Average Speed vs Putting the foot down

keithclancy

After seeing a few thread on people "putting the foot down" I said i'd do an experiment

So I did two trips and GPS logged both, the first trip "Putting the foot down" when conditions permitted and the second trip driving purely with Cruise Control set to 121KM/h, slowing down when necessary and using the cruise control to resume at the set speed.

So heres the results:
Trip 1


As you can see my speed varied alot, Traffic was fairly light but I found that driving quite quickly I had to drastically reduce speed when people where merging and there was nowhere on the overtaking lane to pullout, or in cases where the driver coming up the overtaking lane was doing an odd speed and it wasnt safe to pull out and I would have to reduce speed to match the car/truck in front in the right lane.

In all my maximum speed was 185km/h, clock in the car showed 190ish (overestimated)

Total trip time was 1hr 18mins.

The graph for my speed is all over the place

I used about 8 litres of Diesel on this trip according to the trip computer.

So then I took my second trip, using cruise control only (when possible)


As you can see the graph is much more uniform, i used the resume button on the cruise control to bring the speed backup whenever I had to slow down.

I used just over 5 litres of fuel for this trip.

It took just over 1hour 15mins.

So as you can see, maintaining an Average speed is much more important than "Putting the foot down" and also costs more !

I'm going to try logging my trips every day and then compare against different times of the day how long it takes etc and to have a historical view on my commute (i.e. if they open that new section of motorway how much of a difference does it make).

I used the nokia sports tracker and it works on most Series 60 phones, of course you need GPS, but its free and it does the job. Also like the integration with Google Maps

Matt Simis

Fantastic post thanks. I do a 1hr daily commute each way and try out different tactics too. Now to find a similar App for the Iphone...

antodeco

Matt Simis wrote: »

Fantastic post thanks. I do a 1hr daily commute each way and try out different tactics too. Now to find a similar App for the Iphone...

If you do find one, let me know!

Anan1

Me too!

biko

Very interesting, not much saved in time but a massive fuel saving.

I find that if you can find the cars "comfortable" speed you'll save lots in fuel. You'll know when you hit it because it just "floats along" and there is no strain on the car or the engine.

unkel

Change your phones, lads

@OP - nice work! Though I can't help thinking that traffic might have been a bit busier on your "put the foot down" run

Have you a Dutch license at this stage? Careful about speeding too much if so

keithclancy

unkel wrote: »

Change your phones, lads

@OP - nice work! Though I can't help thinking that traffic might have been a bit busier on your "put the foot down" run

Have you a Dutch license at this stage? Careful about speeding too much if so

Nope, checked with the RDW and I can keep it until it expires (8 Years) also my Dutch insurance had no problem accepting it, so long as it was a EU license its happy days.

I'm especially careful driving now on Dutch plates , although theres far less motorway cameras in Brabant and Limburg compared to the rest of the country.

What I find really interesting was that using less full got me there slightly faster (by 3 minutes)
Both these trips were recorded just after rush hour, traffic was around the same.

Going to try this out for 6 months with different routes etc and see what improvements I can make

Matt Simis

unkel wrote: »

Change your phones, lads

I did change, from Nokia to this. Company paid for it though. :P

Looks like http://sportypal.com/Home (Free) might be the most similar iPhone App.

xabi

Whats the application being used here?

Anan1

Magnus wrote: »

I find that if you can find the cars "comfortable" speed you'll save lots in fuel. You'll know when you hit it because it just "floats along" and there is no strain on the car or the engine.

I find that my car's 'comfortable' speed tends to burn fuel like it's going out of fashion.;)

keithclancy

xabi wrote: »

Whats the application being used here?

http://sportstracker.nokia.com/

xabi

keithclancy wrote: »

http://sportstracker.nokia.com/

I like that, is there something similar for car GPS system like Garmin?

X.

antodeco

Matt Simis wrote: »

Fantastic post thanks. I do a 1hr daily commute each way and try out different tactics too. Now to find a similar App for the Iphone...

Anan1 wrote: »

Me too!

Matt Simis wrote: »

I did change, from Nokia to this. Company paid for it though. :P

Looks like http://sportypal.com/Home (Free) might be the most similar iPhone App.

Here you go! http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/distance-meter-pro/id286133117?mt=8

ShayK1

keithclancy wrote: »

driving purely with Cruise Control set to 121KM/h,



As you can see the graph is much more uniform, i used the resume button on the cruise control to bring the speed backup whenever I had to slow down.

Why does the map show max speed of 149Km/h?

no1beemerfan

Brilliant post......now to show it to the GF as she is a fan of put the foot down approach!

thirtythirty

I'm sorry, but these tests are completely flawed -

Where's the graph showing satisfaction and happiness correlated to the roar of an accelerating engine vs cruising along with a lullaby engine hum??




..also, good job.

keithclancy

ShayK1 wrote: »

Why does the map show max speed of 149Km/h?

Its shows your High and Low (Altitude) and Fast and Slow (Speed)

On my second run my maximum speed was 149 km/h, I remember it too, there was a bunch of trucks tailing each other and I had to nip up the overtaking lane to get to a space to reach the exit

It doesn't show it when you zoom out to that fine a detail on the Graph, however when you zoom on on that graph you can see that small spike where my speed increased

cpoh1

Well Keith if only you had a bmw you would never have needed a sat nav or any of that jiggory pokery, The trip computer calculates all this for you and can be set any time you want to read average speed and mpg. Hence my comments in the other thread about my average speed being above 160kph.

This test is totally variable depending on the levels of traffic and as a result totally pointless. Some days in heavy commuter traffic speeding up and slowing down to match the spaces will yield no gain in time. However in cases where light traffic is encountered much time can be saved by increasing your speed appropriately at times.

keithclancy

cpoh1 wrote: »

Well Keith if only you had a bmw you would never have needed a sat nav or any of that jiggory pokery, The trip computer calculates all this for you and can be set any time you want to read average speed and mpg. Hence my comments in the other thread about my average speed being above 160kph.

This test is totally variable depending on the levels of traffic and as a result totally pointless. Some days in heavy commuter traffic speeding up and slowing down to match the spaces will yield no gain in time. However in cases where light traffic is encountered much time can be saved by increasing your speed appropriately at times.

Yup, my car calculates that, unfortunately it doesn't have any form of output that i can graph or put into Google Maps.

The trip computer only shows you an average and at the current moment in time, but it doesn't output to a graph or output to Google Maps.

I think you might have made a mistake on your Average speed though, maybe you reset it on the motorway or something but to keep up a 160km/h average speed there would have to be no stops and no traffic in your way, also all the exits and entrances on the motorway would need to be travelled on that speed too. Unless you were doing 250 - 280 km/hour for 50 - 60 % of your journey then maybe its possible.

Although after having a BMW 525 for a couple of weeks their not really capable of that speed

Edit: Sorry for the off topic mods, Just wondering why cpoh1 chose to post in this thread ...

cpoh1

keithclancy wrote: »

I think you might have made a mistake on your Average speed though, maybe you reset it on the motorway or something but to keep up a 160km/h average speed there would have to be no stops and no traffic in your way, also all the exits and entrances on the motorway would need to be travelled on that speed too. Unless you were doing 250 - 280 km/hour for 50 - 60 % of your journey then maybe its possible.

It was quite simple really, set the trip after leaving the toll, driving as fast as safe and possible the length of the 140 odd kilometers and checking the trip reading at the end, highest speed reached was 190kph and a good portion of the journey was spend at 170kph with a few short diversions down to 140-150 to allow for slower traffic in the overtaking lane. How is this hard to comprehend?

Anyway my point stands this test as interesting as it seems is completely pointless as it depends on something completely unquantifiable - traffic. You cannot replicate exact traffic conditions for any tests you carry out.

keithclancy

cpoh1 wrote: »

It was quite simple really, set the trip after leaving the toll, driving as fast as safe and possible the length of the 140 odd kilometers and checking the trip reading at the end, highest speed reached was 190kph and a good portion of the journey was spend at 170kph with a few short diversions down to 140-150 to allow for slower traffic in the overtaking lane. How is this hard to comprehend?

Anyway my point stands this test as interesting as it seems is completely pointless as it depends on something completely unquantifiable - traffic. You cannot replicate exact traffic conditions for any tests you carry out.

Well you can have your own opinion, but seeing directly how two different driving styles can have such a different fuel consumption is what surprises me.

The only traffic I really hit are just outside the cities on either end very few people commute in the direction I go, all the Heavy Traffic heads toward Utrecht.

Generally speaking though if you do a commute over a long period of time it takes the same amount of time regardless of how fast you drive.

If i could maintain an Average speed of 160km/h from home to work it would take me around 40-45 minutes ... although the engine would be sucking 10-12 litres / 100km I think.... hmm I think I might test that later :P

cruizer101

It is very interesting to see and I do generally agree with you that speeding just isn't worth it, so often you see someone speed by on a main road only to catch up with them in a town.

However I have to agree with cpoh to a certain extent. Two tests like this is not enough to draw proper conclussions, especially considering one journey was on way there one was on way back.

keithclancy

cruizer101 wrote: »

It is very interesting to see and I do generally agree with you that speeding just isn't worth it, so often you see someone speed by on a main road only to catch up with them in a town.

However I have to agree with cpoh to a certain extent. Two tests like this is not enough to draw proper conclussions, especially considering one journey was on way there one was on way back.

Indeed, but thats why i'm going to try and do this every day for the future

TheBazman

But which journey was more fun??

zilog_jones

www.fuelly.com or www.spritmonitor.de/en/ are handy for keeping track of fuel consumption and cost (the latter has stuff for keeping track of other running costs too).

I used to drive between Limerick and Dublin frequently, and found taking the motorway sections at 100 km/h a lot more relaxing and better on fuel consumption - you don't need to overtake as much (and when you do you're more likely to have loads of space) and are less likely to get stuck in long queues of traffic.

I don't know what's "fun" about driving fast on motorways...

TheBazman

zilog_jones wrote: »

I don't know what's "fun" about driving fast on motorways...

In my opinion (and you're entitled to yours) I find faster driving, within obvious limits and with no silly stuff, more exhilarating and yes more fun. The most fun I've had in a car was the drive to the Nurburgring last year which was very fast in parts. Anyway we're straying from the topic. I don't think the results are overly surprising that having a constant speed delivers better fuel economy than otherwise

seamy1

great post.
i love putting the foot down and think i've made up loads of time, but when i race another 'slow' driver the same journey it's only mins in the difference.
good work keith!

bandit197

Great post, got it installed in N5800 and ready to try out tomorrow, might take some of the boredom out of the commute

Gitb1

cpoh1 wrote: »

Well Keith if only you had a bmw you would never have needed a sat nav or any of that jiggory pokery, The trip computer calculates all this for you and can be set any time you want to read average speed and mpg. Hence my comments in the other thread about my average speed being above 160kph.

Who needs a BMW for that? My girlfriends 99 punto does that too

cpoh1

cpoh1 wrote: »

Well Keith if only you had a bmw you would never have needed a sat nav or any of that jiggory pokery, The trip computer calculates all this for you and can be set any time you want to read average speed and mpg. Hence my comments in the other thread about my average speed being above 160kph.

This test is totally variable depending on the levels of traffic and as a result totally pointless. Some days in heavy commuter traffic speeding up and slowing down to match the spaces will yield no gain in time. However in cases where light traffic is encountered much time can be saved by increasing your speed appropriately at times.

160kph?

Matt Simis

I did this with SportyPal today. Id post it up, but Im concerned with certain, "highlights", it recorded over the 46km commute..