General physics apply to the sports car as well, though. The sports car still uses way, way, way more gas for a higher velocity.
My point is: gas usage is not proportional with speed. It is factor ^3. People underestimate that.
So when I cruise on a flat surface at 100kph, I use some 4.7 litres with my car. If I go 120kph, a lot of people would expect an increase of 20%, at max, so roughly 5.6 litres. But it gets to some 6.5 litres, an increase of almost 40%. And if I went 150 or above that shit gets crazy.
The same applies to the sports car. If people calculate “I drive twice as fast, it’ll cost me twice as much”, that’s a crazy miscalculation.
Nobody said that though. It’s just not always to the power of three. It can’t be, if you consider aerodynamics and the shape of the car. A pointy rocket doesn’t use the same amount of fuel to go at a certain speed as a G wagon, all other things remaining equal.
The sports car has a better drag coefficient and less surface area, that is why at the same speed it needs less power. The “aerodynamics” are factored in only in those coefficients. But the velocity is the dominating part, as it is cubed in that equation.
But still, I am not comparing a sports car to a station wagon. I compare a sports car to itself at higher velocities. And contrary to popular belief, higher speeds result in an unproportional excess in fuel consumption.
No, that’s why I didn’t.
General physics apply to the sports car as well, though. The sports car still uses way, way, way more gas for a higher velocity.
My point is: gas usage is not proportional with speed. It is factor ^3. People underestimate that.
So when I cruise on a flat surface at 100kph, I use some 4.7 litres with my car. If I go 120kph, a lot of people would expect an increase of 20%, at max, so roughly 5.6 litres. But it gets to some 6.5 litres, an increase of almost 40%. And if I went 150 or above that shit gets crazy.
The same applies to the sports car. If people calculate “I drive twice as fast, it’ll cost me twice as much”, that’s a crazy miscalculation.
Nobody said that though. It’s just not always to the power of three. It can’t be, if you consider aerodynamics and the shape of the car. A pointy rocket doesn’t use the same amount of fuel to go at a certain speed as a G wagon, all other things remaining equal.
It is, see e.g. here
The sports car has a better drag coefficient and less surface area, that is why at the same speed it needs less power. The “aerodynamics” are factored in only in those coefficients. But the velocity is the dominating part, as it is cubed in that equation.
But still, I am not comparing a sports car to a station wagon. I compare a sports car to itself at higher velocities. And contrary to popular belief, higher speeds result in an unproportional excess in fuel consumption.