Does climate control use gas?
#41
Earth-bound misfit
For roughly $57 per annum I'd prefer to refuel 1/2 as often even though I pass plenty of gas stations. At 5 minutes+ per fill-up & 100+ fill-ups per year (conservatively), I value my time more than the savings.
#42
Originally Posted by youngTL
I don't believe that you can model air resistance by a simple equation like that. The equations of fluid dynamics are actually a set of coupled partial differential equations and are extremely complex to solve. The relevant equations are called the Navier-Stokes equations.
And secondly, at least with the Accord V6, I've noticed that the A/C off doesn't do all that much. I made a same-day trip to Calgary (297.1km from the Esso in St. Albert to the first gas station I saw in Calgary) there and back. The ambient temperature in the later morning was 11°C, so I drove with the A/C off, CC set to 22°C and used 19.4L of gas (filling up at a Petro Canada in Calgary), netting me 6.53L/100km. I had reset my trip meter and filled up at the Esso as I was leaving (resetting it at the gas station). Highway 2 is uninterrupted, so there's not too many traffic lights to screw things up except near the gas stations (and that's negligable). I was traveling in 6th gear on cruise control at exactly (as close as I could get to) 100km/h in the slow lane since the speed limit is 110 and going slower saves gas.
On the way back, since I'd driven around the city, I stopped at the Petro Canada again, reset my trip meter and filled up to full. Then, it was 24°C outside, so I used the climate control on AUTO set at 22°C. I traveled in 6th gear at 100km/h and then filled up at the Esso again when I got back. I somehow traveled an extra 0.2km, I don't know how. So I got 7.23L/100km according to my calculations since the pump told me I used 21.5L of gas.
So there we have it. I think the extra $2 I spent on a 3 hour trip was freakin worth it for my comfort. I could have had the A/C off and allegedly saved $2.02, but so what? And don't forget, the A/C needs to go on sometimes to lubricate the parts.
And secondly, at least with the Accord V6, I've noticed that the A/C off doesn't do all that much. I made a same-day trip to Calgary (297.1km from the Esso in St. Albert to the first gas station I saw in Calgary) there and back. The ambient temperature in the later morning was 11°C, so I drove with the A/C off, CC set to 22°C and used 19.4L of gas (filling up at a Petro Canada in Calgary), netting me 6.53L/100km. I had reset my trip meter and filled up at the Esso as I was leaving (resetting it at the gas station). Highway 2 is uninterrupted, so there's not too many traffic lights to screw things up except near the gas stations (and that's negligable). I was traveling in 6th gear on cruise control at exactly (as close as I could get to) 100km/h in the slow lane since the speed limit is 110 and going slower saves gas.
On the way back, since I'd driven around the city, I stopped at the Petro Canada again, reset my trip meter and filled up to full. Then, it was 24°C outside, so I used the climate control on AUTO set at 22°C. I traveled in 6th gear at 100km/h and then filled up at the Esso again when I got back. I somehow traveled an extra 0.2km, I don't know how. So I got 7.23L/100km according to my calculations since the pump told me I used 21.5L of gas.
So there we have it. I think the extra $2 I spent on a 3 hour trip was freakin worth it for my comfort. I could have had the A/C off and allegedly saved $2.02, but so what? And don't forget, the A/C needs to go on sometimes to lubricate the parts.
#43
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 42
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by STEELTOWN
No, I never argue, I try to enlighten. Having a friendly conversation with AcuraZines finest help get through a long day. So, my last attempt to enlighten my electrical engineer friend (hopefully he has paid more attention in Circuits than Physics):
The original point of my post was the term negligible can not be used unless you know the answer. [...] So working 50 weeks out of the year, I will spend (@$3.10 gallon gas) an extra $57.00. That is low ball because we didn't work in accerlerating that weight over the course of my commute/year. So I guess there are a few people here who have better things to do with $57.00 than to toss it out the window, we can't all be money making Electrical Engineers.[/QUOTE]
Okay, let's be conservative and call it $100 a year. That's what I call negligible. I spend more than $100 a year on, well, everything I spend money on. I spend more than $100 a year on M&Ms. That's negligible.
Unless you have invented a new science, the energy loss carrying 100 lbs over 10 miles and accelerating it will not be gained back coasting into any stop light or sign at even 1000 feet.
I don't recall ever stating which losses were the greatest, I have only made a point of going over losses you say are negligible. So how about taking a poll and find out if people think $57.00 is a neglible amount that can be saved relatively easy, by unloading the trunk.
I hardly think that is a sacrifice. [...] Unload the trunk
drive with half a tank of gas instead of filling it up each time (unless you live in the Amazon and don't pass eight gas stations during your commute, you shouldn't have to go out of your way to find a Petrol station).
So I am finished with this post, your P.Diddy money is obviously greater than mine, so I am headed out to unload my trunk...
#44
Registered Abuser of VTEC
Originally Posted by STEELTOWN
Equations get us in the ballpark and then its testing to see what additional items need to be covered. Computers also play a big role in crunching the long involved values. That equation for air resistance is legitimate. It takes into account the density of air, the coefficient of drag - .29 for a Tl among other things. You are right, that equation does not address cross winds, etc among other things. The Fluid Dynamics equations address the wind characteristics a bit finer, turbulent versus laminar, etc. Better answers take longer, thus the more involved equations. But if you need a quick and dirty answer, equations like the ones stated will do.
#45
Burning Brakes
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Washington, DC
Age: 42
Posts: 851
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by youngTL
I don't believe that you can model air resistance by a simple equation like that. The equations of fluid dynamics are actually a set of coupled partial differential equations and are extremely complex to solve. The relevant equations are called the Navier-Stokes equations.
#48
Three Wheelin'
Originally Posted by youngTL
I think he has a point though about the obese part. Someone who's obese should lose weight to get better fuel economy. I mean look at Texas...about 2/3 of people there are overweight or obese IIRC. Imagine how much gas North Americans would save as a total if those of us that were fat lost weight.
If you really want to talk about pushing/pulling around of bunch of needless weight, you need to start with all the people that have SUVs without ever really using all that room.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post