> how much do you know that reducing the speed limit again would help? Personally, I can only offer that it is simple physics. It takes energy to move mass, and more energy to move mass faster. Certainly technology has improved the efficiency of vehicles, but technology has yet to circumvent the laws of physics. A simple test one can very effectively do would require a bicycle. Peddle hard and get it going as fast as you can, then try to maintain that speed. It should not take long to notice a significant loss of speed without a great investment of more and more energy.
We can also look at some of the work done in 1995, which is admittedly a bit old, but helpful. http://www.epa.gov/otaq/reports/env-spds.htm http://www.trucktires.com/library/technical/bftechnical/fuel_economy_b.htm Of course I could be wrong about the actual percentages, there are certainly a great many variables to consider, but I am not wrong that it requires more energy to move mass faster. Slowing down will save energy. Finding a compromise between standing still and movement is the real issue. This is why safety, pollution, cost, and time all enter the equation. I would certainly welcome any contribution to help clarify and substantiate or disprove the starting points of 20% to 50% reductions that I have derived from historical documentation I found so far. [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~--> Get A Free Psychic Reading! Your Online Answer To Life's Important Questions. http://us.click.yahoo.com/Lj3uPC/Me7FAA/ySSFAA/FGYolB/TM ---------------------------------------------------------------------~-> Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Biofuels list archives: http://archive.nnytech.net/ Please do NOT send Unsubscribe messages to the list address. To unsubscribe, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
