Tell me how “the aerodynamics of the car” somehow just invalidate the drag equation that clearly states that drag increases proportional to the square of the velocity. Going 160km/h rather than 130km/h increases fuel consumption by about 30%. That’s what you actually learn in driver’s ed.
Regarding “depending on the gearing” – do you realize how significant the overlap between the gears is? You don’t need to drive 10km/h faster to get into the next gear.
You can drive a brick, and if you’re in a line of traffic moving faster, your aerodynamics are much different than sitting in the slow lane with nobody in front of you. Drafting is real.
Not true, sorry. I drove 500 miles a night for my job as a courier. I could go 65 and get 27 mpg, if I went 75-80 with traffic I’d get 30-32 mpg depending on how fast the flow was going.
Tell me how “the aerodynamics of the car” somehow just invalidate the drag equation that clearly states that drag increases proportional to the square of the velocity. Going 160km/h rather than 130km/h increases fuel consumption by about 30%. That’s what you actually learn in driver’s ed.
Regarding “depending on the gearing” – do you realize how significant the overlap between the gears is? You don’t need to drive 10km/h faster to get into the next gear.
Gearing of transmission and torque or the motor.
You can drive a brick, and if you’re in a line of traffic moving faster, your aerodynamics are much different than sitting in the slow lane with nobody in front of you. Drafting is real.
deleted by creator
Not true, sorry. I drove 500 miles a night for my job as a courier. I could go 65 and get 27 mpg, if I went 75-80 with traffic I’d get 30-32 mpg depending on how fast the flow was going.
Anecdotal evidence, the best kind of evidence
Better than your bullshit right?