Wind tunnel experiments show that the simples on a nonspinning golf ball actually decrease the drag force, allowing the ball to slip through the air with less resistance than a smooth ball, but only at speeds between about 55 mph and 300 mph. Below 55 mph, both the smooth and dimpled balls slip through the air with about the same resistance (drag force).
55 mph is the speed at which aerodynamics, whether for trucks or golf balls starts to kick in. If I disabled my limiter and ran around at 65 mph I would expect a noticeable increase in fuel consumption.
Wind tunnel experiments show that the simples on a nonspinning golf ball actually decrease the drag force, allowing the ball to slip through the air with less resistance than a smooth ball, but only at speeds between about 55 mph and 300 mph. Below 55 mph, both the smooth and dimpled balls slip through the air with about the same resistance (drag force).
55 mph is the speed at which aerodynamics, whether for trucks or golf balls starts to kick in. If I disabled my limiter and ran around at 65 mph I would expect a noticeable increase in fuel consumption.
But if there was no limit in the amount of work and trucks were allowed to run on red diesel trust me you’d prefer a bit of extra fuel consumption in exchange for the extra productivety.The government is good at talking the talk about recovery and competitiveness and productivety in the economy but in reality it’s all about the combination of using a bs green party agenda to benefit the big business interests in the rail transport industry. While also not wishing to upset the French of course.
I rarely drive on the limiter anyway, fuel consumption is considerably improved at 52-53 mph. Having driven in pre-limiter days I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to them. Employers used to put pressure on us to drive at speeds higher than we were happy with.
I take it you’d be happy if the hours laws were abolished too so we could all work 22 hours a day? After all, it would be more efficient.
Harry Monk:
I rarely drive on the limiter anyway, fuel consumption is considerably improved at 52-53 mph. Having driven in pre-limiter days I certainly wouldn’t want to go back to them. Employers used to put pressure on us to drive at speeds higher than we were happy with.
I take it you’d be happy if the hours laws were abolished too so we could all work 22 hours a day? After all, it would be more efficient.
I can only remember the pre limiter days as being much better from the point of view of less bunching and easier overtaking and more time at home instead of more bunching,overtaking moves that took forever and a longer working week at least on job and finish trunking.
While I can remember my guvnor on the council saying that he’d prefer it if I was using a tacho instead of a log book because he thought I was spending time parked up having a rest because I didn’t like early morning starts to which my answer was no comment.Which as I heard it is more or less why Hitler introduced the things in Europe to keep an eye on his logistics ‘workers’.
Carryfast:
.Which as I heard it is more or less why Hitler introduced the things in Europe to keep an eye on his logistics ‘workers’.
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of ■■■■ Analogies or Godwin’s Law of ■■■■ Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion–regardless of topic or scope–someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
Carryfast:
.Which as I heard it is more or less why Hitler introduced the things in Europe to keep an eye on his logistics ‘workers’.
Godwin’s law (also known as Godwin’s Rule of ■■■■ Analogies or Godwin’s Law of ■■■■ Analogies[1][2]) is an observation made by Mike Godwin in 1990[2] that has become an Internet adage. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1. In other words, Godwin observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion–regardless of topic or scope–someone inevitably makes a comparison to Hitler or the Nazis.
Especially in any discussion concerning the ‘introduction’ of EEC/EU tachograph and speed limiter laws first in the case of ze Wehrmacht’s logistics divisions and then to civilian drivers in Europe and Britain.
GasGas:
I believe the EU came up with a range within which individual countries could have their limiters set from (in imperial) about 52 to 56 mph. The UK chose the highest setting it legally could.
Speed limiters were not introduced for road safety reasons, but environmental ones. Air resistance increases by a square of velocity, so a small reduction in top speed (which has little impact upon journey time) results in quite a big saving in fuel and thus reduced pollution.
Many operators have cottoned on to this and are voluntarily setting limiters for 52 mph.
The practice is also being followed in the shipping world, particularly with container ships (google ‘slow steaming’).
And it’s being happening with airliners for years.
Concorde was obviously the fastest ever airliner, and the fastest non-Concorde scheduled airliner across the Atlantic was the VC-10 of the 1960s. The modern widebodied airliners are all considerably slower then the Boeing 747, which can hit mach 0.9 on a good day. It’s mostly down to fuel saving, and also a recognition that carving 10 minutes off a flight time means very little when you have to get to the airport 2 hours before the flight takes off.
and the reason why Stena Line don’t use the HSS now…
them jet engines were just a wee bit thirsty.
GasGas:
I believe the EU came up with a range within which individual countries could have their limiters set from (in imperial) about 52 to 56 mph. The UK chose the highest setting it legally could.
Speed limiters were not introduced for road safety reasons, but environmental ones. Air resistance increases by a square of velocity, so a small reduction in top speed (which has little impact upon journey time) results in quite a big saving in fuel and thus reduced pollution.
Many operators have cottoned on to this and are voluntarily setting limiters for 52 mph.
The practice is also being followed in the shipping world, particularly with container ships (google ‘slow steaming’).
And it’s being happening with airliners for years.
Concorde was obviously the fastest ever airliner, and the fastest non-Concorde scheduled airliner across the Atlantic was the VC-10 of the 1960s. The modern widebodied airliners are all considerably slower then the Boeing 747, which can hit mach 0.9 on a good day. It’s mostly down to fuel saving, and also a recognition that carving 10 minutes off a flight time means very little when you have to get to the airport 2 hours before the flight takes off.
and the reason why Stena Line don’t use the HSS now…
them jet engines were just a wee bit thirsty.
GasGas:
‘…the fastest non-Concorde scheduled airliner across the Atlantic was the VC-10 …’
I understand that the (formerly) Vickers VC-10 remains the fastest passenger airliner in the world, albeit solely in MoD/RAF use today
Carryfast:
‘…[O]ur government could have just opted out of all the bs EU … regs … but it didn’t because [it] … helps the big business rail freight industry…’
Selective rot: UK Lib-Lab-Con governments are always fully subordinate and compliant with EU diktats FULL STOP.
Don’t kid us with rail bias nonsense being their sole raison d’être to ■■■■■ Brussels: Evidence, please
Carryfast:
‘…While I don’t think there’s even anything in Farage’s election manifesto that says he wants to put the uk road transport industry regulation back where it was before we’d joined the EU. Unless you know different…’
As any gumby might guess, there’s scant mileage in going full-tilt back to the 1970’s
Besides, the UK never democratically ‘…joined the EU…’ It was covertly corrupted upon the trusting gullible from the cosily simple Common Market
Meanwhile, AFAIK it’s ‘UK laws made by UK elected politicians for the UK’s benefit’ that is essentially that individual’s political doctrine - as is an opposition to HS2, which might make him a train-spotter’s hero for those inclined to otherwise whine about them
Jenson Button:
So if you were doing 60 on the motorway could some jobsworth do you ? and as such would you only get a fine for a defective speed limiter?
Perfectly legal even if your digi tacho is showing an overspeed.
I have an email from a VOSA bod about this when I asked a year or so ago.
1 It is perfectly legal to roll up to 60mph on a motorway as long as you aren’t coasting.
2 If the digi tacho shows an overspeed during that time and as long as it doesn’t exceed 60mph VOSA aren’t interested.
3 VOSA are only interested in prolonged overspeeds where it is obvious you haven’t been going down a hill for 30 mins. ie you are running with a tampered limiter.
Carryfast:
‘…[O]ur government could have just opted out of all the bs EU … regs … but it didn’t because [it] … helps the big business rail freight industry…’
Selective rot: UK Lib-Lab-Con governments are always fully subordinate and compliant with EU diktats FULL STOP.
Don’t kid us with rail bias nonsense being their sole raison d’être to ■■■■■ Brussels: Evidence, please
Carryfast:
‘…While I don’t think there’s even anything in Farage’s election manifesto that says he wants to put the uk road transport industry regulation back where it was before we’d joined the EU. Unless you know different…’
As any gumby might guess, there’s scant mileage in going full-tilt back to the 1970’s
Besides, the UK never democratically ‘…joined the EU…’ It was covertly corrupted upon the trusting gullible from the cosily simple Common Market
The facts concerning the government frequently using opt outs when it suits it as in the case of the Euro, Schengen,harmonisation of taxation,and banking sector controls shows that you’re wrong.While you seem to be saying that while you’re all for getting out of the EU you wouldn’t want to return British road transport regs to where they were before we joined in 1973.
So from the point of view of ‘this’ issue and topic ( EU imposed type approval and regulation of vehicles which includes the fitting of speed limiters and thereby imposition of EU imposed motorway truck speed limits in addition to EU drivers’ hours regs and recording same by use of tachographs ) exactly what would have changed and what would be the difference under UKIP’s ( or your ) ideas v Cam’s/Clegg’s and Miliband’s.Or for that matter Heath’s/Wilson’s or Callaghan’s.
Assuming of course that Farage isn’t saying that at least uk registered vehicles,doing just domestic work,can have their limiters set at 60 mph and 'domestic hours regs will really mean ‘domestic’ of course which,no surprise,even that I’ve certainly not seen in UKIP’s manifesto.
Trukkertone:
and the reason why Stena Line don’t use the HSS now…
them jet engines were just a wee bit thirsty.
They still use it from Holyhead, all be it seasonally. Brought it back into service early this year after the Finnarrow took a stabiliser off. I’ve noticed also no matter how early the ferry leaves it’ll never be at its destination early like it used to be. In the 16 years I’ve been driving ferries have slowed down a lot.
GasGas:
‘…the fastest non-Concorde scheduled airliner across the Atlantic was the VC-10 …’
I understand that the (formerly) Vickers VC-10 remains the fastest passenger airliner in the world, albeit solely in MoD/RAF use today
Correct.
It was specified with an excess of power to enable it to take off from short runway, high temperature, high altitude airports in Africa which it would stop at on the way down to Australia. The Government of the time insisted upon this (Commonwealth and empire old bean), and insisted that BOAC purchased it.
But as BOAC shook off the shackles of Govt, it did the same as every other airline in the world, and chose the Boeing 707. You could fly a 707 half empty and still make a profit, whereas you would just about break even with a full VC-10. And the airlines either stopped stopping in Africa, or the African nations extended their runways.
Still remains so impressive though: if a fully-laden VC-10 and a fully-laden 707 set off down Heathrow’s two parallel runways at the same time the Boeing would still be on the ground when the VC-10 was at 1000 ft with the landing gear tucked away. The cabin was quieter and the ride was smoother.
It was a Jaguar, and the Boeing was a Ford ■■■■■■.
The people who tried to sell a second batch of VC-10s to BOAC joked that it stood for Boeing Only Aircraft Considered.
The simple fact is that trucks use considerably less fossil fuel at 56 mph compared to 66 mph, and fossil fuel is a finite resource, we already burn every day what took hundreds of thousands of years to create and that just can’t carry on indefinitely. Obviously.
For centuries we lived primitive lives in huts, with only the occasional fire to keep warm and maybe a candle to see by. Now there are billions of cars all over the planet, superheated houses and plastic tat being churned out in Chinese factories by the container-load.
Surely only a fool would not be able to see where this is leading to? It always makes me laugh when I see Conor’s signature about global warming being a massive lie, a typical example of a simpleton thinking that our planet was formed on the day that he was born. I have to say that Carryfast shows the same limited intelligence and short-sightedness.
Harry Monk:
I seem to recall reading at the time that it is about the most fuel-efficient speed for a vehicle to run at which is why the USA imposed a blanket 55mph speed limit during the 1973 oil crisis.
You’re absolutely right.
And that is why car manufacturers always use that speed, give or take a click or two, in their fuel consumption data.
Overspeed only comes on over 90km/h, not if your limiter is set lower etc (which means every motor should be set to 90, standard really) & If it ain’t Boeing, I ain’t going…
GasGas:
‘…the fastest non-Concorde scheduled airliner across the Atlantic was the VC-10 …’
I understand that the (formerly) Vickers VC-10 remains the fastest passenger airliner in the world, albeit solely in MoD/RAF use today
Correct.
It was specified with an excess of power to enable it to take off from short runway, high temperature, high altitude airports in Africa which it would stop at on the way down to Australia. The Government of the time insisted upon this (Commonwealth and empire old bean), and insisted that BOAC purchased it.
But as BOAC shook off the shackles of Govt, it did the same as every other airline in the world, and chose the Boeing 707. You could fly a 707 half empty and still make a profit, whereas you would just about break even with a full VC-10. And the airlines either stopped stopping in Africa, or the African nations extended their runways.
Still remains so impressive though: if a fully-laden VC-10 and a fully-laden 707 set off down Heathrow’s two parallel runways at the same time the Boeing would still be on the ground when the VC-10 was at 1000 ft with the landing gear tucked away. The cabin was quieter and the ride was smoother.
It was a Jaguar, and the Boeing was a Ford ■■■■■■.
The people who tried to sell a second batch of VC-10s to BOAC joked that it stood for Boeing Only Aircraft Considered.
^ This.My dad helped to build the first of them until he told them to shove the job because he could earn more working for a small engineering firm a few miles from home which paid enough to buy and run a car to drive to and from work instead of having to get the bus from Kingston to Weybridge.While the Americans knew that our engineers were at least as good as there’s which is why he could have got a job at Boeing if only my mum had wanted to emigrate.Although to be fair the Boeing was more like a Ford Zodiac.While the VC10 was a Jag XJ6 at least 10 years ahead of it’s time.
Harry Monk:
The simple fact is that trucks use considerably less fossil fuel at 56 mph compared to 66 mph, and fossil fuel is a finite resource, we already burn every day what took hundreds of thousands of years to create and that just can’t carry on indefinitely. Obviously.
For centuries we lived primitive lives in huts, with only the occasional fire to keep warm and maybe a candle to see by. Now there are billions of cars all over the planet, superheated houses and plastic tat being churned out in Chinese factories by the container-load.
Surely only a fool would not be able to see where this is leading to? It always makes me laugh when I see Conor’s signature about global warming being a massive lie, a typical example of a simpleton thinking that our planet was formed on the day that he was born. I have to say that Carryfast shows the same limited intelligence and short-sightedness.
Blimey Harry I never thought you believed or supported the raving global warming and oil running out hysteria.The fact is we’re burning loads of gas to keep warm in March and April and probably May because it’s so cold.While there’s still loads of coal under our feet that can also be used to make road fuel in addition to the oceans of oil that are still there.The issue of loads of Orientals and Asians over populating themselves and all wanting a car and a centrally heated house is another matter and that’s more likely to end up in a concrete jungle and massive traffic jams and unbreathable air in those places.In which case tough that’s their problem not ours assuming that we finally sort out our foreign and immigration policies.
But if you really believe all that bs then unless you’re a hypocrite you should park the truck up and let the greens sort the loads out.
While also not wishing to upset the French of course. 
