Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2008 17:41:47 -0800
Reply-To: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: Scott Daniel - Shazam <scottdaniel@TURBOVANS.COM>
Subject: Re: NOVC Comment on fuel economy, drag and velocity
In-Reply-To: <9559f8780801241333w56477907w14be998324a860fc@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Frank said his the top speed he got to briefly ( I assume ) was 94 ? or 95
mph ? .....90-something.
That's not even 'breathing hard' in that car in top gear. 95 in top gearing
in that car is just loafing along. And it's not hard to hit that speed
where he was driving.
Thought I'd relate this- it can be like this in California driving - you're
going 70ish to 75 in 5 lanes of traffic, it's just a few car lengths between
cars , just enough room to weave though few holes here and there if you're
lucky. But LOTS of cars, like hundreds, all flying in formation at pretty
high speed. All of a sudden it'll slow to like 40 and you worry .......
Uh oh, hope there's not an accident ...........that can lead to an hours
long jam.....you go a few more miles and you see the delay ............a cop
has pulled someone over........get a short way past that, back up to 70+
............or worse..............all of a sudden everyone will slow down to
like 20 ....or even stop and go ..........4 or 5 lanes side by
side...........that goes on a mile or a few.........you're hoping its not a
big accident, and when you finally get to it, maybe a car has gone off the
side of the freeway, not even a hazard, but the slow down and I- have- to-
take- a- look factor makes every one slow down, and that ripples back miles
even, ....the traffic even opens up to less density once past the
distraction, and every one gets back up to 70+.
It's not uncommon there to be in formation with scads of cars there all at
80. That's like the norm a lot of the time.
I also happen to think the turbulent air is easier to penetrate than still
air, so aerodynamically it's a slight advantage - heavy traffic at speed.
I'm still surprised Frank didn't mention anything about head winds or tail
winds on that trip.
Significant factor, and they always report on the conditions, temp and wind
speed, even altitude, etc for any road test.
But 96mph ain't fast in that car, not even slightly. And that's only 16
mph above the common speeds for where the driving was.
Many vanagons would have trouble keeping up, and if they could ( and some
can ) they'd burn twice the fuel., or more.
Speaking of that , the Bugatti Veyron ( and Bugatti is owned by VW by the
way, and it uses a VW derived engine ) at it's top speed of 254 ( or 251 or
253 ..one of those ) Road and Track Mag said it would burn off it's full
fuel load of .........forget that too....30 gallons or something in maybe 12
minutes I think it was !! Must be like 3 or 4 mpg at that speed.
Scott
www.turbovans.com
-----Original Message-----
From: Vanagon Mailing List [mailto:vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com] On Behalf Of
Chad Lyles
Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2008 1:34 PM
To: vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM
Subject: Re: NOVC Comment on fuel economy, drag and velocity
wow~ you went over 88mph and you didnt go back in time??? your flux
capacitor must have been malfunctioning! "McFLY!!!!"
just kidding;)
whats it like traveling roughly 1/10th the speed of sound? my vanagon only
(safely) travels at 55mph... must be nice :)
cheers!
Chad~
84GL
On Jan 23, 2008 1:36 PM, Frank Grunthaner <FrankGRUN@aol.com> wrote:
> This past weekend, SWMBO and I delivered my daughter's 21-speed full
> suspension mountain bike (XMAS present) to her at her Humboldt State
> University
> address from southern California. It was mounted to the trunk with a
> strap-based
> temporary carrier. The Vehicle in question is our 2005 BMW 330i with
> performance
> package. Average velocity along interstate 5 was 80.6 mph as reported by
> the
> computer and BMW nav system, with a high speed of 95 and a low of 44. Trip
> fuel
> economy from SoCal to Arcata was 19.8 mpg of premium at $3.76 per gallon
> average. Trip economy for the return venture was 28.4 mpg with an average
> speed of
> 82.3 mph. Same tires, same roads, no attempt to resolve net height
> variations, temperature differences, precipitation levels. Probable weight
> delta of 22
> pounds less for the return trip given the removal of bike and carrier, but
> addition of arctic temperature clothing.
>
> Take Home Lesson: 30% fuel economy loss at average speed of 80 mph with
> mountain bike perpendicular to direction of propagation. Not a lot of
> surface area.
> Large effect.
>
> For your amusement and perusal.
>
> Frank Grunthaner
>
>
> **************
> Start the year off right. Easy ways to stay in
> shape.
>
> http://body.aol.com/fitness/winter-exercise?NCID=aolcmp00300000002489
>
--
Chad~
84gl "Hop-a-long"
| 
