Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > General Efficiency Discussion
Register Now
 Register Now
 

Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2009, 04:28 PM   #11 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Quote:
It almost sounds like you are advocating a different grade coming into town than leaving. That can't be right, can it?
There are two gradients. For the bulk of travel it is downhill at 0.7%. The uphill elevation shift gradient, while not "standardized" at this time, will be considerably steeper than the 0.7% downhill. If the uphill is 7% then 91% of travel will be on the 0.7% gradient and only 9% on the uphill elevation shift. At this time the uphill gradient is undefined because it needs to cater for a variety of different engine powers.
Because town centres are most often besides water, which is at the low point of surrounding areas, then coming into town the terrain will often naturally provide a 0.7% downhill gradient with no uphill elevation shifts. In these cases travelling out of town will require double the elevation shift, so only 82% of travel will be on 0.7% downhill while 18% will be on 7% uphill.
Quote:
While you don't mention a limitation, you must not be discussing mountainous terrain. I know of some roads where it would take 30 miles of approach road building @0.7% just to get to where the road starts up the mountain. Surely you didn't mean that, did you?
This is 30 miles of downhill assistance that is currently not utilized. 30 miles @ 0.7% is 1,100 ft. Travelling towards the mountain would be 3 miles of elevation shift @ 7% for the 1,100 ft elevation increase plus a further 2.7 miles for the elevation shift to provide for 0.7% travel on the bulk. So there would be 5.7 miles @ 7% uphill & 24.3 miles @ 0.7% downhill.
Quote:
You seem to imply a connection between mass production and road building. I am under the impression that roads can not be mass produced - that they are built "in situ", that is, in place. What am I missing here?
Here you have hit the crux. I am precisely saying that for long term it is better to mass produce the roads and infrastructure to a standardized form. Long term being what we leave our kids and grandkids. Leaving our kids the current non-standardized road network, which we value at so many trillions of dollars, is likely to be worth nothing to them. Zilch! Here you go kids, we leave you a hindrance, the 20th century folly.

  Reply With Quote
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 03-03-2009, 05:03 PM   #12 (permalink)
dcb
needs more cowbell
 
dcb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: ÿ
Posts: 5,038

pimp mobile - '81 suzuki gs 250 t
90 day: 96.29 mpg (US)

schnitzel - '01 Volkswagen Golf TDI
90 day: 53.56 mpg (US)
Thanks: 158
Thanked 269 Times in 212 Posts
It's hard to say if we would even recognize what passes for a road if offered a glimpse of two generations from now, let alone a car.

A road could be a lot more "rail" like, and a car driven by an electric motor does not see the same benefits of engine off coasting that an internal combustion engine does. But if ICE's are part of the target, my guess is that it is a mid-term target at best, and would need a sufficient downgrade to maintain speed without any power, to reclaim maximum benefit (and certain states would have to repeal 80 year old anti coasting laws), roller coaster style
__________________
WINDMILLS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!!!
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:21 PM   #13 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Sounds like you're talking about moving MOUNTAINS of fill and having some nasty ditches besides.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:28 PM   #14 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Quote:
A road could be a lot more "rail" like
This is what is needed for longer distance, moderate speed transport. For a number of years I have been struggling with how do you get small, minimalist vehicles to en-train and de-train at speed?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:31 PM   #15 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: oz
Posts: 24
Thanks: 0
Thanked 2 Times in 1 Post
Quote:
Sounds like you're talking about moving MOUNTAINS of fill and having some nasty ditches besides.
Much less than modern highways.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:36 PM   #16 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Bicycle Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: N. Saskatchewan, CA
Posts: 1,803

Appliance White - '93 Geo Metro 4-Dr. Auto
Last 3: 42.35 mpg (US)

Stealth RV - '91 Chevy Sprint Base
Thanks: 91
Thanked 459 Times in 327 Posts
I don't think the areas suitable for this treatment are enough to create a standard for the rest of the planet. Out here, it's gently rolling hills and maybe a hundred vehicles a day. We are lucky to get a moderately uniform surface.
I put in a proposal for a planned community on a hillside once. I recommended that all roads angle up-slope to either left or right, at about 2% grade. This would produce rhomboid grid sections. Going straight up the slope would be a T-bar powered by a stream coming down. Anyone on a bicycle could leave anywhere in town, coast down toward a T-bar, ride it up, and then coast down to any other destination.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 05:53 PM   #17 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Bicycle Bob's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: N. Saskatchewan, CA
Posts: 1,803

Appliance White - '93 Geo Metro 4-Dr. Auto
Last 3: 42.35 mpg (US)

Stealth RV - '91 Chevy Sprint Base
Thanks: 91
Thanked 459 Times in 327 Posts
Casual Car Trains

Quote:
Originally Posted by thorpie View Post
This is what is needed for longer distance, moderate speed transport. For a number of years I have been struggling with how do you get small, minimalist vehicles to en-train and de-train at speed?
Now that one has a lot of potential, IMHO.
How about having, as an express lane, light rails set in like tram tracks. You'd pull onto the motorway and get up to moderate speed. When a "train" passes in the express lane, you accelerate, move in behind, and catch up. As you touch bumpers, your rubber tires go into low-rider mode and you sink onto steel wheels as your bumper couples with the car ahead. Some others latch on behind.
Approaching the next exit, you see the car ahead rise and unlatch. If you are asleep, he brakes and accelerates, or you brake a touch and he slides over. Then you can move up and close the gap, or, if it was a popular exit, become the new lead car.
We'd need standardized hitches, bumpers, steel wheel assemblies, and instruments to keep everyone contributing, but it should be a lot smoother and safer than many current flows.
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 06:18 PM   #18 (permalink)
EV OR DIESEL
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: South Louisiana
Posts: 1,758

FarFarfrumpumpen - '03 Volkswagen Jetta Wagon GLS Premium

Quorra - '12 Tesla Model S P85
Thanks: 57
Thanked 113 Times in 86 Posts
Send a message via AIM to dremd
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorpie View Post
A sinewave gives a constantly changing gradient which is not optimum. To keep a consistent speed you want one standard down gradient and one standard up gradient!
I disagree.

At the earliest part of the glide you would have minimal grade (no need to speed up), then at the bottom you would throw a good bit of potential in to kinetic as to get up the next hill.

I have often wondered while in other parts of the country where the break even point is with moving mountains, I am certainly no expert, but If I had to guess, the interstate highway system already leans to the side of moving mountains, where as local roads, go with the land.

I do see your point, I just don't believe it is feasible at this point of development
__________________
2016 Tesla Model X
2022 Sprinter
Gone 2012 Tesla Model S P85
Gone 2013 Nissan LEAF SV
2012 Nissan LEAF SV
6 speed ALH TDI Swapped in to a 2003 Jetta Wagon
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 06:48 PM   #19 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,762

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,585
Thanked 3,555 Times in 2,218 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorpie View Post
Much less than modern highways.
How can that be?
  Reply With Quote
Old 03-03-2009, 11:08 PM   #20 (permalink)
Master EcoModder
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,209
Thanks: 225
Thanked 811 Times in 594 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by thorpie View Post
There are two gradients. For the bulk of travel it is downhill at 0.7%. The uphill elevation shift gradient, while not "standardized" at this time, will be considerably steeper than the 0.7% downhill.
Something tells me you haven't quite thought this through :-) Take an example: there's a road I drive frequently, about 17 miles between place A down in the valley and place B at the top of a mountain, with an elevation change of about 4400 ft. So you're going to build two completely different roads, one for downhill and the other for uphill, and (using your 30 miles at 0.7% = 1100 ft, which I haven't checked) the downhill road is going to be 120 miles long.

Now suppose you happen to live halfway up the hill, or want to visit a place (e.g. the local ski area) that's partway up. You either have to waste a lot of time going one way in order to go the other, or have to build a lot of connector roads between the up & down routes.

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com