Your Actions are (part of) Causing that Traffic Jam You're Stuck in*

*In the morning and evening of most large American cities (especially those surrounded by plenty of suburb), when everyone is driving their cars to their 9-5 jobs, there are simply too many vehicles on the highway for the lane capacity.  You get on the highway at the nearest entrance, and proceed to average 15mph the entire distance from your suburban home to the downtown city center where you work, frequently coming to a complete stop, never going more than 25mph at the most.

In that situation, traffic is going to go slow, no matter what.

That isn't the type of traffic jam I'm talking about.

There is also another type of traffic back up.  The kind that happens in moderate traffic.  Everyone slows down, sometimes even to a complete stop, and then a few hundred feet later, you are moving again at 50, 60, 70mph, as if nothing happened.

Sometimes this happens because there is the aftermath of a crash in the shoulder, or even across the divider on the opposite shoulder of the oncoming lane, and all the drivers feel it is very important for them to take a good look at it, because humans are just like that.  Other times its because someone is getting a traffic ticket, and, even though the cop is clearly busy at the moment, people imagine they are more likely to be caught speeding if the can see a police car.

But most often, these slow downs happen for no apparent reason at all.  You get to the front of it, and cars are accelerating just as suddenly as they slowed down.

Sometimes traffic pulses like this, fast - slow - fast - slow - fast - slow for miles.  In some places, not quite as dense as in the first example above, the daily commute does this pulse jam every single day.

When you find yourself in this situation, the choices you make can either make it better, or they can make it worse.  If you are reading this, there is a decent chance you are one of the few who makes it better already - but if you are like most people, there is a much better chance you are making it worse. 

In fact, if everyone realized what I'm about to explain, and acted appropriately, those slowdowns would never happen in the first place, but, of course, most people don't know any better, so its hard to hold it against them.

At least once you have finished reading this, there will be one more person who understands whats going on, and makes it better instead of worse.

The easiest way to understand how individual actions make the backup better or worse is with an analogy.

Lets say you are in a crowd, and for some reason everyone wants to go through a doorway as quickly as possible (the iconic burning theater, perhaps, or maybe just a Black Friday sale).

Each individual is acting as an independent free agent, and each wants their own personal speed to be as fast as possible.

What happens? 

Everyone rushes the door, and they get stuck on each other as they try to squeeze through all at once.  In extreme cases people get trampled, occasionally fatally, but even if everyone stays on their feet, the chaos amplifies the bottleneck and it takes an even longer time for everyone to get through.



Now consider an equally large crowd, but imagine they consist of a highly trained military company.  When the fire alarm goes off, instead of each individual going straight for the door and attempting to shove each other out of the way, they all immediately form a single file line down the center of the room, each taking their place based on where they started, no one "cuts in line", everyone moves at a quick but controlled pace and never any faster than the person in front of them.

In the second scenario the very last person to go through the door gets through faster than the middle person in the free-for-all scenario.

What has changed?  Each individual is moving a little bit slower, they all give each other a little more space, and no one runs around to the edge of the door to try to squeeze in from the side.  The exact things that people acting as individuals do to try to optimize their own individual escape time are what cause them to get stuck on each other and, paradoxically, means they and everyone else gets out slower.

Researchers have looked at this phenomenon of "more haste, less speed":

The desire for speed overwhelms the desire to avoid collision and the blob people jam up against one another -- just as salt can jam the shaker even though the hole is bigger than the largest grain. The room takes longer to empty even though everyone tries to move faster -- handfuls of people escape in bursts between clogging events.

http://www.nature.com/news/2000/000928/full/news000928-9.html

You can see something analogous on the highways everyday.  Drivers attempt to go as fast as possible at all times, even when there are other cars ahead of them.   Many tend to drive as close as possible to the car ahead, much closer than the recommended 2-3 second rule from drivers-ed class.  When coming up on a line of stopped cars ahead, they will keep a foot on the accelerator as long as they possibly can before hitting the brakes hard just in time to prevent impact.  And any time one lane is temporarily going slightly faster than the one they are in, they pull into it to gain one or two car lengths over those around them. 

The overly aggressive drivers are obvious.

But almost everyone contributes, if to a lesser extent, to the same general phenomenon. 
Say every car is as close as is safe to the car ahead, in every lane, and everyone is moving at a constant rate.  Now what happens if one car wants to change lanes?  Since the cars are all as close as can be already, there is no possible way that the car can change lanes smoothly, because someone is going to have to slow to let them in, and they will have to slow to make the merge.  Now the following cars in both lanes have to brake.  And since the cars behind them were already as close as possible to them, those cars also have to brake.  And since the cars behind them... you get the idea... the stopped cars now travels back through the traffic in a wave. 

Now the same scenario - except the drivers are self-regulating like our military company escaping the burning theater: each car leaves a gap from the car ahead of them large enough that another car can safely merge in front of them.

Now when a car inevitably needs to change lanes, they can do so without slowing down, and without making the car behind them slow down.  They and the car behind them will want to reopen the gap that they just filled, but this can be done gradually over time, with only minor adjustments to speed, and the wave of stopped cars never occurs.

Traffic engineers can control individual driver behavior by putting in deliberate bottlenecks, called metering lights - the kind found at toll plazas and some on-ramps, where everyone is supposed to wait just a couple seconds before they merge with traffic.  Everyone ends up on the highway, but that moment of waiting forces everyone to space themselves out, and even though you had to wait, it is more than made up for by higher average speeds for everyone - including you. 

Sometimes you can even see a similar effect from lane closures or rubbernecking - a section of highway that is moderately backed-up everyday, but on one occasion has a lane closed for construction or due to an accident, if its near the beginning of your trip, occasionally has you get to your destination faster than usual.  As the cars slow down for the bottleneck, and then reach the end and start to accelerate one at a time, they spread themselves out, just like a metering light would have done. 

An identical effect is seen with the crowd of pedestrians trying to get through a doorway; putting an obstacle in the way of the exit actually makes the crowd get though it faster.

Most fire codes require that the pathway to an emergency exit be kept wide open, but according to researchers in Japan, placing an obstruction next to an exit may actually help crowds of people to get out of a room more efficiently.

Researchers found that when people bottleneck near an exit, they start to jostle each other for position. The jostling acts much like friction, slowing down the rate at which people can exit. Introducing a strategically-placed obstacle near the exit can reduce the number of people pushing for the exit, speeding up the rate at which people can pass through.

"We found that we can evacuate faster if we put an obstacle at the suitable position in front of the exit," said Daichi Yanagisawa, who lead the study from the University of Tokyo in Japan.

http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/08/for-quick-exit-just-block-fire-door.html

Even without metering lights, though, you can make a conscious choice to help traffic you are in move more smoothly.

Pay attention to the road ahead.  If you see an ocean of brake lights up ahead, take your foot off the accelerator.  There is no point in racing to be the first to come to a stop.  Resist the urge to change lanes every time one appears to be going slightly faster, unless you have enough space that you can do it without anyone having to slow down for you. Leave a big enough gap between you and the car ahead of you that someone else could safely merge in front of you without you having to slow down.  That applies at any speed, from stop and crawl to over the posted limit** - not only will it smooth out traffic flow, it will also reduce your chances of being involved in a collision, not to mention reduce other people's road rage.  No one can cut you off if you choose to slow down and let them in.

That means people will get it front of you.

And that's ok.

At as slow as 10mph, one car length costs you all of one second.  At 35 it costs you one third of one second.  Big freggin deal!  Let 50 cars get in front of you on a trip with a 45mph average speed, and you get where you are going all of 30 seconds later than you would have had you made sure to be the one to go first.

Not only have you made 50 people a little happier, but you have helped traffic flow a little better for all the people behind you, all the way back down the highway.

Better still, when you are coming up to one of those pointless braking waves, and you start slowing down well in advance, often times it will have completely cleared itself up by the time you get to where it was.  Which means by simply taking your foot off the accelerator, you never have to brake at all.  By avoiding coming to a complete stop, your average speed ends up being higher!  Its quite like timing traffic lights - if you try to go faster than the timed lights are designed for, you have to stop for the red, and someone driving at the speed limit will pass you just as it turns green again while you are accelerating from a stand still.

And if driving with less pointless starting and stopping, less stress, and helping to clear up traffic jams wasn't enough, this also happens to be the best way to minimize fuel when driving in traffic, so you save cash too, along with the environment and America's energy independence. 

Next time you are driving, think about this essay.  When someone exits in front of you, leaving a huge gap between you and the next car, don't rush to catch up.  When you are entering the highway, and the on-ramp is clear but the merging lane is slow, don't stay on the on-ramp until the very last second and then cross over the solid white line in an attempt to pass as many other cars as possible.  You are saving yourself a negligible amount of time, probably less than a second, but you are creating a braking wave that will snarl the traffic behind you potentially for miles.  Think about the orderly single file line, and how much faster everyone exits the building.  Everyone else is going to drive how they are going to drive, but at least you won't be making it worse.  And who knows, if enough of us start doing it, a few others might just take notice, and sooner or later stop and go traffic waves will simply cease to exist.

Adding an overdrive (BW T-19 to ZF-5 transmission swap)

(Just want tips for swapping a BW T-19 for a ZF S5? Skip to tips.  Not swapping a Ford truck transmission?  Skip to the end for the results.  Continue reading for all the gruesome details of my project.  Hopefully my trails and tribulations can at least provide you some entertainment.)

If you’ve never driven a vehicle more than a couple decades old, you probably take overdrive for granted.  You may not even have a clear idea what that term means.That 5^th or 6^thgear, with a ratio smaller than 1.0 (meaning the driveshaft is turning faster than the engine) lowers the engine RPM speed on the highway, and can make a huge difference in the fuel used to go the same distance at the same speed.Gears on a car are just like gears on a bicycle; imagine trying to ride a bike with only a small chainring and big cog, and having to spin your legs like crazy to get anywhere at a decent speed.  Lower RPMs means less internal friction, less internal reciprocal motion, and therefore less wasted energy.

If, like me, you don’t care to spend the money for a new – or even remotely new-ish – vehicle, you may have noticed that overdrive was once upon a time not always standard equipment, or even available as an option.

The Ford F-Series of trucks has been one of the most popular vehicles world-wide for decades, and though much has changed over the years, many of the internal design factors stayed the same from one generation to the next.  They were rather reliable, so a good many older ones are still on the road.  Those two factors mean that there is much interchangeability of parts among different generations, and those parts are easy to find.
The 7^th generation F-series (1980-1986) had a couple of manual transmission options, all of them 4 speed. My own 1983 diesel F-250 ¾ ton truck came with a Borg-Warner T-19, in which the 1^st gear was an extra-extra low granny gear (6.32) which is normally not used.  For all practical purposes it is a 3-speed.  No overdrive gear.  In fact, even 4^th gear isn’t quite direct drive, at a 1.1 drive ratio.
This means shifting into top gear at 25mph, and 2400 RPMs at 55mph.
2400RPMs means each piston is going up and down 40 times every single second, which means the mass of the piston head has to stop, change direction, move a little, stop, change direction again, 80 times every second (once up, once down, for a full rotation).  This is bad enough is a small engine with light parts and a couple cylinders (like a motorcycle) but in a heavy V8 diesel engine, a lot of inertia is going to waste.
Not a terribly big deal in 1983, when the national speed limit was still 55, but post-embargo gas prices had dropped again; the lack of stock overdrive leaves a lot of potential for increasing highway fuel mileage.
The addition of an overdrive gear reduces engine speed from 40 cycles per second down to only 28, a 30% reduction.



The 8^th generation Ford trucks came with a couple of 5-speed transmission options, and although built by a completely unrelated manufacturer, they were made close enough to the old specifications that they were interchangeable.  As such, the transmission swap from gen 8 trucks into gen 7 is a fairly popular and common one.
It is possible to put any transmission from a truck from 1973 all the way to 1996 into any other from that range, provided they have the same engine size, fuel type (gas vs. diesel) and drive type (4x4 vs. 2x4).  This includes going from automatic to manual (or vice versa), although of course then you need additional parts.  With the right adapters one can even cross the engine, fuel type, and driveline compatibilities.

I’m just going to go over one of the simplest and most common transmission swaps, the one which I recently did: starting with a Borg Warner T-19 4-spd (behind a 6.9L International Harvester IDI engine) and swapping it with a ZF S5-42 which I got on ebay (the process from the T-18 or to the ZF S5-47 should be identical).  The information here would likely apply or be useful to someone doing any other 7^th/8^th gen F-series tranny swap as well, and maybe even 6^th or 9^th gen swaps - but I haven’t done them, so I can’t say specifically which parts will apply.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Before I started the project or purchased anything, I spent a lot of time looking up information on it.  A lot of helpful people who have done it before have taken the time to provide information on it.
Everyone consistently said “it is a bolt-in replacement”.
Well, technically it is.
The actual bolts line up perfectly between any transmission for the 6.9L and 7.3L diesel engines, whenever they were made, whatever size truck they were from.
But “bolt-in replacement” gives the impression that everything will mate up.
No.
Its just literally the bolts.
Almost nothing else is compatible.

I also found there are a lot of helpful people who answer the questions of people who get stuck on various truck enthusiast forums.  Any problem I ran across (and any you are likely to) has probably been experiences by someone else somewhere, asked online, and answered accurately.
The only problem is, you have to know the right questions to ask, (or rather the right keywords to enter into a search engine), to find those answers, and until you run into a particular problem, you don’t necessarily know the right questions to ask.

So, to insure no one else has to go through the same learning process I - and many others – have taken, I’ll list all the potential problems one may come across, if you happen to own an older Ford truck and you want to upgrade to a transmission with overdrive.
Instead of going through the entire process step-by-step, I’m just skipping to the potential problems – the things I wish I had known in advance - because there are plenty of other guides and manuals that can walk you through it - but even more because really, if you have enough confidence and experience with mechanics to even consider removing and installing your own transmission, it is actually a fairly easy and intuitive process.
If, like me, you’ve never changed a transmission, a clutch, or any other drivetrain parts, the following are things to know will make your job a whole lot easier:

• Set aside several days aside for this project.  It should only take a day.  Should.  If there are no unexpected complications.  But you know how life is.  There are always unexpected complications.  They should be expected.  But then other, even more unexpected ones come up.  You can’t win.  Reading this will make your chances better, but leave extra time anyway.  You don’t want to be under your truck with a clamp on floodlight at midnight trying to have it running in time for the job you have the next morning.  Trust me on that.

• You don’t need any special tools other than a wide base jack (a transmission jack if you have one – I used a motorcycle jack I found on Craigslist, because it was both cheaper and more versatile for future projects).  Don’t try to use a regular bottle or scissor jack.  They are strong enough, but they will probably fall over, and then a transmission will fall on your head.

• What you will want that you won’t necessarily find listed in the shop manual for this process is various crowbars, lengths of pipe, hammers, ratchet straps, and possibly a propane torch.  Luckily I happened to have all that stuff lying around already, and I bet you do too.
  Crowbars and pipes are for prying parts apart and pressing them together.  Hammer gets the universal joint out.  Ratchet straps hold exhausts pipes and crossmember dog-ears out of the way, and, if you lay a pipe across the opening in the floor to give something to hook to, you can use a strap to hold up the back of the transmission which lets you alter the angle independently of the jack its on.  The torch gets the stick shift off of the shifter stub.

• When you hear it is a “direct bolt-in replacement”, they mean it literally: just the bolts.  The bolt pattern from the transmission to the engine is the same, so you don’t need an adapter.  Pretty much EVERY OTHER PART that goes to or from the transmission are not compatible.
  All in all, if wanted to do everything totally properly and by the book, that would mean replacing the clutch, pressure plate, throwout fork, flywheel, driveshaft,, crossmember, and floorpan, and possibly the clutch pedal and cylinder.  I reused as many parts as I could possibly get away with, which meant I only had to buy one clutch kit and one u-joint, but that still added a couple hundred more dollars to the project than I had originally planned on.

-The Clutch.  To the naked eye 10 splines with a 1 1/8” diameter input shaft (the part of the transmission which goes inside the clutch) looks pretty much identical to 10 splines with a 1 1/4” input shaft.  But when you get the new tranny half in, that small difference in diameter means it isn’t going in, no matter how you angle it.  You may have heard – repeatedly, from multiple sources – that it is challenging to get everything lined up perfectly and get the splines to engage.  Having heard it was tricky, you might be fooled into thinking that what you are experiencing is normal.  You might think it has something to do with not using a real transmission jack, or not having a helper or two, or just not having experience.  You might spend all morning trying to get it positioned just right; before finally realizing this can’t be right, going online, and finding out the hole in the middle of the clutch is 1/8^thof an inch too small, and it wouldn’t have gone in no matter what you did.
    
There are 4 possible clutches that will work: 11” or 12”, and with dampening springs or without.  If you go with a SMF (next step) you need springs, if you go DMF you need to not have them.  The simplest/cheapest option is 11”, with springs.  I used Sachs part # K0065-02, which I found at O’Reilys (same part #).  (I’m not endorsing O’Reily, they just happen to be nationwide, and fairly inexpensive, so it’s a simple example to use.  Cross reference the part numbers and shop wherever you like.  I encourage shopping at local/independent businesses)

-The Flywheel.  You may or may not need to replace this.  It depends on what clutch you get (and what condition your old flywheel is in when you get the old tranny off and take a look at it).  If the clutch has springs in it, you need a single mass flywheel.  If it doesn’t, you need a dual mass.  The single mass flywheel may cause some ugly sounds when you are idling in neutral. Mine does. That’s ok, we’re ecomodders and hypermilers, we try to spend as little time idling as possible.  The engine/transmission can accept single (SMF) or dual mass flywheel (DMF) with either 11” or 12” clutch, so long as they are compatible with each other and have the correct diameter hole (1 ¼”)  and correct number of splines (10) to fit the transmission.

The pressure plate may or may not also need to be replaced.  If you are changing from single to dual mass (or vice versa) the bolt holes may not line up.  The clutch kit I got came with the pressure plate, throwout bearing, pilot bearing, and alignment tool, and I kept my original flywheel, so that made this step relatively simple.

-The Drive Shaft.  The yoke at the end of the ZF is slightly bigger than the T-19, so it doesn’t mate up to the driveshaft using the same U-Joint.  A lot of people deal with this by changing out the entire driveshaft (or at least the first section of it.  However, you can also find hybrid adapter U-joints that make the existing driveshaft work with the ZF.

-The Universal Joint (U-joint).  This is the +shaped thing with bearings that allows the driveshaft to transmit power to the transmission, while allowing them some freedom of angle relative to each other.  Just like with the clutch, in the newer generation truck, they changed the diameter of the part just a fraction of an inch, which is enough to make the old and new incompatible.  Fortunately, adapters with one size on one axis and another size on the other axis are actually pretty easy to find at regular auto stores.  You have to go from a ZF-5 (1350 / 1.188”) to a 6.9L IDI stock driveshaft (1330 / 1.063”).  At O’Reily the part number is 448.
Be careful not to let the caps fall off, or the tiny roller bearings will go all over the place, get lost or dirty, and you’ll need to buy a whole new U-joint.
-The Crossmember.  This is the steel bar that rests on the frame, which holds up the back of the transmission.  The ZF is a couple inches longer than the BW.  The difference is small enough that you can use the same driveshaft, but the holes in the crossmemeber won’t line up.  If you can get one along with the transmission, it should fit in place of the old one.  Or you can just drill new holes in the original crossmember, and cut away a small section to fit around the back of the tranny (that’s what I did)

-The Gearshift Lever.  There are several different shapes, sizes, and attachment methods.  Apparently the gas and diesel versions of the same transmission and the same year even used different attachment methods.  Plus some have straight shifter stubs (the part coming out of the tranny itself, that the lever attaches to) and some are curved.  Some levers are straight and others are curved.  If the new transmission didn’t come with the lever, you may have a fun time trying to improvise something that works.  That’s if it came with a shifter stub at all.  If it didn’t, well, I just don’t know what to tell you…
I melted the old one off of the BW shifter stub, and then drilled through it and the new shifter stub in order to bolt them together.  The old rubber was unusable after being melted off, so I used layers of bicycle inner tube and some random pipe I had lying around to fill the gap where the rubber used to be.  Because improvising is just how I roll.
-The Throwout Fork. The short arm which the clutch cable or hydraulic cylinder moves, which slides the throwout bearing back against the pressure plate.  The little mushroom looking knob thing that the fork pivots on inside the bellhousing is a slightly different diameter.  Hopefully the new transmission came with one.  If not, you could probably improvise a way to make the old one work (by trimming the attachment point that goes around the mushroom knob - it probably has an official name; I don’t know what it is)  Hopefully.  Mine came with its own.
-The Clutch Pedal / Linkage / Cylinder.  Most gas engines use a cable.  Most diesels use hydraulic.  Most automatics use neither (ok, ok, all of them).  If you are just changing with an otherwise compatible model, you probably won’t need to change any of this.  I didn’t.  But be aware it may change the release point and pedal feel.
-The Speedometer.  Some use a cable with 7 teeth.  Some use 8 teeth.  Some are electric.  I am currently using my GPS for speed.
-The Floorpan.  The ZF sticks up a little bit higher.  If you can get the floorpan from the truck the tranny comes out of, you may as well take the matching floorpan.  I was able to get my original to work, just using a couple additional sheetmetal screws to hold it down in the places it wanted to pop up.

• Speaking of the floorpan: if you’ve done transmission work before, you may think I am an idiot.  But I’ll bet I’m not the only person who didn’t know, so I’ll just go ahead and say it – the little metal plate under the rubber boot where the shift lever goes through the floor, that’s not the floor pan.  The entire metal plate that it attaches to is.  If you remove the carpet or vinyl floor covering, you can then clearly see the bolts for the whole thing.  Removing the vinyl floor covering is neither easy nor fun.  But having access from the top is worth it.

        

• The Chilton manual for the 7^th / 8th generation F-series (which supposedly covers both gas and diesel versions) explicitly says there are FOUR bolts holding transmission to engine.  Four.  It’s the manual.  It’s the freggin manual!  The whole point is that it is supposed to give you more information in order to make the job easier.  After removing those 4 bolts, no matter how you angle things, the transmission just won’t come out.  That would be because there are actually SIX bolts!!  Now you might say “but if the manual says one thing, and you are actually there on the ground and you see extra bolts, obviously you should take them out too” right?  Welllll….  Those last two bolts are in a place where there is literally no possible way to see them.  Unless you have very skinny and long fingers, you probably can’t feel them either.  And even if you could, there is absolutely no possibly way you are going to get a wrench or socket on them.
  The secret is that, after having removed the driveshaft, you loosen the engine mounting bolts, and hold the engine up with a jack, not a block or jackstand.  Then jack up the transmission just enough to remove the crossmember that holds up the transmission.  Finally, lower the engine (with the tranny still attached to it) and when it’s low enough the two hidden bolts on top become exposed.

• It looks like the part of the bellhousing which is flared out to accommodate the starter gear might just barely clear the exhaust pipe.
  It won’t.
  Before you ever start loosening the transmission to engine bolts, detach the exhaust from the headers on both sides.  Also remove the starter.  They say you should detach the battery first.  Officially, I’m recommending that.  Unofficially, I’d point out that this would make it impossible to listen to the car stereo while you work.

Don’t forget also to budget for transmission fluid, which should ideally be synthetic.  All the manual transmissions apparently will work with a pretty wide range of fluids, from ATF to motor oil to gear oil.  I’m using synthetic ATF, but I don’t know enough about the pros and cons to make any recommendations.  Supposedly 30w oil will make it quieter at idle, but make it harder to shift.

What a process.  I was expecting a 6-8 hour job.  It should have been.  Had I known everything then that I know now, it would have been.  In actuality, it took almost 36 hours (maybe twice that if you count internet research and shopping time) spread over 6 days.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Results:
My best ever miles per gallon between fill-ups with my original transmission was 31, with several tanks getting up to 30.
On my initial test run I ran into severe traffic due to an accident.  It was like a giant 6 lane parking lot.  I got off at the first exit I could and took surface streets for the next couple cities. That delayed me enough that I then hit regular rush hour traffic for the rest of the way back to the fuel station.  I did not feel optimistic about my mileage.
It took 3.5 gallons of biodiesel to fill up after 120 miles, so despite the traffic jam, I set a new record for the truck of 33mpg.
Of course I still wanted to know just how high it could go.  Next run was at night, so there was no commute traffic to contend with.  103 miles, 2.7 gallons = 38.16mpg.
That is better mileage than the average HYBRID (36.3 – average of all hybrid models available; not average of all hybrids actually on the road) In a 30 year old ¾-ton 5500lb V8 full-size truck.  8mpg gain, or  27%, or almost $200 a year fuel savings with current prices and my average amount of driving.
At this point its not so much about saving money anymore as just seeing how far I can take it, but its nice to know that as long as I keep the truck more than another 4 years, it will eventually pay off.

Therefore, my advice to anyone who has a vehicle old enough to not have an overdrive is: swap it out.  It’s a big job, but it’s worth it.

Please ride your bike in the street.

My used bike buying guide has been way more popular than anything I have ever written.

Since it is geared towards new riders, I feel obligated to share some statistics I just learned - confirming what I have known for many years - about the best ways to stay safe in traffic.

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Riding among fast moving two-ton steel machines can be very nerve wracking when you first start out.

The number one fear of most new cyclists in traffic is getting hit from behind by a driver, but it is important to know that this is, statistically, actually the rarest type of accident. 

The most common are at intersections and driveways, when the driver didn't see the cyclist - usually because they weren't expecting the bike to be where it was.  That's why I (and the official League bike safety classes) recommend riding with the normal flow of traffic.

Riding with the normal flow of traffic means riding in the street, to the right (in America at least), and obeying basic traffic laws, such as stopping for red lights and going the correct way on one-way streets.  It means never riding against traffic (facing on-coming cars) and never riding on the sidewalk.

Although it feels much safer to be on the sidewalk, away from the cars, in reality most accidents happen at driveways and intersections, and a driver is less likely to see you if you are anywhere other than the street.

You reduce your statistical chance of being hit by a car by somewhere roughly on the order of 90% compared to the average rider just by riding predictably, following the law, and being extra visible, because, as it turns out, the vast majority of bike accidents are (at least partially) the cyclists' fault.

So what exactly does riding safely entail?



There are several ways a car and bike can make contact:


(If you are having trouble visualizing what I am describing, the following two websites have similar information, along with pictures of examples of each.  Note that they both come to the same ultimate conclusions:  
http://www.bikexprt.com/streetsmarts/usa/chapter2a.htm  and/or  http://bicyclesafe.com/ )

• Bike is at intersection (or driveway) going straight, car on cross street hits (or is hit by) bike.
  Much of the time, this is because the cyclist ran a stop sign or red light.
  Another common reason is because the cyclist was not riding with the normal flow of traffic.  Car drivers tend to naturally look only where they expect to find cars coming from, so they don't notice bikes coming from somewhere else.
  This can also happen because the cyclist did not have a headlight on in poor visibility. A car's headlights don't light up your reflectors from a 90 degree angle.

Solution 1: Do not run lights/signs. 

Solution 2: Never ride on the sidewalk, or against traffic. 

Solution 3: Use a bright headlight - even in daytime if visibility is poor (even cloudy / overcast) - see the next section, below, for more on being visible.

• Bike is at intersection going straight, car comes up from behind, turns right in front of bike

Solution 1: Do not hug the shoulder.  Ride as far as a parked car away from the curb, even when there is no parked car there. 

Solution 2: Again, do not ride on the sidewalk, as a turning driver won't expect anything faster than a pedestrian to be coming into a crosswalk.

Solution 3: Do not ride in a right turn lane if you are going straight.  Cross over to the same lane cars going straight use.  Either ride the stripe between lanes, or take the forward lane, depending on the situation.

• Bike is at intersection going straight, oncoming car turns left into bike

Solution: Combination of the two above: use bright flashing headlight, even in daytime, and ride out in the lane where you are more visible.  Also, pay attention, and be ready to brake at all times.  (In the event that this does happen, turning right, with the car, is your best bet to avoid a collision.)

• Bike is riding too close to a parked car, driver of parked car opens the door and bike hits it

Solution: Ride several feet to the left of parked cars

Someone asked me the question, what do you do when there isn't enough room to stay far enough from parked cars without getting in the way of traffic?  That's certainly not an uncommon scenario.  One thing that can help is looking into the rear window of each parked car you pass, to see if it is occupied.  This doesn't work at night, or when the sun is behind you and glare is in the windows, or if the windows are tinted, but it works often enough.  If the section with limited space is small, and especially if it is either a 2 lane (each direction) road, or has only light traffic, check that no cars are right behind you, signal that you are moving left, and then ride in the center of the traffic lane.  Cars will either have to go around you, or wait.  This may annoy some drivers, but it is the safest option, and it is legal under those circumstances.  Move to the right as soon as it is practical and safe, and wave any cars that have been stuck behind you through.

In the case where there isn't enough room for a long stretch, just ride in the "door zone", but ride slower than normal.  This gives you more time to react, and in the unlucky case that you don't see the driver about to get out through the rear window, and the driver doesn't check before they open the door, and the timing works out that it opens immediately in front of you, an impact at 12mph is simply not that big a deal.  You might get some cuts and bruises, but running into a car door at 12mph won't break any bones and it certainly won't kill you.

• Bike is just riding along, car comes up from behind and clips cyclist

Solution: Don't worry about it.  This almost never happens.  Seriously.  Of all the types of bike/car collisions, it is the least common.  For all practical purposes, it never happens.   (That being said, there are some things you can do to reduce the risk even further, which I will get to below)

Yet this last one, being hit by passing cars, is the one that ALL new cyclists worry about the most.

Unless a cyclist is riding at night with no lights and no reflectors, it is pretty easy as a driver to see when you are coming up behind one.  The one place even distracted drivers tend to be looking is the road straight ahead of them.  They have plenty of time to see that you are there.  Unlike with a side collision where the driver has very little time to see you and react, if a bike is going 15mph and a car is going 25, the relative speed is only 10mph because you are both going in the same direction.

Drivers rarely randomly swerve side-to-side when driving along a straight road.  If they did, they would be constantly clipping the mirrors of parked cars, side-swiping each other, and running up on the curb when there is no shoulder.  These things (almost) never happen, just like drivers don't run into cyclists from behind as they are passing them.

Even in the very unlikely case that a car did clip you from behind, it is most likely going to be their rear view mirror brushing your arm.  This may, or may not, cause you to fall.

That being said, there are definitely a few skills you should have before venturing into traffic on a bike. As I pointed out just above, car drivers almost never randomly swerve to the right when driving.  However, new and wobbly riders do sometimes swerve to the left.  Before you venture onto streets with no bike lane or wide shoulder, it is important that you are able to ride in a perfectly straight line.
Next, you need to be able to ride in a straight line, while taking one hand of the handlebars (in order to use it to signal your intentions to other road users).
And finally, you need to be able to turn your head and look back over your shoulder while riding in a straight line (so you can check for cars before changing lanes or going around obstacles).  This may sound silly to experienced riders, who don't remember how challenging that was to learn, and impossible to new riders.  It may not be automatic, but it is easier to learn than initially learning to ride a bike, so if you have gotten this far, you can do it.  Just spend some time practicing on an off street bike path or a big empty parking lot.  Pick a painted stripe on the ground, and try riding on it.  When you can ride along a 4" wide stripe without swerving off of it, try taking one hand off the bar and holding it out like you are signaling a left turn, and stay on the stripe, and when that's easy, look behind you and then check that you are still on the line.

I recommend NOT having a rear view mirror. If you are going to change lanes, it is important to actually turn your head and look. A mirror has a limited field of vision, and your own body/head blocks part of that field. Plus, like it says on the sticker, "objects are closer than they appear". If you are not planning to change position, there is no reason you need to know whether a car is approaching you from behind or not. If they are there, or not there, your actions should be exactly the same: don't suddenly swerve out into the traffic lane. Wanting to know if a car is approaching is just a manifestation of the fear of getting hit from behind, but that knowledge can not help you. There is no possible way to tell if the trajectory of a car behind you will have them pass you with 6" to spare, or with clip you with their mirror as they go by - the car is too big, the speeds are too fast, the clearance too small, and the driver could make a course correction at any moment. Therefore, regardless of if a car looks like it is going to pass close, you should simply keep riding in a straight line. You have a much better chance of injuring yourself by diving out of the way of a car that wasn't going to hit you anyway, than you do of successfully avoiding one that would have.
But if you need to turn and double check before changing lanes, and if it just makes you paranoid about something you can't do anything about anyway the rest of the time, what purpose does it serve? For the same reason, I find no reason not to wear stereo headphones - there is absolutely no way you can tell whether a car will hit you or not just by sound. Besides, you could be being passed by an electric car, or another faster cyclist, in which case hearing nothing doesn't mean you are safe. Therefore the habit of relying on sound to know if cars are around is a bad one - but I am not necessarily advocating riding with headphones either. In some places it is illegal, in which case you should probably avoid using them.

Because of the importance of not suddenly swerving into traffic, unless you have turned and checked and are sure nothing is coming, it is usually better to just ride over potholes, garbage, glass or other small obstacles in your path rather than going around. When there is an obstacle you can't go over (say, a delivery truck in the bikelane), or you need to cross the main traffic lane to reach the left turn lane, first turn and check if there is space to merge without getting hit, and put your left arm out to signal your intention. Then move over and ride in the center of the lane if you need to, to prevent cars from trying to force their way past you if there isn't room. Then get out of the way as soon as its safe, to avoid agitating drivers unnecessarily, and give them a sign to let them know they can pass.

A bike is considered a vehicle, and you have the same rights and responsibilities as a car driver. 
As long as you are 1) visible and 2) predictable, it is safe to flow with traffic - even on dense, crowded, or high speed roads.

Uneducated drivers may be annoyed that you are riding in the street in the way you are legally supposed to, they aren't going to hit you deliberately (well, it does happen occasionally - but very very rarely. Still, depending on where you live, it may be prudent to carry a camera...)

Accidents happen because cyclists do things that drivers weren't expecting.  That's why it isn't safe to ride the wrong way down the street, or to ride on the sidewalk (getting off and walking is of course always ok)

The best way to keep drivers from coming up way too close to you when there is no shoulder and barely enough room for both car and bike is, counter-intuitively, to move more to the left.  Make them change lanes to pass you.  If you hug the curb because you are afraid of cars, drivers will take advantage of that and squeeze past. Moving to the left - even if it means taking the entire lane, if you need to to be safe - is legal (but you will have to look it up yourself for your state).
Ride like you have as much right to the road as a car driver - because you do!

OK

So, you read all this, and you still aren't convinced.
How about some actual stats collected from real life bike crashes?

The following is from http://www.bicyclinglife.com/Library/TaleOfThree.htm

 At first, looking at the data, it doesn't look like this is true as the first two involve a car which should have stopped hitting a cyclist, but if you keep reading to "discussion" you find out that in the vast majority of those cases the cyclist was either riding the wrong way, or on the sidewalk (85%).  In the 3rd most common, the cyclist ran a light or sign:

"The three most frequent collisions in Gainesville comprising 82 (51.9%) crashes involve the motorist facing either a traffic control device or merging from a midblock location and the bicyclist on a crossing path. Of these bicyclists, 65 (79.3%) were riding on the sidewalk facing traffic. [emphasis mine]

"These crash types ["Drive Out At Stop Sign," "Right Turn On Red," and "Drive Out At Midblock"] are more likely to occur as a result of riding on the sidewalk."

In other words, the 3 types of common crashes which appear to be the fault of the driver, are all more likely from riding on the sidewalk (regardless of whether going with or against traffic).  The next most frequent accident types are clearly the fault of the rider (failure to yield).

"Conclusions/Recommendations... Due to the inherent conflicts at driveways and intersections, bicyclists should ride in the street and not on the sidewalk. "

So now you realize you should always ride in the street, with traffic, and follow the same traffic laws that apply to cars.  But as a new rider, its still freakin scary.
The only way to get over that is to just do it, and keep doing it until it feels normal.

Think of it like riding a bike for the first time, or just learning to drive.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The second most common reason for bike car collisions, (after the bike rider doing something illegal and/or dangerous), is when a car driver fails to notice a bike - bikes tend to be less visible than cars.  They are not only smaller, but they don't have lights built in.
But you can fix that.

Legally (at least in CA, but probably similar everywhere) after sunset and until sunrise, you need, at a minimum:
Front, rear and side reflectors (all bikes come with them stock - if yours are missing, you can replace them with reflective tape)
AND
A white, front facing headlight.

A headlight is much more important than a taillight for the same reason you should ride on the street in the same direction of traffic.
At night a car's headlights light up your rear reflector, so they can see you with no taillight.
But as you approach an intersection, a car on the cross street has its headlight pointed straight ahead - not at you - so they don't see you.  You need a light facing them or they can't see you at all.

While any front facing white light is sufficient to meet the minimum legal standard, I strongly suggest that no one skimp on lights, even if you never ride at night.

Even in day light, if it is overcast and cloudy, foggy, shady (like under overpasses or tree lined streets), or the sun is low in the sky, you are much more noticeable to drivers if you have a flashing light on.
At a minimum, you should get a light with either 3 or more regular LEDs, or one "super" LED (luxeon or cree), which is powered by either AAA, AA, or a rechargeable battery pack, and which has a flashing mode.  These can be found for around $20 online or at any bikeshop, and are bright enough to be seen even in daytime.
Lights which run on button cell batteries are not powerful enough to be seen in daylight.  It never hurts to augment your main light - I have a little button cell single led on the top of my helmet - but I recommend against using one as your primary light.

In addition, its a very good idea to have a bright, flashing, rear light - again, 3 or more regular LEDs, and/or a luxeon or cree "super" led, running on triple A, double A, or built-in rechargeable batteries.

If you ride at night, even occasionally, it is worthwhile to augment your flashing headlight with something bright enough to actually see where you are going (this also adds very substantially to your night time visibility).  This means one or two super LEDs powered by a separate battery pack.  Very few self-contained units can match the light output of the battery pack lights. 
Look for a light rated for at least 200 lumens of output - the more the better.

These normally range from $100 to $300, and the brightest of them compete with a car's headlights in brightness.  This may be as much as you spent on your bike, but it also may save your life.  Considering that even if you buy the best bike components, you will never come close to the cost of a car, and that a bike can get you places gas-free, it is a reasonable investment. 

I got a 1200 lumen (according to the manufacturer) headlight from MagicShine for about $50 from dx.com

Absolutely worth it.  The difference is night and day (pun intended).  With a 1200 lumen light, you can ride on roads with no lighting, on a new moon, and see your path with total confidence.  The only problem is making sure not to shine it in the eyes of motorists and pedestrians.  The MagicShine has a terrible mounting system, but everything else about them is great.

A good idea for night riding is to mount one light on your handlebars, and another on your helmet.  This way one is always facing forward, no matter what you are looking at, so oncoming and cross traffic cars see you, and you can use the other to look in different directions, or to briefly flash directly at cars that appear to be on a collision path with you and aren't slowing down (like when a car on a cross street passes the crosswalk and stops sticking out in the intersection).  I have a red flashing light on the back of my helmet too, where it is up high and moves with the head. You can't have too much visibility.

In addition to your lights, I highly recommend one of those florescent safety green jackets (if the weather is cool) or vests (if its warm).

From personal observation, they are much more noticeable, night or day, then orange or yellow.  In day time especially, they stand out even more than reflective clothing.  At night color matters less than reflective stripes.  With a jacket or vest you can wear whatever clothes you want for when you get to your destination, even a suit, and still have maximum visibility.  When you get where you are going, the thin safety jacket or vest stuffs so small you can put it in a pocket.

Between bright lights and a high visibility jacket, (and, of course, riding in the street with traffic) your chances of getting hit by a driver who just didn't see you plummet.
At this point, if you want to add helmet lights, reflective tape on your bike and helmet, spoke lights, or a lazer beam bikelane (also available from dx.com) all that is just gravy.

I wear a pair of reflective gloves, (meant for cops directing traffic), so that drivers can see my hand signals at night. 

They just happen to be designed with a yellow triangle on the back - perfect for signaling turns;

and a red triangle on the palm - perfect for signaling stops.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So now you know.  Apply what you have learned, and your chances of getting hit by (or hitting) a car become far below the statistical average, and you will actually be much safer biking in traffic than you would be driving.  Add in the health benefits, and... well, its just obvious, isn't it?
Get out there and ride!

"Mad Max" hypermiler questions and comments answered

As I am very sure that anyone who has found this blog is already aware, me and my work truck were recently featured on  TreeHugger, Huffington Post, HighT3CH, and Faircompanies.com, among others, for my new video (shot, edited, and posted to Youtube by Faircompanies' Kirsten Dirksen)

It is 14 minutes long, which is long by modern internet video standards, but still was only enough time to provide a little snapshot into the entire concept.
I've been crawling the web for the various re-posts and the comments on them.  Not surprisingly, given how unorthodox everything I'm doing is and how unfamiliar the general public is with the idea of hypermiling, there are a lot of questions and criticisms and misconceptions.
First, I'm not in or from LA.  I live in the San Francisco Bay Area.

Also, the grill block is not made of concrete!! :P
That error is just bizarre.  I wrote to treehugger's editor about it, but I haven't heard back yet...
[update: he wrote back, and fixed it]


Some of the more common questions and comments I have noticed follow:



Why don't you just use a smaller truck (or, "I get better mileage than that in my compact truck")?

What you see in that video is just one random day.  On other days I have to move a couple tons of soil or concrete, or the entire contents of a 1-bedroom apartment including furniture:

I recently had to move an original painting that was 5ft x 8ft.  Being able to lay it down flat with the cover on allowed me to transport it safe, clean, dry, and out of the wind and direct sunlight from the artist's home to the gallery.  Monday I will be needing to get several full size sheets of plywood, which can only lie flat in a full bed.
While most would put loads this size into a box truck or a flat bed, or even a dump truck, I am using a 170HP full-size pick-up. 
When you look at it this way, my truck could be considered small.

Of course, if you aren't a hauler, there is no reason you should be driving a full size truck.
Everyone should use the absolutely smallest vehicle that meets their needs.  For the majority of Americans that probably means a compact car, or even a motorcycle.

The point of the video isn't the specific number "30".  The point is that it is 15mpg better than when I started.  The same can be done with any vehicle.  If you are currently getting 30mpg, apply the same ideas and you could be getting 45.  If you drive a Prius, you should be getting at least 70.  But since most Prius drivers drive like regular Americans, the real world reported mileage is closer to 45.

The best example of the same ideas applied to a small car is the Aerocivic

100+mpg in a regular old, non-hybrid car with no special engine technology.

Doesn't it take more fuel to start than it does to idle?
No.
No it doesn't.

That is an incredibly common misconception, that was started back before fuel injection and computer controlled engines were invented.  Even back then, it was likely only true for idling under 45-60 seconds, especially if the engine wasn't warm yet.  It certainly was never true for idling 5 minutes while you wait for the person you are picking up to come downstairs, or even at a 2 minute long stoplight.

In a modern car, if you are at a stand still for more than 10 seconds, you are wasting more fuel by idling than it takes to start the car again.

http://www.iwilltry.org/b/projects/how-many-seconds-of-idling-is-equivalent-to-starting-your-engine/
(note that the number 10 is very generously rounded up from 0.2 seconds!)

Another example: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/fuel-used-idling-vs-restarting-5144.html

The moral of the story is this:  NEVER IDLE.  You are getting 0 mpg.  You are not getting anywhere any faster.
It is about the same as taking a dollar bill out of your pocket and lighting it on fire.
Both in that it wastes your money, and that it causes unnecessary pollution.

Do not start your car until after you are fully settled, seat belt is on, foot on the brake, and you are ready to put it in gear and go.
Modern cars do not need to warm up.  There is literally no benefit to warming up a car before you start driving.
If you have to wait for someone to run in the store "real quick", turn off the engine.  If you know that the stop light you are at is extra long, shut the engine.  While you are waiting in the drive-through, shut the engine...
Actually, no! Just park, and get out!  Seriously, how lazy can we get?  It's a few feet to walk from the parking lot to the door. You get at least a tiny bit of exercise to burn off what you are about to eat.  And you'll get your food faster, because the line at the drive-through is longer than the line inside.  But I digress...


You are going to wear out your starter / clutch
Maybe, eventually...

First, it takes much less force to start the engine once it is already warm than it did first thing in the morning.

Second, if done correctly, bump starting uses very little clutch (and no starter).
The trick is a technique called double clutching - very similar to the technique used by semi-truck and race-car drivers.  Basically, when used in hypermiling, you shift into the highest gear and very briefly 'tap' the clutch up until it just barely engages, and then immediately depress it again.  Instead of fully engaging the engine with the wheels, you just 'bump' the engine a partial turn.  When the engine is warm, this is enough to re-start it.  Once it starts you step on the accelerator enough to match the engine RPMs to the transmission RPMs, and when they match (or close to it) you then release the clutch again.  This entire process takes place in about a second.  If you look closely, you can see me doing it at 5:02 in the video.

It may be that in the long run the clutch and/or starter lasts a few months less than they would have otherwise. 
If you buy a replacement starter from an auto parts store, they come with a lifetime warranty.
I've had to replace a couple (long before I started shutting the engine to save fuel), and all you do is walk in with a faulty starter, tell them your phone number (because I had lost the receipt but they keep records in the computer) and walk out with a new starter (also with the same lifetime warranty.)
So for the cost of replacing the starter just once you get a lifetime of starting it at every stoplight.
As far as the environmental impact, the starters you buy are refurbished, and the old one you turn in for the deposit is refurbished in turn.

Given that hypermiling saves hundreds or even thousands a year as well as preventing an equivalent amount of pollution, the occasional odd extra starter is more than worth it.



Accelerating takes more fuel than driving steady state, so why do you repeatedly accelerate and then coast - doesn't take that more fuel?
Accelerating does take more fuel than driving steady, and so that is an understandable confusion.
If car engines were 100% efficient, (or even remotely close to it) then the hypermiling technique, known as "pulse and glide" (P&G) would use more fuel than driving steady.

But engines are not 100% efficient.
The basic laws of physics dictate that no heat engine (which includes everything from gas and diesel engines to steam engines and coal power plants) can ever be 100% efficient.
No matter what technology produces in the future, any flammable fuel powered vehicle (including natural gas, biodiesel, anything that burns) will waste some of its energy on heat.

In a typical gas engine, efficiency is only around 25%.

In order to understand how much internal resistance is in a car engine, try this:
-Park on a perfectly flat area.  Make sure there are no parked cars, small children, or cliffs in front of you.
-Turn off the engine.
-Put the car in neutral and take off the parking brake. 
-Get out, and try to push the car.
You will be able to.  No matter how small you are, and how big the car is, you will be able to move it (albiet slowly) on flat ground in neutral.

-Now put the car into gear (engine still off)
-Get back out and try to push it again.
You will not be able to, no matter how big and strong you are. 

The difference you feel between the first try in neutral and the second in gear, that is the engine's resistance to turning.
Every time the engine is on, it has to overcome that internal friction with each and every rotation it makes - and it makes about 100 rotations every single second! 

In other words fully 75% of the energy in the fuel is used just to overcome internal resistance, to turn the engine itself. 
That's why it gets so hot (and why it needs a radiator).
75% of the money you spend on gas is not used to move you and your car around, it is used to make your engine hot.

On top of that, belt driven engine accessories and drivetrain losses absorb another 5-10% of the energy in the fuel.

That means all together, when the engine is running, well over 3/4 of the energy never even reaches the wheels.
And that is in optimal conditions, at the peak of the BSFC curve!*

Any time the engine is off, you are not wasting that 85%.

As noted earlier, accelerating takes more energy than steadystate driving, however, the internal losses don't change (a significant amount) in acceleration vs stead state.

So, if you can P&G with a 1:3 ratio (10 sec pulse, 30 sec glide) the engine is off 3/4 of the time. Over that 40 sec span, the 85% of potentially wasted fuel energy is conserved.
In order for that not to save fuel compared to stead state, it would have to require 4x more fuel to accelerate - and of course that is before even taking into account pumping losses or the fact that acceleration puts the engine in a more efficient part of the BSFC curve.

*(BSFC refers to the fact that an engine is more efficient at some speeds and loads than others. The peak is where you get the most torque for the least fuel, and what RPM and throttle position that corresponds to varies from one car to another, but it is always at least slightly more efficient during acceleration)

While coasting is more efficient in any car, it shouldn't be done in many cars.  Most cars with an automatic transmission should not coast at high speed or for large distances, as the engine circulates the transmission fluid that lubricates and cools the transmission.  Cars with a turbo charger should also be wary of turning the engine off during transit.  And of course, unless you have a very old car or have modified it, turning off the engine will change the steering feel and limit the number of power assisted stops (more on that later)


Driving slow is illegal

Driving excessively slow is illegal in some places.  Laws vary from state to state.  In my state it is not illegal to drive at 45mph on highways.  I am not aware of any state which has minimum speed laws higher than 45mph.  In fact, the maximum speed for commercial trucks in my state is 55mph - only 10mph higher than the lowest speed I go. 
(Anything slower than that does not increase efficiency anyway, because it requires shifting to a lower gear, which raises engine RPM.  In most modern cars optimal speed is between 50 and 60mph, give or take.)

When there is a specific minimum limit, it is usually (but not always) marked:

In practice its rare for drivers to drive below the maximum speed limit, but it is important to remember that the number on the sign is just that: a MAXIMUM.  It is not a requirement.  It is not even a recommendation.  And it is most certainly not a minimum.

If where you live there are highways that have a minimum speed of 50 or 55, I don't recommend driving slower than that.

For many vehicles, driving slower than that offers no benefit anyway.  Various factors determine the optimal speed for each vehicle; primarily how the transmission is geared, followed by how aerodynamic it is.  Optimal speed will usually be at whatever speed the transmission shifts into its higher gear (or the lowest RPMs in high gear without lugging, in the case of a manual).  For most modern cars this will be somewhere in the range of 45mph to 60mph. Unless you have a very old vehicle, its unlikely you will gain any benefit driving slower than that.


Driving slowly is dangerous

This misconception is almost as common as the myth that it takes more fuel to start than it does to idle.
And like that one, it is understandable how it got started:
Some traffic studies have found an increased accident rate for drivers driving below the average speed of drivers around them.

But here is the really important part:
Studies have also found that the rate of accidents that involve INJURY OR FATALITY goes down with a decrease in speed.

In other words, driving slow will increase the risk that you get a dent or scratch on your nice shiny car.  At the same time, it will also decrease the risk that you die in a fiery car crash!! 


So, given that there is a trade off, you have to ask yourself:  "which would I rather avoid: a dent - or losing a limb?"
Driving fast is the single biggest factor in injury and fatality accidents - more than drinking, more the cell phones, more than teenage drivers.  Speed has an exponentially bigger impact on accident severity than the weight of the vehicle.  In other words, driving 45 in a compact car is safer than driving 75 in a big SUV.
This is due to basic laws of physics, so it will never change, no matter what new safety features come out.
I could go on, but I already dedicated an entire blog entry to the topic, so if you are still unconvinced, you can see the math as well as the traffic study references there:
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/slow-down-my-philosophy-for-life-also.html

The fact that everyone around you is breaking the law, wasting gas, and endangering their lives, does not legally or morally obligate you to also break the law and endanger your own life to avoid inconveniencing them.  Even if every single other person on the highway is speeding, it is still all of them who are in the wrong.



You are interfering with traffic
Good hypermiling takes road and traffic conditions into account, and changes appropriately. 
In the video I am driving on a 4 lane highway with light traffic.  On a 4 lane highway there is no possible way for me to impede traffic.
I think this is common knowledge:  The left-most lane is considered the "fast" or "passing" lane.  The right-most lane is the "slow" or "merging" lane.  If you want to drive fast you should be in the fast-lane.
Kind of makes sense, right?
But the law says the maximum speed limit is 65mph (on most highways in my area, replace that number with whatever is your local limit).  That means the fastest car in the fast lane should be going 65mph.  That is the law.  I'm sorry, I don't make the rules. 
This means that every lane to the right of the left most lane should be going slower than 65mph, with the slowest traffic in the right most lane.
On a 4-lane highway, no one should be going significantly faster than me in the slow lane.
If they want to pass, they can change lanes.

In heavy traffic, hypermiling strategy changes.  I didn't happen to get stuck in any, so you don't see an example of it in my video, but someone else has made an excellent video with an example of how to drive efficiently in heavy traffic:

(click through to the original youtube page to see an excellent write up by wbeaty, the person in the video)

As you can see in this video, the act of driving efficiently actually makes traffic SMOOTHER for everyone behind you.  It is everyone else's erratic and aggressive driving which actually causes (or contributes to) the traffic jam in the first place.  If everyone drove this way, everyone would get where they were going much faster, much like walking in a calm single file line will get you out of a burning building faster than trying to shove everyone else aside. 

True, coasting to a stop light sometimes agitates drivers behind me who are used to driving full speed toward red lights and then hitting the brakes at the last moment.  But they would have had to come to a full stop anyway, so being "stuck" behind me is costing them zero seconds of time.  Do I feel bad for forcing them to save a little gas and help their brakes last longer?  I do not.


Isn't it illegal to turn the engine off while you are moving?
I might well ask you whether it is illegal to drive 66mph in a 65 zone, or to cross the street in the middle of a block with no crosswalk.
No, no, no, I'm not suggesting that this is a stupid and unenforceable law...
What I will say is that law varies from state to state.
In some states it is legal to coast in neutral, as long as the engine is on.
If you happen to live where that is the case, P&G is still beneficial, even if you coast while the engine is idleing (although not by as much).  (This is also important to note because automatics should not coast with the engine off at high speeds or for long distances)
In other states there is no rule about whether the engine is on or off, but you aren't supposed to be in neutral - but that doesn't mean you can't hold in the clutch while still leaving the transmission in gear.

What is perhaps even more important than the finer technicalities of the law is whether or not it is safe.
As noted earlier, by driving well below "normal" speeds (i.e. slightly above the legal lower limit) hypermiling is already much safer than regular driving.  In addition, to avoid having to brake, all hypermilers leave large following distances between them and the car ahead.  This, obviously, increases safety by a huge margin.
Finally, by being constantly aware of the road, conditions, and other vehicles around you, very little takes you by surprise.

There are no accidents.  There is only negligence. 

Regarding having the engine off specifically:  in most modern cars both the brakes and the steering are enhanced with help from the engine.
This is because Americans are incredibly lazy and spoiled.  I'm sorry.  I shouldn't rant.  Power steering just really bugs me.  I mean, really really really bugs me.  It is so stupid.  It is not hard to turn a steering wheel with a manual steering gear.  I mean, not even a little.  My first "car" was a 15ft long camper van with manual steering.  My current work truck has manual steering.  The ONLY time it is even slightly difficult is parallel parking.  Then it is some effort.  Nothing like running a 5k or bench pressing 100lbs, but it is more than no effort.  99.9% of the time behind the wheel is not spent parallel parking. 
So, in order to avoid having to put in a little bit of effort 0.1% of the time, car manufactures build in a complicated expensive system that sucks up 1-3mpg at all times.  It is hard to find a car, even an entry level model, that doesn't have power steering standard.  It is perhaps a reflection of us as a society that we are so fat and lazy that even after having had a gas engine do all the work of moving us from one place to another, we can't even be bothered to take the effort to turn a wheel in order to park the machine.
[end rant]

Where was I? 
Oh, right... shutting off the engine will take away the power steering.
The steering wheel will still work, but you will definitely feel the difference.
The best way to avoid that, (and improve your mpg at all times, any maybe even build a tiny bit of muscle during your daily drive), is to simply remove your power steering.  This is easier than you may think.  My girlfriend did it on her own, with basically no previous mechanical experience.** Basically you need to do just two things:
1) disconnect the lines from the pump goes to the steering axle, and
2) remove / replace the engine belt with one that bypasses the pump pulley. 

As far as the brakes go, there is a reservoir of brake boost, so after you cut the engine there is still brake assist for at least 1, usually 2 or 3, good hard brake pumps, enough for a panic stop in an emergency (which is less likely to happen if you are driving slow and have a good following distance, but its still better to have the option)

The last potential issue is turning the key too far, and locking the steering wheel.
I don't recommend turning the key one click too far and locking the wheel while moving.
In fact, I'm going to go ahead and word that a little more strongly:
Don't do that.
That would be bad.

All that is for a typical, unmodified car.
I have modded my truck specifically to accommodate engine off coasting.
My brake booster is electric.
My steering is manual (I actually installed a factory original manual steering gear, as it was optional equipment when it was sold - in other words, it is all OEM parts, although I personally did the downgrade)
I have an engine kill switch and starter on the gear shift column so I don't have to touch the key.

All of this means that all of the control systems function identically whether the engine is off or on, and therefor there is no increased risk from coasting.


**Specifically, she had done 1 oil change, and changed 1 flat tire before tackling the power steering delete project.



 Why don't you just buy something newer / better / hybrid / electric?

First of all, there are no hybrid or electric trucks available in the US that can handle the loads I move.

Second, newer vehicles are not significantly more efficient than old ones.
They SHOULD be, because engine technology has improved considerably, however those improvements have been used to make cars and trucks heavier, more powerful, and more feature rich.  My truck is powerful enough, and I don't need "features".

Third, my truck cost $2000.  I spent about another $800 on the mods.  And I ended up with a truck that gets better mileage than a brand new truck of comparable capacity would.  In fact, it gets better mpg than the average passenger car on US roads gets.

Fourth, by buying used I avoiding having additional mining and energy use in building and transporting another new vehicle.  Buying used is (almost) always easier on the environment than buying new, no matter how "green" the product or how "sustainable" the production process.

In the end, being environmentally responsible (contrary to popular belief) goes hand-in-hand with saving money.  Saving lots and lots of money.
Its win/win

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


I think that covers just about everything.
I'm not suggesting that everyone go out and do everything exactly the way I did.
But I do hope people will think twice about what things they can do differently.
Small changes taken by large numbers of people has a greater impact than big changes done by just a few people.  If you do nothing differently after reading this besides driving slower and never idleing, I will have made a bigger impact on the world by writing this than I have by all of my biodiesel-solar panel-vegetarianism ways ever could.
So help me out.
Help out the Earth and the country, and as a side-effect keep a little more money in your own pocket next time you head to the gas station.

My Green Living Projects

Remember the scene in The Jerk where Navin (Steve Martin) gets really excited because the new phonebooks has arrived?
Well, the new phonebooks are here.

The mini-documentary on my life that was filmed by Faircompanies.com several years ago now has a sequel.
In this one I talk about my truck mods and driving style that lets me get almost double the mileage my truck initially got, saving me a couple grand in fuel charges each year.

My last video with them is up to almost a quarter million views, but the company has gotten a lot more subscribers since then, so there is potential for this one to be even more popular.

If you have already seen it, this post answers the most common questions, comments, and criticisms I have gotten so far:
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/03/mad-max-hypermiler-questions-and.html

 

, I next went to the computer and electronics recycling center, then the Berkley Recycling Center, and finally the Berkeley Transfer Station which recycles refrigerators. 
I try to avoid making a trip just for one stop.

Kirsten, who shot and edited the video, said she may end up making another one with some of the rest of the footage.  I talked a lot about saving money and the freedom and time it buys you, how not buying into consumerism is good for both the environment and your own finances, and other random things on various topics.  Like last time, I didn't prepare a script, I just sort of free-styled messages I'd like to share with the world.

So, anyway, this is just the latest in a series of eco themed internet media I have been a part of.
It is all spread out in various random places, and in many of them I used different pseudonyms. 
Here are some others:

Global Warming vs. Fascism; or, why NASA wouldn’t have stopped Apophis
This was the blog post that originally caught the attention of Kirsten of Faircompanies, which led to her asking me to blog for their site, and eventually to the video interviews.  Out of 6 years of blogging, its one of my favorites still.  I will eventually get around to moving it to this blogger server, and updating it (I have had the opportunity to have an in person discussion with several actual climate scientists since then!)

My green/environmental blog, on Faircompanies.com:
http://faircompanies.com/blogs/BioDieselHauling/

The original 3-part interviews with faircompanies:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkFXgg2XnI8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJc8973GURk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yF8msBy6bMM

Step-by-step instructions on how I did the truck mods:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Vehicle-efficiency-upgrades/
(this one won runner-up in the website's energy efficiency contest)

DIY small-scale independent (non-grid-istertie) solar system:
http://www.instructables.com/id/NON-grid-intertie-independant-solar-photovoltic-/

Saving energy without spending money upfront:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Not-your-average-save-energy-advice-use-less-en/

Rain-water fed self-watering garden box:
http://www.instructables.com/id/Large-Self-Watering-Planter-made-from-recycled-mat/

A bicycle is the most energy efficient mode of transport ever invented.  But producing one takes resources.  Buying one used is both cheaper and more eco-friendly.  But if you aren't already knowledgeable about bikes, how do you pick the right one?  Read my guide, thats how!
http://biodieselhauling.blogspot.com/2012/01/buying-bikes-from-craigslist.html

This is where the ideas for all of my truck mods came from:

http://ecomodder.com/forum/
It isn't my project, but I am a member.  I haven't been active for about a year, but I do have a lot of old posts there.  I highly recommend it for anyone who owns a car.
This site hosts my fuel mileage log from when I first began trying to optimize efficiency:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/em-fuel-log.php?vehicleid=2486

This isn't my project either, its another forum I am a (currently active) member of, and I highly recommend it to anyone who ever earns or spends money on anything, ever:
http://www.mrmoneymustache.com/forum/index.php
It is basically about how any middle class American can become financially independent simply by opting out of the consumer culture and making some small lifestyle changes - and investing all the leftover cash that results.  A significant side-effect is having a much smaller negative impact on the world.

I realized my various internet persona were diluting my potential to be a simple/green living spokesman when a couple people on the MMM (Mr Money Mustache) forums mentioned they had read my 12v solar project on Instructables, but hadn't realized it was the same person. 
I am Jacob Aziza on Instructables, David Craig Hiser in the comments of YouTube, Bakari on MMM (and ERE) - as well as in real life.  Occasionally stuff I've written online is credited to Lenard Simp or Robert Paulson as well.  All me
Maybe its getting time to start branding myself with my real name consistently :P
Because, its only with an audience that my message can have any impact...