100+ hypermiling / ecodriving tips & tactics

[pjrob]

Thankyou. Of course, its a big ask quite rightly. Nevertheless I found it intriguing particularly after looking at the research on the efficacy of seatbelts. Its important that we are able to work out what is best in the end. The readout was at 10.1 tonight. Still dropping. It may be that driving without the seatbelt after having had it on since I was 9 creates such caution.

[endurance]

Originally Posted by pjrob

Thankyou. Of course, its a big ask quite rightly. Nevertheless I found it intriguing particularly after looking at the research on the efficacy of seatbelts. Its important that we are able to work out what is best in the end. The readout was at 10.1 tonight. Still dropping. It may be that driving without the seatbelt after having had it on since I was 9 creates such caution.

If you really want to create caution, gently tape a potato chip (crisp) to your brake pedal. Leave enough space at one corner so you can avoid crunching it to get the car started and in gear, but otherwise, drive in a manner to avoid crushing the chip. Drive without brakes. Of course there's a punishment if you fail. You'll have to go to the car wash and vacuum your floor mats. I dare you to try it!

[JohnS]

Originally Posted by pjrob

Recently it has dropped to 10.2 Litres/100 Kilometres. This is quite dramatic after trying for so long and not succeeding.
The method will not be welcome to many.
It came as a result of trying to assess the risk-compensatory effect of removing ones seatbelt.
I have worn a seatbelt since 1966 which is five years before they were compulsory here in Melbourne,Australia which suggests accurately I am a risk-averse person.
It was a dramatic enough drop for me to say this against all my conditioning.
I did not expect this effect. I was only trying to assess the truth of the idea that one drives less safely with a seatbelt and more safely without one primarily because of reports that this occurs with bicycle helmets also.
I would suggest to anyone trying this to hook the seatbelt under your own belt to give the appearance of wearing it if the police are particularly nasty about seatbelt wearing as they are here. What is most important is that YOU know you are not wearing the seatbelt and are driving with this conciousness.
I welcome any criticism or remarks about this and also refer anyone who is interested in the relative efficacy of seatbelts to read up on the work of English researcher Prof. John Adams.

I'm all for personal choice. So long as you belt-up your under-18 kids/passengers, do what you want for yourself. If you want to risk your own life, be my guest.

But it seems to me that since you are aware that you're driving more safely NOT belted-in, it doesn't make sense to actually drive that way. I mean no disrespect, but you're not Pavolv's dog. "NO BELT? I need to drive safely. BELT? I can drive a little more crazily." You've used your mind to figure out the difference in your driving style both ways. And from your post, I can tell you are an intelligent individual. Seems to me you can click your belt on and still drive in your "non-belt mode".

I don't mean to sound preachy. But it just seems kind of silly to risk driving without your belt secured when you can drive in a similar fashion with it hooked up.

As to the part about "YOU knowing that you are not wearing the seatbelt and you are driving with this consciousness": the flaw in that argument is the other guy...who is barreling towards you on the wrong side of the road or who just ran a red light...who DOESN'T know about your seatbelt situation. Is he driving any safer? You can be the safest driver in the world but without the belt, you'll be in a world of hurt.

Even if your "belt-on, belt-off" theory were true...is it worth risking your life for the small gain in FE? I can't answer that one for you. But I know what my answer would be.

Sorry if I'm coming off as mean. That wasn't my intention.

John

[zonker]

I would suggest to anyone trying this to hook the seatbelt under your own belt to give the appearance of wearing it if the police are particularly nasty about seatbelt wearing as they are here. What is most important is that YOU know you are not wearing the seatbelt and are driving with this conciousness.
I welcome any criticism or remarks about this and also refer anyone who is interested in the relative efficacy of seatbelts to read up on the work of English researcher Prof. John Adams.

Ahh the power of the mind!

I think that this logic could apply to many safety related items that are equipped on ones vehicle. Here's a list of additional "eco-dolt" mods:

1. Bald Tires - retrofit your vehicle with tires that have long since lost their tread (benefit: lower rolling resistance)

2. Purge all Brake Fluid - this will make incentive for the driver to not bother using the brake pedal (benefit: longer perpetual motion)

3. Disable the Fuel Gauge - the driver will constantly see the gas gauge needle on the reserve mark (benefit: one will always drive like they are on fumes between fill ups)

4. Drive at night without headlights - this will shorten the distance of vision, therefore reducing the speed the driver will take comfort in driving. (benefit: slower travel speeds = mpg gains).

Perhaps the best way to convince the brain about economy is to undergo professional hypnosis, telling yourself you are not wearing the seat belt, as well as items 1-4 are in effect.

At that point one might surmise you'll be walking or taking mass transit, so the fuel savings will be monumental!

[pjrob]

Originally Posted by JohnS

I'm all for personal choice. So long as you belt-up your under-18 kids/passengers, do what you want for yourself. If you want to risk your own life, be my guest.

But it seems to me that since you are aware that you're driving more safely NOT belted-in, it doesn't make sense to actually drive that way. I mean no disrespect, but you're not Pavolv's dog. "NO BELT? I need to drive safely. BELT? I can drive a little more crazily." You've used your mind to figure out the difference in your driving style both ways. And from your post, I can tell you are an intelligent individual. Seems to me you can click your belt on and still drive in your "non-belt mode".

I don't mean to sound preachy. But it just seems kind of silly to risk driving without your belt secured when you can drive in a similar fashion with it hooked up.

As to the part about "YOU knowing that you are not wearing the seatbelt and you are driving with this consciousness": the flaw in that argument is the other guy...who is barreling towards you on the wrong side of the road or who just ran a red light...who DOESN'T know about your seatbelt situation. Is he driving any safer? You can be the safest driver in the world but without the belt, you'll be in a world of hurt.

Even if your "belt-on, belt-off" theory were true...is it worth risking your life for the small gain in FE? I can't answer that one for you. But I know what my answer would be.

Sorry if I'm coming off as mean. That wasn't my intention.

John

John, thankyou for your very fair answer. I seem to have opened a can of worms here but I would not have attempted to suggest such a thing or do this experiment if the efficacy of seatbelts was in no doubt.
I also dont want to drift too far from the main topic here.
Seatbelt law started right here where I am in 1971. Everybody here believes in it because when the number of road deaths had dropped from over 1000 in 1971 to about 600-700 by 1974 we believed it was due to seatbelt law.
The problem is the same drop was recorded everywhere in the world, even greater in some places.
The death rate turns out to be inversely connected to oil prices and the oil crisis was on.
In 1975 the Dutch and Swedish put in seatbelt laws and they made no difference - the Swedish deaths actually increased- as the price of oil had begun to come down.
There were lives saved but the accident rate increased.
What it seems happened also is the deaths shifted from the front seats of cars to everywhere else, particularly pedestrians and cyclists. Back seat deaths increased also and most countries went then for compulsion for the back seats. The only drivers whose accident rate did not increase were truck drivers as the law didnt apply to them.
I know I am annoying people saying this but one could almost argue that we drive more considerately if we feel less safe and protected ourselves.
I have known about the increase in pedestrian deaths here for years and found it disturbing.
This is a devil of a discovery.
I was close to giving up the experiment as I figured how could anything make me drive more carefully anyway. I have always been one of the most frightened people when driving that I know.
You're very right in that the biggest problem is still the other bloke.

[pjrob]

Originally Posted by zonker

[I][COLOR="Teal"]

Ahh the power of the mind!

I think that this logic could apply to many safety related items that are equipped on ones vehicle. Here's a list of additional "eco-dolt" mods:

1. Bald Tires - retrofit your vehicle with tires that have long since lost their tread (benefit: lower rolling resistance)

2. Purge all Brake Fluid - this will make incentive for the driver to not bother using the brake pedal (benefit: longer perpetual motion)

3. Disable the Fuel Gauge - the driver will constantly see the gas gauge needle on the reserve mark (benefit: one will always drive like they are on fumes between fill ups)

4. Drive at night without headlights - this will shorten the distance of vision, therefore reducing the speed the driver will take comfort in driving. (benefit: slower travel speeds = mpg gains).

Perhaps the best way to convince the brain about economy is to undergo professional hypnosis, telling yourself you are not wearing the seat belt, as well as items 1-4 are in effect.

At that point one might surmise you'll be walking or taking mass transit, so the fuel savings will be monumental!

Zonker, I might try the potato chip solution.
Yes, if we could feel less safe than we actually are we might drive more cautiously with an corresponding fuel saving. Perhaps hypnosis might work.
Just out of interst, another feature of bald tires apart from being more efficient is that they do provide more grip- untill it rains.
But then getting back to the original idea ones fuel efficiency should increase then as fear again kicked in.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by pjrob

Recently it has dropped to 10.2 Litres/100 Kilometres. This is quite dramatic after trying for so long and not succeeding.
It came as a result of trying to assess the risk-compensatory effect of removing ones seatbelt.

It was a dramatic enough drop for me to say this against all my conditioning.

It's entirely possible that you drive safer and as a consequence use less gas in the process.
But there's no reason why you couldn't drive the same way with your seat belt on.

On ecomodder, we call it adjusting the nut behind the wheel.
There's still some play on your nut


Since New Year, my fuel consumption is 20% better than it was 5 years ago - same but older car on essentially the same but busier routes.
Add to that that I started out with about half your fuel consumption ...

I was only trying to assess the truth of the idea that one drives less safely with a seatbelt and more safely without one primarily because of reports that this occurs with bicycle helmets also.

It's been like that with the introduction of just about every obvious safety feature.
But the higher accident rate doesn't necessarily mean more deaths.

In the early days of ABS, there were more recorded accidents with ABS-equipped cars as their users apparently got overconfident. But the higher accident rate didn't really kill more drivers and passengers. As ABS spread throughout the fleet, then became mandatory on new cars (at least in the EU), road fatalities have dropped further.

Traction control systems don't seem to have the averse introduction-effect, as they are rather invisible to the driver in most / normal driving conditions.

Politicians like to attribute the reduction in road deaths to their policies, but IMO it's all due to better technology (car and medical care) rather than better politics.

I welcome any criticism or remarks about this and also refer anyone who is interested in the relative efficacy of seatbelts to read up on the work of English researcher Prof. John Adams.

I've been reading a bit on John Adams and I'm not impressed, to say the least.

25-30% of all Belgian car road casualties would have survived if only they had worn their seat belts.
Our national death toll would instantly decrease by some 12% !

Originally Posted by pjrob

Seatbelt law started right here where I am in 1971. Everybody here believes in it because when the number of road deaths had dropped from over 1000 in 1971 to about 600-700 by 1974 we believed it was due to seatbelt law.

The problem is the same drop was recorded everywhere in the world, even greater in some places.

A good part of the world also mandated seat belts around that time.

The death rate turns out to be inversely connected to oil prices and the oil crisis was on.

That's not a causal correlation.
Despite the rising oil prices, there's been a massive increase in road traffic, yet road casualties have been decreasing for decades as cars have gotten safer and better.

If the oil price could determine anything, it'd be overall road use.
Turns out even that isn't happening !

In 1975 the Dutch and Swedish put in seatbelt laws and they made no difference

When something is mandated, it doesn't mean the entire fleet is already equipped with it.

Would you care to substantiate these claims ?
All long term trends I've ever seen regarding road safety show a decrease, with usually a more marked decrease starting around the time when safety belts got in use / got mandated.

In the EU, the dropping number of road fatalities is accompanied by a steady increase in seat-belt use.
The safest countries also show higher seat-belt use.
Looks like we might have a correlation there ...

I have known about the increase in pedestrian deaths here for years and found it disturbing.
This is a devil of a discovery.

That'd be a relative increase in most countries, and it shows because the fatality rate for car drivers and passengers has been dropping for decades due to better / safer cars.

In the EU, the absolute number of deaths amongst pedestrians is dropping despite more traffic.

[pjrob]

Theres alot to answer here but there is doubt among some researchers going back a long way that government mandated safety interventions ever work as they say and also doubt that safety features put in by manufacturers really make much difference.
One such doubter was Reuben Smeed, the founder of Smeeds law, who said that road deaths were related to traffic congestion. Increasing traffic volume leads to an increase in fatalities per capita, but a decrease in fatalities per vehicle. Others say its vehicle-miles that matter. I'm sure this would connect with the oil price idea too somehow.
Another, I think Adams, said that the emerging 3rd world countries have the same death rate any of our countries had decades ago regardless of the safety features that our cars now have and that it correlates with Smeeds law.
To get back to the original idea, feeling unsafe when you drive and driving accordingly was the idea all along and we cant manufacture that or fool ourselves. If leaving off your seatbelt doesnt make you feel unsafe then there can be no benefit either in regard to risk or fuel saving.
Its just that I didnt expect this outcome. I was not even looking for a fuel saving benefit.
I do appreciate there being a forum such as this to discuss this. I'm sorry its so challenging.

[MetroMPG]

Unfortunately, this kind of subject often leads down the path to a thread lock: It too often veers into pointless arguments over personal/political philosophies regarding the balance of the role of government vs. individual liberty.

I mention it to request that this be kept in mind. EcoModder is not a forum for political discussion.

Thanks!

[pjrob]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Unfortunately, this kind of subject often leads down the path to a thread lock: It too often veers into pointless arguments over personal/political philosophies regarding the balance of the role of government vs. individual liberty.

I mention it to request that this be kept in mind. EcoModder is not a forum for political discussion.

Thanks!

Righto. Thankyou. I will remember that in future. Its been an interesting discussion. Very difficult to raise this sort of questioning at any time.