9]

I've only owned my second-hand insight for a couple weeks but I have no complaints.

I have enjoyed the tips for improving fuel economy on this site. (I've been a fan of the 50 psi tire setting for many years prior to my Insight purchase) I've read many accounts on this site about the high fuel economy that can be achieved by slowing down. I've heard many people going 55 mph on the highway or even slower.

So, I made some rough calculations to help me consider slowing down...

I drive about 130 mi per day. I compared 2 scenarios: #1) maintaining a average speed of 55 mph and returning 80 mpg. #2) maintaining a 72 mph average and returning 60 mpg. Some of you may think these numbers are high or low...perhaps you would do better or worse. But I just wanted a rough idea.

So assuming gas is $2.00 / gal... I calculated the money saved by slowing down: $1.08 ( per day by slowing from 72 to 55 mph)

Next I calculated the additional time required to make this slower commute: 33 minutes.

That works out to a return of $1.96 for an hour of my time. I realize getting high mpg numbers has become a bit of a hobby for some of you, so that enjoyment is neglected by this analysis. But does anyone really think this is worthwhile??

I plan to speed up.

 

[Guest]

I personally don't like being the slowest person on the road. It makes me feel like I'm not getting anywhere. Not that I want to be the fastest, either. On highway trips I generally maintain 65 to 70 mph most of the time, and average about the same mpg depending on weather.

 

[ElectricTroy]

That works out to a return of $1.96 for an hour of my time. I realize getting high mpg numbers has become a bit of a hobby for some of you, so that enjoyment is neglected by this analysis. But does anyone really think this is worthwhile??

I plan to speed up.

Ditto once I get my Insight #2. It was fun getting 90 mpg, but now I think I'll just drive it for speed.

 

[Guest]

Hi U00mem9:

___I don’t mind being the slowest person on the road at all because I am not in race. It isn’t about the time, it is about saving fuel and emitting less pollution. If I were to only get 60 mpg in an Insight, I might as well drive an Accord and receive 45 - 50 mpg at the much higher speeds. I can drive the truck or the Corolla at 60 + and receive 37 and 48 mpg respectively as well if time were my utmost concern.

___Secondly, have you ever actually calculated your average speed anywhere? You can lock up 60 mph going anywhere all day long and I will guarantee you will have a lower overall average just from the starts and stops. There is a delta but it is not as large as you might think.

___Finally, I cringe to think of all those 45 lmpg Insight’s running around the country because the drivers obviously had too little time on there hands to conserve fuel let alone the excess emissions and wear and tear imho. At those types of lmpg’s, they completely wasted our Insight’s capabilities

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:2tdbulsa][email protected][/email:2tdbulsa]

 

[rwarn17588]

I'm trying, Wayne, I'm trying.

I bought my 2000 5-speed Insight in March. It had lifetime mpg of 47.4 at 15,000 miles. Since I've had it, the lmpg has risen to 51.2 at 26,000 miles, and it's still climbing.

I'm not sure ... what's the math on that?

Anyway, short of the pizza-delivery guy who posted here a while back, I don't see how you could get just 47 miles per gallon. I'm not exactly what you call a pokey driver, my region has a lot of hills, and a lot of my driving is stop-and-go in the city. But I'm obviously doing in the mid- to high 50s in the city and the 60s and 70s on the highway. I'm sure I'd cringe if I saw my previous driver's habits -- which obviously seem foreign to mine.

 

[Yves M.]

I am one of those who has a low average like Wayne and Rwarn wrote about. Off course, I have the winter temps, the bigger winter tires (175/70) to help me in getting low mpg averages (higher 40').

But even in summer, I am close these numbers.

It is the exact reason I bought the car. I have always driven cars in the same manner, from a 98 cubic inch engine in a 1980 Pontiac Acadian to 454 in a Firebird.

So instead of getting the EPA of 18 MPG the Cherokee I had previously, I always had around 10 MPG (to me this is almost 30 liters per 100 KM). Now with the Insight I get around 5 L/100KM which is 1/6 the gas and even lesser in polution.


To get to the point of the tread, every time I had a speeding ticket, I tell my wife that I will save the money by driving conservatively until I have saved the money back.
That used to be quick in the way I drive. A few weeks.

I only had 1 speeding ticket since I had my Insight. The reason is that in order to save the speeding ticket money, and the price is higher each year, it now takes a hell of a time. If I remember it was more than a year. Because the Insight does not use much gas, and to save the difference of higher MPG, is not a big amount.

 

[james]

"Not that I want to be the fastest, either."

Yeah. I aim for somewhere about the 80th percentile myself: somewhat above the limit, but still slow enough that there's likely to be someone going faster than me to catch the traffic cops' attention.

I perfer to save gas AND time by driving smoothly and planning ahead, for instance by timing traffic lights so I can roll through on the green, rather than (like some people) rushing up to a red, then standing on the brakes.

 

[b1shmu63]

If I had to drive 130 miles a day like u00mem9, I'm afraid I'd be driving a lot faster. Life is too short! As it is I drive 110 miles one day a week. I enjoy the ride and tend to poke along somewhat unless there is someone behind me. For me this time is a chance to reflect a little and enjoy the ride. So you see, I don't think the money is the main issue.

 

[Insightful Trekker]

The equation as proposed is oversimplified. e.g. cost per gallon vs. hourly income. It omits other costs of political, national economic, environmental, and sociological.

Which some will debate ad infinitum. Many threads on such topics have been (appropriately) locked in this forum.

Please slow down and think of what your spending. The "time" you save in the present from speeding up is merely being stolen from the future and will ultimately have to be paid for.

 

[Philosophy]

I'm not going to get into a mathematical discussion about it, but it's obvious that speed is a diminishing return when factored with speed limits and fuel economy losses. You shouldn't have to change your lifestyle to enjoy your car, you should enjoy what your car provides your lifestyle.

Sometimes I drive faster, other times slower. Depends on what a hurry I'm in to get where I'm going. I think that sounds like the best general plan
-Philosophy

 

[Foxpaw]

Hrm, your consideration seems to operate on the assumption that all of your time is of equal value, which isn't really true. You should be comparing this return on your time to the return you would otherwise be getting on that time, which is probrably nothing.

The exception of course would be if the 33 minutes you saved were spent at a job where you were earning an hourly wage. However, then you also have to factor in that you not only have to drive faster, but also do 33 minutes of work.

 

[Guest]

Hi Philosophy:

You shouldn't have to change your lifestyle to enjoy your car …

___It isn’t about one’s lifestyle or enjoyment, it is about your children’s or grand children’s ability to drive an automobile or live with a decent at best std. of living in the future. This doesn’t take into account the ability to breathe cleaner air today or the possibility of GW. Peak Oil is real. Sure we have Canada’s oil sands and the US’ oil shale. Unfortunately, these are not great alternatives today nor are they inexpensive substitutes … Do you realize 1/2 of our annual trade deficit comes about because of our net 55% oil imports vs. internal supply? Do you want to know why the Euro has increased in value by 50% vs. the $ in the last 3 years? These trade deficits have a profound impact on our general account deficits which are now > 7.3 Trillion $’s and rising at an annual rate of > $500 Billion which includes today’s SS surplus from our daily FICA additions going right back into these same general government operating accounts.

___I bet no one ever told you about the above?

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:3gmepb3x][email protected][/email:3gmepb3x]

 

[james]

Well, I do think all of my time is of equal value, to me. Reality dictates that I have to spend some of it in obtaining the necessities of life (money, for simplicity), or the chores of daily living, like housecleaning, brushing my teeth, or driving places, but I would like to minimize those as much as possible.

As for the notion that by driving faster, I'm somehow spending my (hypothetical) grandchildren's inheritance, two points: First, even if I drove my Insight as fast as it would go all the time, I'd still be doing more than 99% of the population of this country. The amount of fuel &c I'd save by going 50 instead of 75 is miniscule in comparison to for instance that burned by cars without autostop idling at lights.

Second, if a person was really concerned, why not make an effort to drive less, by for instance getting a job within biking distance of home, or telecommuting?

 

[b1shmu63]

There are many factors involved in determining the safety of a car. Speed is one of the few that we have control over. Danger goes up Logrithmically with speed as kinetic energy is equal to the mass times the velocity sqaured. In addition to actual impact energy you have to consider stopping distance and reaction time. What is the value of a human life? Similarly pollution goes up with speed. How many children or adults will die from pollution related disorders? What is the true cost of a gallon of gas in terms of lives lost defending foreign interests?

 

[Foxpaw]

There are many factors involved in determining the safety of a car. Speed is one of the few that we have control over. Danger goes up Logrithmically with speed as kinetic energy is equal to the mass times the velocity sqaured. In addition to actual impact energy you have to consider stopping distance and reaction time.

Hrmm, but only in theory. A faster moving car spends less time on the road, which amortizes the increased risk somewhat. A faster moving vehicle also makes more noise and is more noticeable to pedestrians and other drivers. One could also argue that a faster moving driver would be more alert.

So although driving faster possibly carries some increased risk, it can't be calculated as simply as the change in reaction time and the vehicle's energy because of the amortizing factors.

 

[kurt]

I think the initial post was right on the money. It really does not pencil out for most of us to drive the interstates in our Insights at 50mph all the time, plus I think it would give hybrids a bad image to the public. On the other hand sometimes I have the time and the road conditions and I get a kick out of getting the highest milage I can. And I salute those patient enough to rack up the astronomical lmpg numbers. They are pioneers of the hybrid movement.

 

[Guest]

Hi Foxpaw:

___Besides the increased emissions, increased fuel consumption, higher wear and tear by traveling at higher speeds, B1shmu63 brought up a very good point … the safety issue.

Reaction Distance = Reaction Time * Speed

Speed is ~ constant during this period because you haven’t touched the brakes yet but you might have slightly pulled your foot from the accelerator? Perception + Reaction time = ~ 1.5 seconds for most.

Braking Distance = [(Initial Speed (ft/s))**2]/(2* Deceleration)

Deceleration is ~ constant during the severe deceleration phase at ~ 30 ft/Sec**2 using C&D’s 70 - 0 mph braking distance of 181 ft for our Little Beauty’s. This was from C&D’s January 2000 Insight Road Test.

88 ft/sec = 60 mi/hr.

Reaction distance + Braking distance = Total distance traveled before stopping.

At 50 mph: Total braking distance = 110’ + 90’ = 200’
At 75 mph: Total braking distance = 165’ + 202’ = 365’

___That is > ½ a football field longer to stop from 75 mph!

___So two things … Would you rather hit something at 50 mph or less given you might actually have time for some braking in any distance > 110’ before the collision or at 75 mph where you have probably already collided with whatever (165’ or less) before you had the chance to touch the brakes? Remember that your perception + reaction + actual braking time at 75 is almost ½ a football field longer then at 50 mph. I am not even including the damaging impact energy that has to be dissipated! How many accidents could be avoided with that extra ½ football field of distance anyway?

___Someone else can check my math from the following:

http://www.sci-ed-ga.org/modules/drivin ... ation2.pdf

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:1yntmdfj][email protected][/email:1yntmdfj]

 

[b1shmu63]

1."A faster moving car spends less time on the road."
True, but it still covers the same distance, and objects such as cars and pedestrians have less time to move aside.( If you were traveling at lets say 1,000 MPH almost nothing could avoid being hit by you.) As speed increases the turning radius of your vehicle increases. (Think of the turning circle of a military jet). The factors of stopping distance, turning radius, kinetic energy, and slower objects inability to avoid you actually multiply together mathematically which makes the original kinetic energy hypothesis incredibly conservative.

2. "A faster moving vehicle also makes more noise and is more noticeable to pedestrians and other drivers."
Unfortunately our Insights are very quiet and their low CD means they don?t make much wind noise. Also unfortunately my car is a grey colour which is not that noticeable. Fortunately, In Canada we must drive with our lights on, and this really does help!

3. "One could also argue that a faster moving driver would be more alert."
I have to agree with you there. That is one of the reasons I really like manual transmissions. Automatics put me to sleep! Boring. :roll: The Insight handling tends to keep one alert too.

I didn"t want to frighten anyone. I like to drive fast myself, and I believe that our cars are safer than average and handle better than average. Arguing for the case for speed in an Insight is the fact that our cars have a low CD. As a result higher speeds do not carry the same heavy penalty with regard to overcoming wind resistance as a boxier vehicle. If EPA highway ratings were done at 90 MPH, cars like the Insight (.25 CD) would be waaaaaay ahead of everything except the Prius II (.26 CD)

 

[chisight]

Removed by poster, sick of being censored.

Chisight
'00 Red 4453 AC 69K miles 79.6LMPG

 

[Guest]

Hi Chisight:

___I was just picking up a draft from you for those 15 miles :roll: I mean I was up learning fuel economy “tips and tricks” :shock: I mean I was really protecting you from those nuts that were way over the limit in the far right lane from hitting you I mean I was … well, actually I was checking out your Insight as I never saw a Formula Red one in person before that late evening out on I94 in November of last year. I haven’t seen you out there since but you have a very nice looking automobile if I do say so myself

___Good Luck

___Wayne R. Gerdes
___Hunt Club Farms Landscaping Ltd.
___[email:rd3qcoiv][email protected][/email:rd3qcoiv]