BCM Community

I hated it the last time it happened. I was a road warrior, working jobs all over Florida and Georgia.  Got lots of tickets the first few months after the change.

Being considerably older now, I think it might be a good idea.  It did save a lot of fuel and lives.

I despised the 55 speed limit back then.  I had the sticker that said "I can't drive 55" and rarely drove that slow unless I knew there was a speed trap. 

Now days, I drive 55 by choice because of the fuel savings.  It is part of why my bus gets 7.5mpg.  On my pickup, the difference between 55 and 65 is 5mpg.  With so many busnuts cutting back on their trips or even giving up on their dream machine because of fuel cost, I would hope some are cutting back the speed as a means to keep going.

Many people slam other's choice of vehicles (SUV) as a cause of fuel prices.  But then they go flying down the freeway at 85mph in their "more sensible light weight car" burning 30%-50% more fuel then they have to.

So, even as much as I hated 55mph speed limits when I was younger, I would support them now as a means to cut back on fuel use.  But I don't expect it to lower fuel cost, because as I have said elsewhere, whatever we cut back, the newly fuel consuming 1/2 of the worlds population will quickly take up.  But perhaps at least it will slow the rapid climb and just maybe burn the fingers of some of the bid happy speculators temporarily diverting their interest in investing in oil at any cost.  (probably wishful thinking)

Len, I don't see the problem being slowing down to save fuel because it is so high.  I see the problem being that it is so high becaused of GREED!  If the price was where it should be we wouldn't be having this conversation!

Please Len, don't take this as an attack on your thread.  I am simply saying I don't think that we should have to slow down due to the folks GREED that are setting the prices so GREEDILY high!
Jack

Jack is right.  We shouldn't have to slow down for any reason other than we want to on our own.
Slowing down costs us a lot more than you'd think, and overall I don't think it helps.  It takes more TIME to get somewhere, resulting in increased transportation costs and
scads of wasted man-hours. And if you'll remember, the gas companies telling us that they had to raise gas prices because the slow-down was cutting into their PROFITS...
Nothing's free....
This whole fuel thing is actually fine with me... higher prices? Our fuel STILL doesn't cost as much as people in England paid for it in the 70's!!!
It's not stopping me... I'll just keep on bussin and be really happy I don't pay $4 per LITER as do many people in this world...

Let's bring back VW bugs and Honda 600's that get 30-45MPG.  Go to Europe and take a look at the cars they drive... ALL tiny as compared to ours, and they get VERY good mileage.
Smart cars for example.  GREAT idea.... http://www.smartusa.com/ Then don't worry about fuel costs....

Heh heh don't try this with your bus....  http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/smart-car-crash-tested/

Cheers

One of the issues I have I guess is just in trying to stay out of the way.  I find that if I'm driving at 55 on a two lane interstate, the 70+ traffic starts piling up around me.  Trucks struggle to break out into the fast lane and that of course, slows everything down.

I guess I feel a little guilty in that situation, where if it was the law, I wouldn't feel the same.

Len

If the car manufacturers would get off their butts and get the Diesel powered cars into production (over 50% of cars in europe are Diesel- 65% of BMW's and Mercedes are) we would lower our fuel consumption, even with higher Diesel prices.  Example- Mini Cooper gets about 35 mpg on gasoline, Diesel over 50.  Smart car gets 45 mpg on gasoline, 60mpg on diesel and an estimated 80 as a hybrid Diesel.  I wish the car manufactures would quite making these gasoline powered hybrids, when Diesel would work.  Now a Diesel hybrid that gets over 60mpg-that's what I'm talking about.
Freightliner is making a hybrid M2 (Uhaul size) that gets 20% better fuel mileage for pickup and delivery around town.  Instead of trying to run the buses on biodiesel, I'd like to see someone figure out a hybrid.  I'm sure all of us would like a 20% increase in fuel mileage.  Good Luck, TomC

Tom, Isusu was the company that developed the Duramax Diesel for the Chevy and GMC market.  I understand they are developing a smaller one for the Colorado and Canyon that would also probably fit in the mid size chevys and other GM's.
I feel like we are headed the way of Europe in developing diesel cars.
Jack

There are hybrid buses out there.  Our transit operator is buying close to 200 of them over the next few years.  They get 22% better mileage. 

The bad news is they cost about an extra $200,000.  The bus without hybrid technology costs less than $400,000.  The local transit operator is really happy because the federal government is paying for the buses, but the transit operator saves on fuel costs.

From a strictly financial viewpoint these buses are a disaster.  It would take at least 50 years of fuel savings to pay the extra costs of the bus.  The big thing they are promoting about the new buses is the reduction in pollution and how green they are.

Trucks and vehicles pulling trailers in California have to go 55 mph and I haven't noticed a problem on the freeway with faster traffic going around them. I have been there several times with the horse trailer down I5 and when there is inforcement all trucks keep it under 60 (and so was I), and every thing was flowing pretty good. I have been all over the continent with my bus at 55, 60 mph without a problem. (I do look in my mirrors). I let them go by at every opportunity on the 2 lane hwys. I get good milage too.

JC

I had a discussion with my friends about speed for our bus trip this year.  I talked about maybe going to 60 MPH instead of 65 MPH, but they want to do 65 MPH again this year.  64 to 65 MPH in my bus is right at the torque peak of the Series 60.

I've noticed a lot of people slowing down on the interstates and it is really clogging things up.  I get over 35 MPG at the speed limit of 70, so I go 70 MPH.  The problem is I end up speeding and slowing down to pass all the slow cars.  I try to pass a car before I have to slow down, but not always possible with folks going 75 to 80 in the left lane.

The 55 mph speed limit was created in the 1970s due to a perceived shortage of oil.  The reason for today's high prices have been throughly explored by ths board and I think we can all agree that it has nothing to do with any scarcity of oil.  I travel between my homes in New York and North Carolina at least a dozen times a year and being constrained to 55 mph would make the trip interminable.  My current car, a VW Passat, gets about 30 on the highway, but I am waiting for the return of the diesel. The new ones are supoosed to be a lot better than the older one I remeber in the 1970s.  Also, when I have taken my bus down, I get about eight mpg with a 1967 GM 40-foot suburban.

If I decide to drive at 55 mph, it should be MY CHOICE and NOT some stupid gov-munt APPOINTED tree hugger type telling what to do.  Actually there should be no speed limits at all and we just let God sort it all out.  He he he.  But then again, like boggiethecat, we do/have owned Crown Super Coaches that cruise at 80 mph and will top out at 100 or sooss.  CROWNS FOREVER!!!  :) :) :)

 When we had a 55 MPH limit the Police used any fuel that was being saved, trying to enforce it. Made alot of enemies too.

I think if your driving the Silver Bullet, and you can find a place to let the big dog eat, Let it roll. They sure ride nice at 100MPH. My old 05 (I recently sold it) had a real sweet spot at 90 MPH. It never mattered to my wife. I could say anything I wanted to her, wait 15 minutes, look over her shoulder and she would be running 90. She always made good time!

Its a shame what electonics have done to spoil our fun. Now Mr. DDEC controls my coach and its just not the same.

Technology and time need to move forward not backward. Want to save gas, buy a high mpg car. Time is money and we need to put our efforts into moving faster not slower and with less effort. How about striving to keep traffic moving instead of starting and stopping every quarter mile which is where the real mpg loss is. We are supposed to be living in a free country and we should have the option and freedom to get somewhere if we need to or slow down as I sometimes do in my aerodynamic brick {MCI9} to save fuel. Now if we could just get American drivers to drive with the same professionalism as German drivers {proper lane, use of mirrors, no cell phones, etc} We could all get there faster and safer.  Jim

here's a weird piece of info...
truckers in Holland were all going 100-120km/h  between two cities on a 4 lane highway (2 lanes each way).  Government decided to do a traffic flow study, restricted the truckers to 90 km/h and they were no longer allowed in the left lane (no more passing each other and cars).  Truckers complained  "Oh no  we will take 20% longer to get from A to B !!!"  Guess what?  Flow was smoother, trucks took LESS time to get from A to B  by driving slower.  Turns out traffic flow dynamics are way weirder than fluid dynamics, engineers cannnot reliably predict the occurrance of reversing stall waves, and spontaneous (no obvious source) stoppages.

All transport trucks in France are restricted to 90 km/h. They are not allowed in the left fast lane on the autoroutes. The police have cracked down on speeders the last few years. Also no cell phones allowed. I was there a couple years ago in a rental car. The hwys are crowded but the driving was very relaxed and easier than I anticipated, because everyone behaves and is curteous. A driver's license is not easy to get there, and many young people have to go back more than once to get one. We in N. America are getting closer to having to slow down and discipline everybody on the hwys not so much to save fuel but as a matter of safety and sanity.

JC 

Prostitution is legal over there too, and that makes it take the truckers a little longer.(Theory of spontanious stopages).

I travel from Arizona to Texas on I 10 and I love the 80 mph speed limit in west Texas but it does cost me more fuel I lose about 1 mpg

You can buy a lot of fuel for the cost of a speeding ticket. If you want to drive 55 just do it.

I get a kick out of car manufacturers who state in their tv ads that they have 25 models that get 30mpg. In the 1952 Mobil economy run, coast to coast, Studebaker averaged 27 mpg. I find it hard to believe that they have only improved 3mpg in almost 60 years....Bill

What was the average fuel economy of cars in 1952? 

If we took the best MPG car of today on an economy run at the optimum speed for that vehicle it should easily reach 50 MPG. 

The EPA has done a fair bit to reduce mileage since the 1980s with increased pollution controls.  Cars of today produce maybe a few percent of the pollution of a early 1960s car, but the EPA is never satisfied.  (The PCV valve was the single biggest cut in pollution.)  Oh well, the EPA is a whole issue seperate from MPG.

Quote from: billy6941 on May 05, 2008, 09:41:07 PM
I get a kick out of car manufacturers who state in their tv ads that they have 25 models that get 30mpg. In the 1952 Mobil economy run, coast to coast, Studebaker averaged 27 mpg. I find it hard to believe that they have only improved 3mpg in almost 60 years....Bill

I've always found that odd too - I think there is a mindset whereby manufacturers don't really to go much beyond say 35mpg, because that is what the customer expect and are happy with - there's no point in making a 'middle market' car more expensive to build (better technology, lighter materials) if the customers aren't willing to pay for it. At the top end of the market the manufacturers do make the effort where they think it will help sell more cars - for example, the Jaguar XJ and Audi A8 have aluminium bodyshells because the customers want a big car that still has great performance and handling. The next Range Rover has an aluminium body too, because Land Rover are desperate to persuade politically-correct customers that big 4x4s don't have to be gas-guzzlers.

Fifteen years or so ago my Dad had a couple of Rover Montegos, with the Perkins Prima turbo diesel engine. They were advertised as being capable of both 100mph and 100mpg, and were a really nice car to drive as well. The engine was probably more powerful and more economical, but certainly not as refined or quiet, as the current generation of high pressure diesels, which I think indicates where manufacturers have been putting most of their development efforts.

(https://busconversionmagazine.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mgturner.demon.co.uk%2FMONTDLX.GIF&hash=5108b341b589658b3ff9605e973e9d50f5deb97c)

In the UK the speed limit on two and three lane roads has been 70mph for many years, and the average speed today is probably around 85mph, which seems to be considered 'resonable' by society - so much so that police won't stop you for doing 80-85, unless it's inappropriate to the conditions. Buses and coaches used reguarly travel at 90mph+ and bully cars out of the way, but after a number of accidents the industry 'got sensible' and the drivers are now told to obey the limits - apparently the manufacturers actually had to change the gearing to accomodate the new, lower speeds coaches were being driven at.

Articulated trucks are mechanically limited to 60mph (56mph elsewhere in Europe) and cannot use the third lane on three-lane road. Cellphones are not banned, but must be 'hands free'. The police are quite strict on this kind of thing, and I know two girls who were stopped by the police, one for combing her hair whilst driving, and the other for eating a chocolate bar.

On single-lane roads the limit is generally 60mph, but there seems to be an increasing tendancy to decrease the limit and erect huge numbers of new road signs on supposed 'dangerous' stretches of road, which annoys me greatly as I believe that it is eroding the skill of the driver - drivers should be made to make their own decisions regarding what speed is safe, rather than simply being required to follow the instructions given by road signs.

There has been a huge increase in the number of speed cameras on surface roads in the UK over the last few years, which is a source of great aggravation and controversy amongst the driving public. At the same time the use of traffic police has been cut right back - in fact, in the county in which I live there are now NONE - everything is done by cameras. Each time you get caught by a camera you pay a nominal fine (£60 / $120), and receive 3 'points' on your licence. If you get 12 points within a three-year period you lose your licence. I have a good friend who is an ex-traffic police officer in the county, and he has told me that if he ever gets to 9 points he (even as an ex police officer) would fit false place to his car in order to prevent the cameras identifying him next time. Being caught with false plates is a very serious offence, but given his knowledge of how the police work he is very confident that he would never get caught.

Jeremy

Quote from: Jeremy on May 06, 2008, 06:04:52 AM

On single-lane roads the limit is generally 60mph, but there seems to be an increasing tendency to decrease the limit and erect huge numbers of new road signs on supposed 'dangerous' stretches of road, which annoys me greatly as I believe that it is eroding the skill of the driver - drivers should be made to make their own decisions regarding what speed is safe, rather than simply being required to follow the instructions given by road signs.

Wouldn't work here.  Case in point.  There is road here that has a series of "S" curves as it goes through a ridge.  Many people, mostly young people, died in those curves because they not only didn't select a wise speed, they intentionally "shot the curves" at high speeds.  The city tried everything, nothing worked until they put speed cameras there and began strict enforcement.  They have been in place for a year now with no further fatalities in that stretch.

I have watched too many reckless drivers on the roads to believe that the general driving public, especially in the under 30 years old bracket, can be relied upon to make sensible speed choices for given conditions.  I was as guilty as anyone in regards to speed when I was younger, but I was never as reckless as some of the young drivers I've seen in the last 5 years or so.  It seems to be getting much worse.  I tend to wonder if they are learning their driving behavior from the new generation of driving video games.

Personally, I appreciate speed limit signs for danger zones (i.e. curves) as it gives me an idea of what to expect.  Not such an issue for locals, but a big help for travelers on an unfamiliar road.

Quote from: HighTechRedneck on May 06, 2008, 06:48:34 AM

Quote from: Jeremy on May 06, 2008, 06:04:52 AM

On single-lane roads the limit is generally 60mph, but there seems to be an increasing tendency to decrease the limit and erect huge numbers of new road signs on supposed 'dangerous' stretches of road, which annoys me greatly as I believe that it is eroding the skill of the driver - drivers should be made to make their own decisions regarding what speed is safe, rather than simply being required to follow the instructions given by road signs.

Wouldn't work here.  Case in point.  There is road here that has a series of "S" curves as it goes through a ridge.  Many people, mostly young people, died in those curves because they not only didn't select a wise speed, they intentionally "shot the curves" at high speeds.  The city tried everything, nothing worked until they put speed cameras there and began strict enforcement.  They have been in place for a year now with no further fatalities in that stretch.

I have watched too many reckless drivers on the roads to believe that the general driving public, especially in the under 30 years old bracket, can be relied upon to make sensible speed choices for given conditions.  I was as guilty as anyone in regards to speed when I was younger, but I was never as reckless as some of the young drivers I've seen in the last 5 years or so.  It seems to be getting much worse.  I tend to wonder if they are learning their driving behavior from the new generation of driving video games.

Personally, I appreciate speed limit signs for danger zones (i.e. curves) as it gives me an idea of what to expect.  Not such an issue for locals, but a big help for travelers on an unfamiliar road.

I don't doubt that the current approach leads to fewer accidents - my point it that those reckless young drivers will never learn unless it is by the consequences of their own actions. We all scared ourselves occasionally when we were younger by going into a corner too quickly or misjudging the road surface - and we became better drivers as a result.

In the UK there are two types of speed limit signs - red ones which you have to obey, and white ones which are advisory. I think there are far too many red ones, and not enough white ones. I have no problem at all in being warned about hazards ahead, in such a way that I can they deal with that hazard how I see fit. I dislike being treated like an idiot and being forced to slow down by a camera even when when for example it's the middle of the night and I happen to know that the hazard in question only exists at busy times during the day.

Jeremy

Well it depends on what you are driving.  Coahes are probably far better to stay at 55 mph than to move up into more consumption.  Except when approaching grades, where it could be more fuel efficient to crank her up.  Speed depends on your vehicle.  From experience you should be able to know what causes more fuel consumption.  My Honda Insight, which is the highest fuel mileage production car that I know of operates more efficiently by staying near 3,000 rpm.  If I let it drop below that, it is always consuming more fuel trying to maintain a lower speed.  This car certainly is dependent on tire pressure.  If by any chance it drops below 44 psi, we use more fuel.  The previous owner told me to keep it at 50 psi!!  Right now I keep the '06 at 100 psi front and 95 rear.  Any ideas to improve fuel mileage are certainly welcome by me and I am always listening.  I have gotten as high as 70 mpg with this Insight.  I love to travel with it, especially after we have used the coach with the ouch at the pump.  So all go out and buy these Insights.  All the way from San Jose CA, to Salt Lake City on less than 13 gallons at 65 mph over Donner Pass, and 75 to 80 all through Nevada and Utah.  Who needs speed limits with that kind of performance?  Has anyone made the suggestion for 55 mph speed limit in the slow lane only?  That would be 55 minimum also!  Bill T.

Playing with the speed limit won't do anything except breed more contempt for the law.

How's this for a novel idea?
Pay attention & use courtesy when driving.


Seems almost no one does any more.  :(




From what I hear about the German laws concerning driving, you can lose your license for lack of courtesy or rudeness.
That is something I'd like to see here.

Those punk kids driving habits will improve real quick if they KNOW they'll loose their driver's license for stupid stuff.
But as long as the lawyers keep keep passing the blame to others . . . don't expect any productive changes.

Got Oil?  Check this out..... interesting stuff.  YMMV.....g

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbakN7SLdbk

ghanson
Same speech as earlier post............http://www.busconversions.com/bbs/index.php?topic=8163.0

FWIW

Sojourn for Christ, Jerry

Well, I tell ya, At 55, your Produce, Eggs, Milk and everything else you eat is going to be a Whole lot LESS Fresh..  ??? ::)

The difference between 55 and 65 is almost 20% (about 18% actually).  I usually would not want to increase my travel time by that much.  If you want to save fuel by driving slower, that's fine, but why force it on others.  I save energy in ways that most others do not.  I would not want to force others to do what I do though.  I am surprised that free-wheeling busnuts would want to invite the government more deeply into their hobby. 

Quote from: superpickle on May 06, 2008, 07:51:53 PM
Well, I tell ya, At 55, your Produce, Eggs, Milk and everything else you eat is going to be a Whole lot LESS Fresh..  ??? ::)

We still had fresh food when the speed limit was 55.  I'm not saying we should necessarily go back to 55, but at the minimum do strict enforcement of current limits.  I see plenty going way over the limit even when the limit is 70 MPH.

A 3000 mile trip would take an extra 14 hours driving time at 55 vs. 75.  For one average driver that would amount to about one extra day.  Driving teams, less than that.

In my pickup, that hypothetical 3000 mile trip would cost an extra $210 in fuel at 75 vs. 55.

In these old buses, would it be fair to say there is a 2mpg difference between 55 and 75? (I don't know, my bus tops at 62)  Using that figure because it seems familiar from previous discussions, the 3000 mile trip would cost an additional $700 in fuel at 75 vs. 55.  How much is a day worth?

If a fully loaded truck on the 3000 mile run gained just 1.5mpg it would save 138 gallons, $578 at $4.19/gal.

Quote from: Lin on May 06, 2008, 08:39:05 PM
I am surprised that free-wheeling busnuts would want to invite the government more deeply into their hobby. 

Some prefer to have decisions made for them, then they don't have to think for themselves & they can deny responsibility for their actions.  :(

This country was more successful when we had smaller govt, fewer laws, more prayer in schools, public corporal punishment, & the press used some discretion.

Here here, Kyle! A standing ovation!

BusCrazyTom the Analog Dinosaur

Quote from: kyle4501 on May 07, 2008, 05:11:31 AM

Quote from: Lin on May 06, 2008, 08:39:05 PM
I am surprised that free-wheeling busnuts would want to invite the government more deeply into their hobby. 

Some prefer to have decisions made for them, then they don't have to think for themselves & they can deny responsibility for their actions.  :(

This country was more successful when we had smaller govt, fewer laws, more prayer in schools, public corporal punishment, & the press used some discretion.

I whole heartedly agree with you on this point and it does make me think hard about it.

But if a national reduction in consumption is needed, that is the most gentle approach.  I would much rather see the restrictions on drilling in Alaska and the gulf shores opened up and it make it easier to get a refinery built.  But I don't think that is going to happen any time soon, especially with the direction the next elections are likely to go.  :(

Amen! Kyle!....The truth is good to hear!

About 55 speed limit.....It is our disadvantage to us bus nuts when we come down hill, we need the extra momentum to try make the upcoming hill with less black smoke in the long run for us non-turbo.  However the same applied to turbo equips by trying keep exhaust temperature at lowest scale while climbing.

FWIW

Sojourn for Christ, Jerry

Right idea Len, you just aren't thinking through. What we need is a 35 or 25 MPH national speed limit. Just think of the fuel and lives we could save and we could get rid of cars. Everybody knows how dangerous those are; everyone could ride trains and buses as those are much safer and more fuel efficient. Those single family houses have to go. We can put up apartment buildings where you work, much easier to heat and cool one building and no more commuting. The savings are just endless if we just put the government in charge of everthing.

I am reminded of this story. Right after Nixon announced the nation wide 55 MPH limit he flew back to California and to show he was with the people he had his plane fly 10% slower than normal cruise. Of course, his plane use more fuel because normal cruise is best fuel mileage.

Bobsw....the most sensible repsonse for sure.... Do it your way!!!!!!!!!!! 8)

FWIW
RCB

H.T. Redneck,
     I did not check your figures but even if they are correct, 14 hours of drive time is probably two days not one.  Seven hours of drive time is enough in one day(unless I'm on the way to collect on my winning lottery ticket).  Two days is 20% of a 10-day vacation!

Quote from: Lin on May 07, 2008, 10:59:20 PM
H.T. Redneck,
     I did not check your figures but even if they are correct, 14 hours of drive time is probably two days not one.  Seven hours of drive time is enough in one day(unless I'm on the way to collect on my winning lottery ticket).  Two days is 20% of a 10-day vacation!

If I'm just casually driving and stopping at points of interest along the way, you're right, seven hours is enough for one day.  But when I am driving for the purpose of getting efficiently to a destination (i.e. a vacation destination), I have always planned 14 hours driving per day.  That leaves 2 hours for stops and 8 hours for sleep/relax time.

As for the math.

3000 miles / 75mph = 40 hours driving.
3000 miles / 55mph = 54.5 hours

3000 miles / 5mpg = 600 gallons
3000 miles / 7mpg = 429 gallons

171 gallons x $4.19/gal = $716.49

    We typically drive about 60 MPH, taking non-interstata highways. Last week, we had to make an emergency trip from NC to Il because Paula's father is not doing well. This was a quick trip with the destination as the goal (14 hour drive 0400-1800).We drove almost all interstate highways with the cruise set at 68-69. This trip was made in our Grand Cherokee, averaging 19 MPH. While we usually drive closer to 55, I like the option of running closer to 70 if neccessary.  Jack

Quote from: JackConrad on May 08, 2008, 05:29:59 AM
   While we usually drive closer to 55, I like the option of running closer to 70 if neccessary. 

I like the option also.

Its like anything else, those who are not going to obey the law won't anyway.

I believe I had just as many people zipping by me when it was 55 or 70.

I have been experimenting for awhile with different speeds and figuring out my mileage.

If I am in no hurry (I hope), I chose to cruise slower and reep the savings, but sometimes we are having such a good time on a trip, that the extra fuel is worth the extra time spent at our destination.

Yea, I like the options

Cliff

Interesting tidbits about the old 55 mph NSL:

~~  It was the most violated law nationwide since Prohibition.

~~  The California Highway Patrol's Academy is quite close to I-80 on the northern fringe of Sacramento.  During the 55 NSL, the average speed past the CHP's school was 75 mph - the fastest average in CA at the time.

Go figure. . .

;)

RJ,  Noticed CHP set up before and after their station.  A word of caution to gamblers, better to set cruise for limit in those areas.  Bill T.

I think the proposed 55 speed limit is a governmental ploy to get me to speed up, I even think libby is in on the conspiracy, I heard a nasty rumor that she is thinking about putting a caster on the bottom of my cane too.

Cody,

    If she did that wouldn't the cane slip off of the accelerator pedal?


Skip