On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:40:00 -0000, Julian wrote:


"Duncan Wood" wrote in message
newsp.uoz0hchyhaghkf@lucy...
On Sat, 07 Feb 2009 20:22:57 -0000, Julian wrote:


"DervMan" wrote in message
...
"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
m...

I think we basically know all this - well I do! But the point's
been
missed here, so again then, why waste fuel by needlessly and easily
avoidably running with unnecessary electrical loading on the
alternator? Save the pennies and the pounds look after themselves -
there's a generation of people who previously lived beyond their
means
currently discovering this as the recession bites harder!


Whilst I agree with what you're saying, if the difference is so
subtle
in consumption, would one notice if you didn't use the headlights?
One
potential danger is that a given driver will not use their
headlights
until they deem is absolutely necessary, but in some weather and /
or
lighting conditions, it can make a lot of difference.


I know I would rather have my lights on and gain some safety than put
them off to save a few pence per tankful. Some things are not worth
economising on, especially where safety is concerned.


Indeed. All too many drivers are too stupid to think the same,
though!

Nah, I've just driven from Edinburgh to Manchester. Started off in
bright
sunshine, finished in the dark. Everyone switched lights on in a timely
manner, just one chap didn't - he turned them on when someone flashed
him,
so he had obviously forgot.

(In a petrol Focus hire car BTW with 5k on the clock - a horrid thing
with a
gutless engine, my old turbo 306D was far far more fun to drive!)

Julian.



It's the ones who don't switch them on in the pouring rain that baffle
me.
Although possibly they never use their wing mirrors either.

Yes, and the closest I came to crashing was when I tried to get the
effing
trip computer from kms to miles, nearly rammed someone up the arse.
Stupid
Frog language too, so I managed to switch off the ESP by mistake and then
took 10 minute. getting it back on again.

Trying to work all the effing pointless stupid gimmicks on the thing
while
moving is far more dangerous than leaving your headlights off if the sun
should so much as dare to hide behind a cloud for a few seconds!

Julian.





Err yes.

"Peter Hill" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:38:32 -0000, "Julian" wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
.com...

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
om...


OK so double the power used and add a bit, that takes it to half a
horsepower,

OK, 1/2 a horsepower it is, that's about 400 watts, next to bsugger
all.

But would you leave electrical loading on around your house to the tune
of 400 watts when you could easily switch it off? It's not much, cost
about 4 pence/hour on the domestic tariff, but every little thing adds
up. I bet you'd bollock the kids if you found four 100W light bulbs
burning unnecessarily, ''effing Blackpool illuminations'' my dad would
have said....

Julian.

the average car journey does not last long compared with household
lighting duration.

Tyre quality and maintenance, coupled with good driving habits can give
a
massive improvement in MPG, leaving the lights on will make scarcely any
difference.

I think we basically know all this - well I do! But the point's been
missed
here, so again then, why waste fuel by needlessly and easily avoidably
running with unnecessary electrical loading on the alternator? Save the
pennies and the pounds look after themselves - there's a generation of
people who previously lived beyond their means currently discovering this
as
the recession bites harder!

Julian.

What's been missed is that all modern cars with engine management
systems will open the idle air valve to compensate for the lighting
load at tickover and thus maintain tickover constant. That extra air
also means more fuel is used. Back when cars had carbs there was a
noticeable drop in rpm.


That's a very good point.

Recently I acquired an Astra van cdti. The yellow emissions light came on so
I purchased a good code reader. One thing it can do is read ''real time''
data. At idle the engine load is about 20%, switch lights on and it rises to
about 30%, (I'll try again in the morning just to make sure I'm not spouting
rubbish) by my calculations that represents about a 33% increase in fuel
consumption at idle to power the lights?

Julian.

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Peter Hill" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:38:32 -0000, "Julian" wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
a.com...

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
om...


OK so double the power used and add a bit, that takes it to half a
horsepower,

OK, 1/2 a horsepower it is, that's about 400 watts, next to bsugger
all.

But would you leave electrical loading on around your house to the
tune
of 400 watts when you could easily switch it off? It's not much, cost
about 4 pence/hour on the domestic tariff, but every little thing adds
up. I bet you'd bollock the kids if you found four 100W light bulbs
burning unnecessarily, ''effing Blackpool illuminations'' my dad would
have said....

Julian.

the average car journey does not last long compared with household
lighting duration.

Tyre quality and maintenance, coupled with good driving habits can give
a
massive improvement in MPG, leaving the lights on will make scarcely
any
difference.

I think we basically know all this - well I do! But the point's been
missed
here, so again then, why waste fuel by needlessly and easily avoidably
running with unnecessary electrical loading on the alternator? Save the
pennies and the pounds look after themselves - there's a generation of
people who previously lived beyond their means currently discovering this
as
the recession bites harder!

Julian.

What's been missed is that all modern cars with engine management
systems will open the idle air valve to compensate for the lighting
load at tickover and thus maintain tickover constant. That extra air
also means more fuel is used. Back when cars had carbs there was a
noticeable drop in rpm.


That's a very good point.

Recently I acquired an Astra van cdti. The yellow emissions light came on
so I purchased a good code reader. One thing it can do is read ''real
time'' data. At idle the engine load is about 20%, switch lights on and it
rises to about 30%, (I'll try again in the morning just to make sure I'm
not spouting rubbish) by my calculations that represents about a 33%
increase in fuel consumption at idle to power the lights?


50% increase... either way it's much higher than my Ka, which went from ~26%
to ~29% with main beam, closer to a 3% increase.

--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com

"DervMan" wrote in message
...
"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Peter Hill" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:38:32 -0000, "Julian" wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
ia.com...

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
om...


OK so double the power used and add a bit, that takes it to half a
horsepower,

OK, 1/2 a horsepower it is, that's about 400 watts, next to bsugger
all.

But would you leave electrical loading on around your house to the
tune
of 400 watts when you could easily switch it off? It's not much, cost
about 4 pence/hour on the domestic tariff, but every little thing
adds
up. I bet you'd bollock the kids if you found four 100W light bulbs
burning unnecessarily, ''effing Blackpool illuminations'' my dad
would
have said....

Julian.

the average car journey does not last long compared with household
lighting duration.

Tyre quality and maintenance, coupled with good driving habits can
give a
massive improvement in MPG, leaving the lights on will make scarcely
any
difference.

I think we basically know all this - well I do! But the point's been
missed
here, so again then, why waste fuel by needlessly and easily avoidably
running with unnecessary electrical loading on the alternator? Save the
pennies and the pounds look after themselves - there's a generation of
people who previously lived beyond their means currently discovering
this as
the recession bites harder!

Julian.

What's been missed is that all modern cars with engine management
systems will open the idle air valve to compensate for the lighting
load at tickover and thus maintain tickover constant. That extra air
also means more fuel is used. Back when cars had carbs there was a
noticeable drop in rpm.


That's a very good point.

Recently I acquired an Astra van cdti. The yellow emissions light came on
so I purchased a good code reader. One thing it can do is read ''real
time'' data. At idle the engine load is about 20%, switch lights on and
it rises to about 30%, (I'll try again in the morning just to make sure
I'm not spouting rubbish) by my calculations that represents about a 33%
increase in fuel consumption at idle to power the lights?


50% increase... either way it's much higher than my Ka, which went from
~26% to ~29% with main beam, closer to a 3% increase.

Shows how horribly inefficient petrol engines are at idle - pumping losses
caused by the throttle plate.

I'm off to try the Astra now, I might have been talking ******** last night,
watch this space....

Julian.

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"DervMan" wrote in message
...
"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Peter Hill" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 7 Feb 2009 07:38:32 -0000, "Julian" wrote:


"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
dia.com...

"Julian" wrote in message
...

"Mrcheerful" wrote in message
om...


OK so double the power used and add a bit, that takes it to half a
horsepower,

OK, 1/2 a horsepower it is, that's about 400 watts, next to bsugger
all.

But would you leave electrical loading on around your house to the
tune
of 400 watts when you could easily switch it off? It's not much,
cost
about 4 pence/hour on the domestic tariff, but every little thing
adds
up. I bet you'd bollock the kids if you found four 100W light bulbs
burning unnecessarily, ''effing Blackpool illuminations'' my dad
would
have said....

Julian.

the average car journey does not last long compared with household
lighting duration.

Tyre quality and maintenance, coupled with good driving habits can
give a
massive improvement in MPG, leaving the lights on will make scarcely
any
difference.

I think we basically know all this - well I do! But the point's been
missed
here, so again then, why waste fuel by needlessly and easily avoidably
running with unnecessary electrical loading on the alternator? Save
the
pennies and the pounds look after themselves - there's a generation of
people who previously lived beyond their means currently discovering
this as
the recession bites harder!

Julian.

What's been missed is that all modern cars with engine management
systems will open the idle air valve to compensate for the lighting
load at tickover and thus maintain tickover constant. That extra air
also means more fuel is used. Back when cars had carbs there was a
noticeable drop in rpm.


That's a very good point.

Recently I acquired an Astra van cdti. The yellow emissions light came
on so I purchased a good code reader. One thing it can do is read ''real
time'' data. At idle the engine load is about 20%, switch lights on and
it rises to about 30%, (I'll try again in the morning just to make sure
I'm not spouting rubbish) by my calculations that represents about a 33%
increase in fuel consumption at idle to power the lights?


50% increase... either way it's much higher than my Ka, which went from
~26% to ~29% with main beam, closer to a 3% increase.

Shows how horribly inefficient petrol engines are at idle - pumping losses
caused by the throttle plate.

I'm off to try the Astra now, I might have been talking ******** last
night, watch this space....

Julian.

Here we go, 1.7cdti Astra.

Calc load at idle revs:

nowt on 25%
headlights 31%
+ interior fan and HRW 40%

It's a pity there's no aircon compressor to try out too....

Julian.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Angus Manwaring"
saying something like:


I didn't think having your headlights on made any difference to your fuel
economy, but I gather I was wrong (hmmmm.... that's twice now).

So what sort of difference are we talking percentage wise, average car,
average dipped heaflights, say?

As near to **** all as makes no difference.

We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "DervMan"
saying something like:

Whilst I agree with what you're saying, if the difference is so subtle in
consumption, would one notice if you didn't use the headlights? One
potential danger is that a given driver will not use their headlights until
they deem is absolutely necessary, but in some weather and / or lighting
conditions, it can make a lot of difference.

I'd cheerfully pay the extra quid a year it costs to have my lights on
whenever the day's a bit dim, rather than have some divot run into me.

Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Angus Manwaring"
saying something like:

I didn't think having your headlights on made any difference to your fuel
economy, but I gather I was wrong (hmmmm.... that's twice now).

So what sort of difference are we talking percentage wise, average car,
average dipped heaflights, say?

As near to **** all as makes no difference.

Yup, but they won't listen. Normally the same people who wreck their air
conditioning systems by never running them, and then complain bitterly
when their car has devalued because the AC doesn't work.

I'm sure they think they'll get a bill through the letter box one day.
"4 minutes use of heated rear window - £56,000,00"

--
Pete M - OMF#9

BMW 325i SE Touring
Range Rover V8 Turbo
Escort Diesel Van (Woo, stylish)

"Wait! We can't stop here, this is Bat Country"