 | |
Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters?
Miscellaneous UK car topics Other UK car topics (uk.rec.cars.misc)
 |
| | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
#101
 
| |||
| |||
|
Re: Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? -
05-11-2007
, 02:23 AM
|
Ed Chilada <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote: Because that's when the limiter on the car cuts in. So effectively your car already has a speed limiting device. No not "effectively" it has a speed limiting device. And if I want I can have it disabled without falling fould of the law. And flooding newsgroups with cross-posted shite isn't "discussion", HTH. Sure, but I certainly haven't done that. Then you may wish to stop hiding behind the name of someone who does just that. |
moniker. Problem is, I haven't ever "flooded newsgroups with
cross-posted shite". Or "wrecked" any newsgroups (which newsgroups?
And in what way are they wrecked?!).
I think you're just mixing me up with someone else. Sounds a lot like
Mike Corely TBH, but I can't imagine anyone getting anyone confused
with him.
#102
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <3eq143d7c4487pdo13jdghr0vrr7g3156s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:28:51 +0100, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: In article <08iu33117jbarel9plkbn3i1av0rn0d4vu (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:58:02 +0100, "Sla#s" <phil (AT) KNOTslatts (DOT) net wrote: 2. Lower emissions and fuel usage Un-proven - in fact the reverse has been shown as cruise controls use more fuel. Not in my experience - cruise control keeps the MPG higher. What's this research ("has been shown"), you're referring to? Try the Top Gear programme where J Clarkson takes an Audi A8 from London to Edinburgh and gets better MPG than the cruise control. Yes I recall that, but surely it's hardly scientific unless he did the exact same journey twice? What other method do you suggest other than driving and measuring the MPG with and without? |
over the same stretch of road. That means going back and doing it
again, not just turning it on and off on different roads - way too
many variables.
Quote:
|
And when you consider that the stretch the CC was on was the one that would return higher MPG because it was a fairly even motorway as compared to twisty A roads, it is more than relevent. |
incline during one test to complete skew the results. In fact, you
could have a totally flat road, but with a headwind in one section of
it (perhaps in a valley), which would skew the results. My own
experience is based on the same journey hundreds of times, over which
the sheer number of results lessens the impact of individual
circumstances.
#103
| |||
| |||
|
|
In article <3eq143d7c4487pdo13jdghr0vrr7g3156s (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Mon, 7 May 2007 20:28:51 +0100, Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com wrote: In article <08iu33117jbarel9plkbn3i1av0rn0d4vu (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, Ed Chilada says... On Sun, 6 May 2007 14:58:02 +0100, "Sla#s" <phil (AT) KNOTslatts (DOT) net wrote: 2. Lower emissions and fuel usage Un-proven - in fact the reverse has been shown as cruise controls use more fuel. Not in my experience - cruise control keeps the MPG higher. What's this research ("has been shown"), you're referring to? Try the Top Gear programme where J Clarkson takes an Audi A8 from London to Edinburgh and gets better MPG than the cruise control. Yes I recall that, but surely it's hardly scientific unless he did the exact same journey twice? What other method do you suggest other than driving and measuring the MPG with and without? |
simultaneously with cruise control over a set course (several laps of a track,
maybe.) Repeat without cruise control. Measure the differences in MPG between
both cars ad drivers with and without cruise.
Then repeat with one car with cruise on, the other without. Repeat but with
the other car using cruise and vice versa.
Now measure the differences in both cars/drivers when using cruise and without
cruise. Adjust according to the differences measured in the control test.
Quote:
|
And when you consider that the stretch the CC was on was the one that would return higher MPG because it was a fairly even motorway as compared to twisty A roads, it is more than relevent. |
keep a speed absolutely steady. Drivers, if being careful, tend to allow a
little deceleration uphill, whilst enjoying a higher speed "for free" downhill.
Whilst keeping your speed steady is better for MPG on the level, it doesn't
mean that compensating for inclines is also good. In fact it is accelerating
and decelerating (more accurately, opening the throttle to give more power and
actively limiting or reducing the speed) that uses fuel. Cruise will do these
things where a careful driver simply lets physics have a say, too.
#104
| |||
| |||
|
|
On Wed, 9 May 2007 15:31:38 +0100, usenet-urcm (AT) malloc (DOT) co.uk (Steve Firth) wrote: Conor <conor.turton (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote: In article <1hxtfld.1xy5eycwnh2xpN%%steve%@malloc.co.uk>, Steve Firth says... Maybe higher than you can manage but on an economy run it's better to not use cruise control. Cruise keeps constant speed even when it would be more economical to ease off, especially on hill climbs. You've not done an economical driving course have you? No, but I can get 32mpg from a 4.2L supercharged Jaguar. Impressive! The MPG I mean. Cruise control on an auto will change down and rev the nuts off on a hill climb. You've never driven an auto, with cruise, have you? I have, in fact, I do. And I've never seen it change down on a hill. These must be *seriously* steep hills. Have you any examples? |
#105
| |||
| |||
|
|
No, but I can get 32mpg from a 4.2L supercharged Jaguar. Impressive! The MPG I mean. |
resisting the temptation to bury the pedal in the Wilton was difficult.
[snip]
[Cruise changing down on Hills]
Quote:
|
I have, in fact, I do. And I've never seen it change down on a hill. These must be *seriously* steep hills. Have you any examples? |
hills on motorways. But bear in mind that I used to live in t'Peak
District and that my current route takes me over the Ardennes, Vosges,
Alps and Apennines. So even the Jag would get a bit confused if left on
cruise control at places like the Gothhard tunnel, the numerous hills
between Namur and Luxembourg and even parts of the M62.
#106
| |||
| |||
|
|
Ed Chilada <nospam (AT) nospam (DOT) com> wrote: No, but I can get 32mpg from a 4.2L supercharged Jaguar. Impressive! The MPG I mean. As long as one drives the car as if it were a Fester, that is. But resisting the temptation to bury the pedal in the Wilton was difficult. I've currently got another 600 miles to do in the Capri like that until |
the mo as well. Just nudging 40.
--
Conor
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright
until you hear them speak.........
#107
| |||||
| |||||
|
|
Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? Something like: All new cars sold in the UK / Europe must either: 1. Be electronically limited to travel at no more than 140 / 150km/hr 2. Be fitted with a GPS based speed limited limiting its speed to 15km/ hr above the prevailing speed limit. Almost everyone's first reaction to this idea is strongly negative. But is seems most of the arguments against are emotional. What are the rationale arguments against? |
acceptable risk.
Quote:
|
Method 2 above would still allow people to travel at higher speeds on German Autobahns and on racing tracks. Method 1 would be very cheap to implement. Some cars (e.g. Police Cars) could be exempt The advantages would be: 1. Fewer deaths caused by high speed accidents 2. Lower emissions and fuel usage 3. The promotion of greener vehicles that might not be able to achieve 100 miles per hour (e.g. electric cars will easily match conventional car for acceleration, but not top speed). |
vehicles ?
As far as I can see, the big issue for EVs is range.
Quote:
|
The UK Government has no intention of implementing this, believing it to be a vote loser, |
Quote:
|
though they are building an electronic database of speed limits. However, it might come in as: 1. A restriction on drivers convicted of speeding offences. |
Quote:
|
2. A means of getting lower insurance premiums, especially for younger drivers. (Norwich Union are already restricting hours of driving by charging £1/mile for young drivers at night). |
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#108
| |||
| |||
|
|
Electric cars "Dust to Dust" carbon footprint is higher than conventional cars. |
Quote:
|
SNIP People are more likely to be persuaded to go carbon neutral by education than by force. |
True - but its a question of time scales. Force is generallyseen as a quick fix.
The question is, when is it appropriate ?
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#109
| ||||||
| ||||||
|
|
In sci.environment, Sla#s phil (AT) KNOTslatts (DOT) net wrote on Sun, 6 May 2007 14:58:02 +0100 f1kn43$2e6b$2 (AT) energise (DOT) enta.net>: alexterrell wrote: Should all new cars have electronic speed limiters? Something like: All new cars sold in the UK / Europe must either: 1. Be electronically limited to travel at no more than 140 / 150km/hr 2. Be fitted with a GPS based speed limited limiting its speed to 15km/ hr above the prevailing speed limit. Almost everyone's first reaction to this idea is strongly negative. But is seems most of the arguments against are emotional. What are the rationale arguments against? Method 2 above would still allow people to travel at higher speeds on German Autobahns and on racing tracks. Method 1 would be very cheap to implement. Some cars (e.g. Police Cars) could be exempt The advantages would be: 1. Fewer deaths caused by high speed accidents Un-proven assumption. Speed does not equal death. It is inappropriate speed that is dangerous. Correct. The speed limiters would respond to local transponders, which would effectively tell the car to slow down around such things as curves. The transponders would also be hooked to law enforcement officials and weather systems. Backup monitors would also be hooked to the former, so that a cruiser can be dispatched to deal with the offending automobile, which obviously doesn't have a working limiter under certain observation patterns. |
Quote:
|
Electric cars are not the most efficient. That might go to a Stirling engine. |
grade heat ?
What give you the idea these would be efficient in an automotive
context ?
Quote:
|
I'm hoping for a continously variable transmission at some point, which would eliminate the need for batteries in a post-hybrid car. |
probably already in hybrid cars.
Quote:
|
People are more likely to be persuaded to go carbon neutral by education than by force. There are some problems with education, as it's based on trust. |
Quote:
|
How do we know they're not trying something? For all we know it's a gigantic conspiracy for those in the environmental movement to deny everyone their rightful dollop of fuel, as opposed to any concern regarding increased average global temperatures, weather instability, food losses, etc. |
Quote:
|
I would hope otherwise, but someone will bring that up -- in fact, many oil companies apparently shill to indicate that AGW is a hoax, much like the Holocaust or the moon landings. (In another corner, "astroturfing" is frequently claimed to "prove" Microsoft Windows is cheaper than Linux. Similar psychology.) |
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
#110
| |||
| |||
|
|
To clarify - I am against "speed limiters" they are dangerous unless set well above the normal driving speed (i.e the current 150mph+ for most performance cars). But I am all for "automatic pilots" - I would love to be able to get on the motormay at Glasgow and arrive in London 7 hours later with out any input from me! |
'Given the traffic flow ahead, what's the best speed
to go at ?'
indicator might be good, and that might be hooked through to an 'auto
pilot', but that's not the same thing as remote speed control or
limiting.
Cheers, J/.
--
John Beardmore
|
« Previous Thread
|
Next Thread »
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
Linear Mode
| |
Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.