05-22-2011, 08:47 PM
|
#21 (permalink)
|
A madman
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: WV
Posts: 1,018
Thanks: 73
Thanked 183 Times in 98 Posts
|
What about efficiency loss?
|
|
|
Today
|
|
|
Other popular topics in this forum...
|
|
|
05-23-2011, 01:00 AM
|
#22 (permalink)
|
Master EcoModder
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Crescent City, CA
Posts: 285
Thanks: 17
Thanked 39 Times in 22 Posts
|
Dont' run with my lights on when I'm in a car or truck except when conditions require. But when on the motorcycle, they're always on. Always thought of DRL as a nuisance.
VT247
|
|
|
05-23-2011, 05:06 AM
|
#23 (permalink)
|
aero guerrilla
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,747
Thanks: 1,328
Thanked 749 Times in 476 Posts
|
When Poland switched to mandatory lights 24h/year round I saw newspapers usually citing 2% as the increase in fuel consumption. I decided to install LED DRLs (2 x 5.5W = 11W) since in order to drive with my lights I'd not only have the headlights (2 x 55W), but also position lights, registration plate lights, dashboard lights, etc., plus all the relays that power those lights, which I figured totalled to ~200W. When the engine is warmed up I see instant fuel consumption at idle go from 0.50-0.53 l/h to 0.56-0.64 l/h when I turn the lights on.
As for whether DRLs increase safety I can say that yes, they do. First of all, on a sunny day (when many people think that DRLs don't help) some cars tend to blend into the pavement and/or horizon when far away. I can spot them much sooner if they have lights.
Second, among the many dumb games teenagers like to play is driving at full speed on the highway. Against traffic. At night. Without lights. If their car has DRLs which can't be turned off, then that increases the chances of any innocent drivers that might be unlucky enough to be on that stretch of highway.
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be
What matters is where you're going, not how fast.
"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell
[Old] Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread
|
|
|
05-23-2011, 01:23 PM
|
#24 (permalink)
|
Rat Racer
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 4,150
Thanks: 1,784
Thanked 1,922 Times in 1,246 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piwoslaw
First of all... I can spot them much sooner if they have lights.
Second, among the many dumb games teenagers like to play is driving at full speed on the highway. Against traffic. At night. Without lights. If their car has DRLs which can't be turned off, then that increases the chances of any innocent drivers that might be unlucky enough to be on that stretch of highway.
|
I'm with you on the first, but making it more convenient to pass under some circumstances doesn't really make me want to require equipment across the board. Your second reason is a little out there- mandating equipment to make one part of a criminal activity a little less convenient just doesn't make sense to me. If the kids like doing it without lights then they're going to do it without lights no matter what you make everyone else buy.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @∞MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%
|
|
|
|
05-23-2011, 01:48 PM
|
#25 (permalink)
|
Hypermiler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 611
Thanked 433 Times in 283 Posts
|
It makes a big difference if you EOC. It can make the difference between starting or not at the next red light. If you have to engine-ON-coast instead to keep the alternator running it costs you a lot more fuel. Something in the 20% range I'd guess.
__________________
11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
|
|
|
05-23-2011, 03:04 PM
|
#26 (permalink)
|
aero guerrilla
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Warsaw, Poland
Posts: 3,747
Thanks: 1,328
Thanked 749 Times in 476 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fat Charlie
I'm with you on the first, but making it more convenient to pass under some circumstances doesn't really make me want to require equipment across the board. Your second reason is a little out there- mandating equipment to make one part of a criminal activity a little less convenient just doesn't make sense to me. If the kids like doing it without lights then they're going to do it without lights no matter what you make everyone else buy.
|
OK, I was half joking with the second reason
__________________
e·co·mod·ding: the art of turning vehicles into what they should be
What matters is where you're going, not how fast.
"... we humans tend to screw up everything that's good enough as it is...or everything that we're attracted to, we love to go and defile it." - Chris Cornell
[Old] Piwoslaw's Peugeot 307sw modding thread
|
|
|
05-23-2011, 06:55 PM
|
#27 (permalink)
|
The PRC.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by PaleMelanesian
It makes a big difference if you EOC. It can make the difference between starting or not at the next red light. If you have to engine-ON-coast instead to keep the alternator running it costs you a lot more fuel. Something in the 20% range I'd guess.
|
If it was this much I would expect to see it on the GPH figure at idle and turning my lights on or off makes no difference that has stood out so far - I think I will experiment tomorrow morning...
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
|
|
|
05-24-2011, 10:25 AM
|
#28 (permalink)
|
Hypermiler
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 2,321
Thanks: 611
Thanked 433 Times in 283 Posts
|
What's your idle gph? Mine's about 0.3. Compare that to the gph of EOC = 0. Now apply that difference to half of the drive that I EOC. It makes a big difference.
Estimated 0.3 * (0.5 hour drive * 1/2 (eoc percent)) = 0.075 gallons
Regular commute = 0.14 gallons (10.5 mi / 75 mpg)
0.14 + 0.075 = 0.215
10.5 / 0.215 = 48.8 mpg if I engine-on-coast instead. That's a 35% drop!
__________________
11-mile commute: 100 mpg - - - Tank: 90.2 mpg / 1191 miles
|
|
|
05-24-2011, 10:49 AM
|
#29 (permalink)
|
The PRC.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Elsewhere.
Posts: 5,304
Thanks: 285
Thanked 536 Times in 384 Posts
|
I forgot to check this morning as we were in a hurry. Just went out and idled for a bit and its on 0.25 which is higher than normal - probably because it has sat at work all morning and isn't warmed up. I shall check again later.
Normally it is under 0.2.
__________________
[I]So long and thanks for all the fish.[/I]
|
|
|
05-24-2011, 10:57 AM
|
#30 (permalink)
|
needs more cowbell
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ˙
Posts: 5,038
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
|
As I mentioned before, and it is the sort of thing I will probably have to mention again, since it is the sort of thing that is surrounded by a massive SEP field (Someone Elses Problem), but extraneous lights on cages in the daytime take attention away from pedestrian traffic and more pedestrians get hit as a result, is my current hypothesis to explain why DRLs result in more pedestrian deaths.
Here was what I came up with originally:
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcb
thanks for that Blue,
so here is the dilemma:
We have a biased pro DRL page with actual and fairly recent studies indicating that more pedestrians are run over with DRLs on, 16 percent more. And a presumably less significant (and even more bizarre) stat from 30 years ago about slightly less people getting hit with two cars at once.
FYI, Worldwide, 2/3 of people killed in vehicle accidents are pedestrians. According to the AAA, http://www.aaafoundation.org/pdf/Saf...tureReport.pdf , 1.9 per 100,000 are pedestrians and 15.6 per 100,000 accidents are occupants.
So if the pro DRL data is to be believed then why does it seem like it is at the cost of more pedestrian lives? What the hell was going on in denmark in 1993? I absolutely do not like the idea of mowing down more cageless folks and cannot think of a conclusive reason why DRLs shouldn't be safer, but WTF?
I think we've settled on the 500 million gallons of gas annually figure for running all those DRLs.
|
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
|
|
|
|