Not really. The SBC system anticipates emergency situations, pre-loads the system. It dries wet discs intermittently, uses supercomputers to prevent wheel lock, it's an immensely complex electronic system, now sadly discontinued. By your argument all development of braking systems should be pointless, yet they continue to improve. Perhaps they should have given up once ABS was invented?
No, it's not. Firstly, I think you're mistaking me for someone else, I wasn't involved in the debate about fuel efficiency. Till you dragged me in with your mistake. But since I'm here, it's pretty obvious that below a certain speed, fuel efficiency falls.
If you have a car you can control at 5mph without slipping the clutch I would not be at all surprised to find out it was more efficient at that speed. All of the forces it has to overcome are proportional to speed or increase disproportionately with speed, the only way it could be more efficient at 50mph is by being incredibly inefficient at 5,which doesn't sound great for urban driving
For someone who was just telling us that statistics are 88% made up, you seem suddenly quite happy to accept them uncritically when they support your case ;-)
Bloody hell, can't win can I. Well they are, and they'll show whatever you want, as you've proven, but I'll tell you what. You drive everywhere at 2 miles an hour, and enjoy wonderful fuel economy, and as least it'll keep you offline a lot longer. I'll carry on driving at a sensible efficient speed, and have more time to ride! ;-)For someone who was just telling us that statistics are 88% made up, you seem suddenly quite happy to accept them uncritically when they support your case ;-)
I have a few questions, because frankly I doubt it's nearly as simple as this graph makes out. Apart from rolling resistance and aero drag, the other things that are going to affect efficiency are (a) constant factors (e.g. pumps and whatnot that run all the time the engine is on); (b) the most efficient speeds for the engine. That being so, why are there only two peaks on this graph and not five?
The indicated source of the data is the EPA. According to teh interwebs, the EPA tests are conducted on a rolling road (1) at a constant 56mph; (2) using a simulated "urban cycle" which is stop-start driving between 0 and 30. In other words, they're probably not even testing driving at constant speeds under 30mph using the appropriate gear for driving at that speed, all their data points at low speed are measuring consumption under acceleration. Which is going to be much less fuel-efficient. Incidentally if you built a similar graph from "crowd-sourced" vehicle telemetry data you'd probably still get the same problem, because who drives at a steady 20mph for any length of time?
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml
I'd also be interested to know how much the constant factors actually account for: if you put headlights and AC and radio on, low speed driving is going to look worse. Things like the fuel pump, these days, ought to be PWM and therefore vary with engine speed. Cooling fans - 10A when it's on? 120W, so about the same as headlights...
all this from a boy who said"old people are generally less likely to drive like tits" wow!,what a statement,give me the facts,college boy
https://www.abi.org.uk/Insurance-and-savings/Products/Motor-insurance/Age-and-motor-insurance here you goall this from a boy who said"old people are generally less likely to drive like tits" wow!,what a statement,give me the facts,college boy
looks like it's showing me insurance claims??not answering my question
What was the question?
