▲ 140 ▼ for lulz (i.imgur.com) submitted 2 months ago by slothrop@lemmy.ca to c/fuckcars@lemmy.world 46 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 7 points 2 months ago (2 children) Wouldn't that mean that a car with a trailer uses the same amount if fuel? Which it doesn't, I am sure. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 child) It just has to burn more fuel for each combustion cycle to keep the engine spinning at the same speed. It's like how it's easier to pedal a bike down an incline versus up the same incline, but your legs will still pedal at the same rate for the same speed (assuming you don't change gears). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) See my reply in another comment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Yep, you've got it right. permalink fedilink source parent [–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (1 child) No, because an engine can use different amounts of fuel even at the same RPM. At the most extreme, a car can go downhill at high RPM with no fuel injection at all, only driven by gravity. During normal driving, the engine's crankshaft has a hard link to the wheels. It's going through a couple of gears etc. inside the transmission etc., but the speed conversion from that is fixed within a single gear. This means that the speed the vehicle is going is directly tied to the RPM the engine is turning at. For every gear, every possible vehicle speed correlates directly to a single specific RPM of the engine. Fuel use at that RPM can vary a lot though, entirely depending on the amount of energy needed to keep the engine at that speed with air resistance and other factors trying to slow the car down through the drivetrain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) I am following your reasoning here. The thing that tripped me up was the last sentence of your previous comment. I understood it like it's not necessary to switch gears since the load has no real effect on the force needed to move the car. You probably meant that the engine could handle the extra load while staying in the same gear and still use more fuel. I think we are on the same page now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Ah, yeah, that's what I meant. I just assumed that at highway speeds, the additional drag in this scenario probably wouldn't be enough to warrant shifting down. Although to be fair depending on the engine it totally might, that was just a quick generalization on my part permalink fedilink source parent
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 11 points 2 months ago (1 child) It just has to burn more fuel for each combustion cycle to keep the engine spinning at the same speed. It's like how it's easier to pedal a bike down an incline versus up the same incline, but your legs will still pedal at the same rate for the same speed (assuming you don't change gears). permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) See my reply in another comment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Yep, you've got it right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child) See my reply in another comment permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Yep, you've got it right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 1 point 2 months ago Yep, you've got it right. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 5 points 2 months ago* (1 child) No, because an engine can use different amounts of fuel even at the same RPM. At the most extreme, a car can go downhill at high RPM with no fuel injection at all, only driven by gravity. During normal driving, the engine's crankshaft has a hard link to the wheels. It's going through a couple of gears etc. inside the transmission etc., but the speed conversion from that is fixed within a single gear. This means that the speed the vehicle is going is directly tied to the RPM the engine is turning at. For every gear, every possible vehicle speed correlates directly to a single specific RPM of the engine. Fuel use at that RPM can vary a lot though, entirely depending on the amount of energy needed to keep the engine at that speed with air resistance and other factors trying to slow the car down through the drivetrain. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) I am following your reasoning here. The thing that tripped me up was the last sentence of your previous comment. I understood it like it's not necessary to switch gears since the load has no real effect on the force needed to move the car. You probably meant that the engine could handle the extra load while staying in the same gear and still use more fuel. I think we are on the same page now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Ah, yeah, that's what I meant. I just assumed that at highway speeds, the additional drag in this scenario probably wouldn't be enough to warrant shifting down. Although to be fair depending on the engine it totally might, that was just a quick generalization on my part permalink fedilink source parent
[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 3 points 2 months ago (1 child) I am following your reasoning here. The thing that tripped me up was the last sentence of your previous comment. I understood it like it's not necessary to switch gears since the load has no real effect on the force needed to move the car. You probably meant that the engine could handle the extra load while staying in the same gear and still use more fuel. I think we are on the same page now permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Ah, yeah, that's what I meant. I just assumed that at highway speeds, the additional drag in this scenario probably wouldn't be enough to warrant shifting down. Although to be fair depending on the engine it totally might, that was just a quick generalization on my part permalink fedilink source parent
[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago Ah, yeah, that's what I meant. I just assumed that at highway speeds, the additional drag in this scenario probably wouldn't be enough to warrant shifting down. Although to be fair depending on the engine it totally might, that was just a quick generalization on my part permalink fedilink source parent