change.ie promoting dangerous driving

espinolman

Change Campaign wrote: »

Thank you for showing an interest in the Change Campaign which is all about encouraging the public sector, the private sector, communities and individuals to realise their contribution to climate change and to lower their carbon number.

What about the contribution of chemtrails to climate change ! You are probably not allowed to talk about that because your campaign is basically politically driven bull**** .

CianRyan

My carbon number is 6.97, dear lord that is going to change when i get a car and stop cycling everywhere! :pac::D

Zube

MYOB wrote: »

Additionally, considering there is a base amount of emissions that your engine will emit no matter what speed your doing, its not like theres an exact linear rpm/co2 emission scale.

It's certainly not linear! The power needed to overcome drag goes up with the cube of speed. That's not all the power you need, of course, you have to overcome mechanical resistance, run your alternator and so on, but when you double your speed from 50 to 100 km/hr, the power needed to overcome drag increases by a factor of 8.

Stark

MYOB wrote: »

Additionally, considering there is a base amount of emissions that your engine will emit no matter what speed your doing, its not like theres an exact linear rpm/co2 emission scale. There is not a chance in hell that I'll be putting out half the co2 per km at 50 as at 100.

There's an article here that explains that quite well imo: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

Zube

Stark wrote: »

There's an article here that explains that quite well imo: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question477.htm

It explains MYOB's point, but it doesn't answer the question:
What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?



which is what it was supposed to answer.

If you look up hypermiling, the art of getting the absolute best mpg possible, you'll see that one of the techniques used is to drive really slowly. It works.

I don't recommend it, but it works.

Stark

Zube wrote: »

It explains MYOB's point, but it doesn't answer the question: What speed should I drive to get maximum fuel efficiency?

It says between 40mph and 60mph in the article. (Not 30mph).

Mark_Walsh

Zube wrote: »

Yes, but they aren't very motoring-related.

A global carbon tax (with breaks for the poorer) which is used to sequester the carbon being emitted, plus a bit more for the stuff already out there. This will put the real cost of fossil fuels out in the open, and make a shift to nuclear for electricity generation economically sensible.

Motoring-wise, I don't know if we'll end up in plug-ins, fuel-cells, hydrogen or alcohol driven cars, but the best way to find out is to price the energy correctly and see what happens.

what can we do is what I meant?

johndoc

RobAMerc wrote: »

change.ie promoting dangerous driving

I'm not sure how to quote the OP in a whining sarcastic tone using smilies etc?

Thankfully this thread has degenerated into a discussion on fuel efficiency rather than the garbage indicated by the thread title. Get yourself down to the local nanny police/over-the-top politically correct society.

RobAMerc made me steal a merc...... his username made me do it....

Jeeeezzeee:rolleyes:



.

Stark

Well that was an intelligent, well constructed and insightful post. Now where's my whiny sarcastic smiley?

Stark

Mark_Walsh wrote: »

what can we do is what I meant?

I found these webpages that offers more constructive tips than "well it's totally ineffective but we have to be seen to do something":

http://www.eartheasy.com/live_fuel_efficient_driving.htm
http://cars.about.com/od/helpforcarbuyers/tp/ag_top_fuelsave.htm

Maybe you guys behind change.ie could do research yourselves, since you are the self-professed experts and all.

Also laying off the hamburgers is more likely to have an effect than saving that 3% worth of fuel.

L1011

Zube wrote: »

It's certainly not linear! The power needed to overcome drag goes up with the cube of speed. That's not all the power you need, of course, you have to overcome mechanical resistance, run your alternator and so on, but when you double your speed from 50 to 100 km/hr, the power needed to overcome drag increases by a factor of 8.

My car has a relatively low Cd, admittedly a relatively high rolling resistance for its size due to its fat tyres, and an extremely low kerb weight - I contribute over 10% of its load when I'm in it, for instance.

As a result, there is not a chance in hell it will use half as much fuel at 50 as it does as 100. Its most efficient point is going to be much closer to 100 than to 50 - probably in the 80s. Going off its ECU's instantaneous consumption, the lowest i've seen it steady at - 3.0l/100km, which is nearly 80mpg, has been obeying the speed limit on the R408.

And as goes normal driving, its a six speed, meaning I can keep the car at more sane revs all the way up.

johndoc

Stark wrote: »

Well that was an intelligent, well constructed and insightful post.

Well thanks.

Stark wrote: »

Now where's my whiny sarcastic smiley?

Here it is.....

.

Zube

Mark_Walsh wrote: »

what can we do is what I meant?

Some years ago, Dublin had a problem with filthy smog, from smokey coal. Many well-intentioned people bought smokeless fuel for their fires, firstly so that they could "do something" about the problem, secondly so that they could feel better by not contributing to the problem, and in some cases so that they could lecture everyone else.

None of this had any effect at all on the problem, and they just got on everyone's tits.

Finally the Government banned smokey coal, problem solved.

So, write to your TD, and tell him (or her) to stop playing to the pious Greenies, and to ask the Government to start talking to Gordon Brown, Barack Obama, Chancellor Merkel, and whoever it takes, with the best scientific advice, to actually tackle the problem.

In the meantime, relax. If you don't use that litre of petrol, demand is down, the price goes down, and some Tata Nano driving Indian dude will.

peasant

johndoc

contribute something meaningful or just shut up, thanks

Zube

MYOB wrote: »

My car has a relatively low Cd, admittedly a relatively high rolling resistance for its size due to its fat tyres, and an extremely low kerb weight - I contribute over 10% of its load when I'm in it, for instance.

A Smart Roadster has a kerb weight of 800 kg! Yours is one freakily light car.

Or maybe...

L1011

Zube wrote: »

A Smart Roadster has a kerb weight of 800 kg! Yours is one freakily light car.

Or maybe...

Its not significantly heavier than that; I'm 6'5" and built like a rugby prop; hence the 10%.

mike65

Crude site, anyway I came out with a rating of 6.52 tonnes PA which is silly cos the utility bills I entered are for winter months so its actually lower.

Think I'll buy an Aston Martin to make up the difference.

galwaytt

It's complete horse**** - with large house, 3.0 car, 1500cc bike......I am a 'low carbon' house with 5.34 tonnes ?

Fug me - I'm obviously not trying hard enough ! - Good job I'm looking at buying a 3.6L

And, considering how many holes there are in the roads around me, I couldn't give a flyin' fig how many holes there are in the sky above me. Potholes Can Kill !!

The whole CO2 thing is a complete (green) Herring - total nonsense. Remember, in the early '80's how we were told the 'Ice Age Cometh' and that the world was fubar'd ? That theory blown out of the water in 15 years. I dare say the same about CO2 theory, too.

Worth a Read (but there's a lot of it......)

daveharnett

Regardless of engines, gear ratios etc, if you resolve to drive at 80kph, your carbon footprint will drop significantly.




Because long journeys will be quicker on the bus :rolleyes:.

mobpd

I received the following reply from Change.ie about how the fuel saving from driving at 80 instead of 100 was calculated.....

"The savings are presented in both monetary and carbon terms and while they are scientifically calculated and accurate, they will vary with individual driving behaviour.The tips relate to the reduction of speed from 100 km/yr to 80 km/yr where possible. People should try to find the safest and most practical way to reduce their speed in order to make these fuel savings.

The calculations are based on the following assumptions.

1. ECO driving savings

25% saving in the short term

5-10% saving in the long term

Assumption 1 we take an average of these savings 25%+ 5% = 30/ 2= 15%

2. Average Cars

Average new car purchased 2007 emitted 3.6 tonnes of C02 and fuel costs €1620 in today's prices- source SEI Press release 3rd July 2008 (SEI web site).

Assumption 2 we take 3.6 tonnes and €1620 as the average C02 and fuel costs per annum.

3. ECO driving potential annual savings

At 5% saving Fuel = € 81 C02 = 180 kg

At 10% savings Fuel = € 162 C02 = 360 kg

At 15% savings Fuel €244 C02 = 540 kg

"

ninty9er

Since Change.ie isn't going to do anything about it, I took the liberty of emailing the ASAI complaining that the ad poses a risk to road safety.

You can do the same here http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

Who is the advertiser ? Change.ie
What product or service is being advertised ? Financial Savings
Media in which the
advertisement appeared Television
WHERE did you see/hear the advertisement ?
RTE 1
WHEN did you see/hear the advertisement ?
12:45am 15/1/09
Your complaint
The advertisement promotes a reduction in speed from 100 to 80 km/h. This is promotion of dangerous activity which is contrary to rules of the road which promote "making good progress". Should change.ie wish to promote environmental driving, they may suggest other options, but please nothing that compromises road safety. This is made more clear on the link to powerofone.ie, however, the transfer of viewers to web hits will never be 100%, this advert is a danger to road users.

rebel.ranter

I'm not sure about anybody else's car but mine seems to get more economical as I approach 65-70MPH on the motorway.

L1011

I tried the "lowest possible speed in the highest gear" when stuck in a slow moving convoy last night.

60km/h in 6th gear = 5.4l per 100km.
60km/h in 5th gear = 2.0l per 100km.

The car was trundling along fine in 6th, not struggling, but clearly due to the low revs there was far more torque required to keep it moving.

Cookie_Monster

ninty9er wrote: »

You can do the same here http://www.asai.ie/complain.asp

Done:)

Cabaal

challengemaster wrote: »

Isn't the speed limit 80km/h anyway?

It is on the majority of roads in Ireland, followed by 100km and 120km depending on road type

ShadowHearth

unkel wrote: »

Let's take the €160 saving in fuel as a given and let's do a simplistic sum. Let's assume that the average driver drives a bit less than 1 hour per day, say 320 hours per year, and let's say that half of these hours can be done at 100km/h (the rest is slower, let's forget about those hours). The person who decides to do 80km/h instead will have to drive for an additional 32 hours (half of 320 hours plus the 25% longer it takes them when only doing 80km/h). Then let's assume someone earns the average industrial wage of say €37k so say roughly €15 net per hour. The loss in time is worth €480.

Net loss €320 (€480 - €160) per year. Oops.

Moral of the story: let's put the foot down, folks

F*cking A+

ninty9er

A very prompt reply I might add!

15th January 2009
Mr. ninty9er
ninty9er's House
Limerick

RE: Change.ie

Dear Mr. ninty9er,

I refer to your complaint received today in conjunction with the above named advertisement.

The Advertising Standards Authority of Ireland is a self-regulatory body set up by the advertising industry to promote the highest standards of commercial advertising and to enforce the Code of Standards for Advertising, Promotional and Direct Marketing in Ireland. The Code applies to advertisements which have a commercial objective, i.e., the sale of a product or service. Advertisements whose principal purpose is to express the advertiser's opinion on a political, religious or industrial relations matter or on an issue of public interest or concern are outside the scope of the Code

As the advertisement in question is intended mainly to influence opinion about a matter of public interest you will appreciate that it is outside the jurisdiction of ASAI and that we are therefore unable to pursue your complaint under the Code. You may wishe to raise your issues with the relevant body responsible for the advertising in question, that body is Change.ie. You will find relevant contact details and further information on their website at www.change.ie

Even though we are unable to be of assistance to you in this instance, we appreciate you taking the time to write to us in this matter.

Yours sincerely,

Ms. Assistant Cheif Executive

Was worth a shot anyway.

Cookie_Monster

ninty9er wrote: »

A very prompt reply I might add!

Was worth a shot anyway.

What a load of BS, "we only monitor and enforce some standards for ads but not others":rolleyes:

As the advertisement in question is intended mainly to influence opinion about a matter of public interest

So they are saying it is all right to influence people to (potentially) drive dangerously...:eek:

jor el

ninty9er wrote: »

A very prompt reply I might add!



Was worth a shot anyway.

You should send the same complaint to the RSA, Gay Byrne, and the Minister for Transport.

Anyway, that Change.ie website is a pile of poo. It told me I was 30% below the average CO2 emissions, but that I should do more. Drop my speeds to 80kmph, cut out the one and only flight I was taking, and swap my PC for a laptop. No, no and eh, no, to that then.

Everyone should visit the site, get their carbon number, and promptly ignore it.

Cookie_Monster

jor el wrote: »

You should send the same complaint to the RSA, and the Minister for Transport.

Good idea, I just did. I wonder if they'll even respond?