Pages

Tuesday, July 19, 2011

The Tappet Challenge

It seems my brother Nate is becoming a major source of blog material.  The other day, he pointed me to NPR's podcast of last Saturday's Car Talk.  Near the end of the show (44:38, if you'd like to hear for yourself) the hosts take a call from a woman looking to prove her husband wrong about his driving style.  The husband claims that you can get better gas mileage by accelerating up to some top speed, then allowing the car to coast until it slows to a minimum speed, before accelerating once again to the top speed.  Click and Clack maintain that, whether or not it really is better for your mileage, any money you save will be outweighed by the damage you do to your car.  They invite (or perhaps dread) any physicists listening to send them evidence one way or the other, so here I am.

We'll assume there are only two significant forces on the car: the wind resistance slowing it down, and the car's own acceleration speeding it up.  Given this, we can write a differential equation for the car's position:
where a is the acceleration applied by the car, and c is a constant associated with the wind resistance.  Solving the equation gives
which is admittedly pretty awful.  However, we're not really interested in t, so we can differentiate this to get the velocity, and solve the two equations simultaneously to get
We'd like to know the distance traveled to get from an initial speed vi to a final speed vf.  We can find this by taking the difference between the two points:
Now that we have this equation, we can find the distance the car travels during one cycle of accelerating and decelerating.  If we call the car's minimum and maximum speeds vlo and vhi, then the distance spent accelerating is
and the distance decelerating is
Using these, we can define an efficiency, ε, analogous to a measure like miles per gallon:
where E is the energy expended in traveling the distance.  It will be given by
where m is the mass of the car.  Plugging everything in, we have
where
We'd like to compare this to the efficiency of maintaining a constant velocity.  First, we need to know the average speed of the accelerating car.  Going back to our original differential equation, we can get the time in terms of the change in velocity:
We can use this to find the average velocity with
but the result is pretty awful, so I won't write it out just yet.  In this case, our efficiency is given by
so that makes our nasty equation even worse.  To spare you the horror, I decided to toss in some dummy values and see what sort of results we get.  To get a comparison of the two efficiencies, I divided the constant speed efficiency by the accelerating efficiency, so any values greater than 1 indicate that constant speed is the way to go.

Using the 65/55 speed range they discuss in the show, we get
Acceleration Ratio
1 1.00697
3 1.00697
5 1.00696
7 1.00696
9 1.00696
11 1.00695
13 1.00694
15 1.00693
17 1.00692
19 1.00691
21 1.00688
23 1.00685
25 1.00679
so it seems Click and Clack were correct in their theory that the husband's method does not save gas.  I tried fiddling around with the speeds a bit, and I couldn't find a case where accelerating and decelerating is a good idea.  However, these equations I'm using are a real mess, so I can't be sure I've got everything exactly right.

Thanks for another great tip, Nate! I considered closing with, "Don't drive like my brother," but I don't even have a license...

10 comments:

  1. And I don't have a car! We could say "don't not drive like my brother"...

    I notice that your efficiency was improving as the acceleration increased. So if I had a car that could go from 0 to C in 60 seconds, would it be a good idea then?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Unclear. The function gets a little wonky above what I tabulated, so there must be some problem for the larger values, possibly some assumption I'm breaking without realizing it.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Well, I think you should share this with Click and Clack. I bet they would have a field-day with it.
    You both could say " don't drive like my father'...or not. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  4. I posted it to the Car Talk forums, so we'll see if anything comes of that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Are you aware of the Science/Culture Intersection Blog-"13.7", on NPR.Org?Some cutting-edge conversation and reporting" in the Physics realm" appearing recently, 7-19-11. Time and Space, and human perception issues and answers well presented......Regards, DW

    ReplyDelete
  6. This is incredible! Whilst Jeannie and I were driving back home from New England and listening to the very show you refer to, I was thinking that if anyone could resolve this debate it would be my lovely nephew, Orion. And Wa-La, here he is! However, I have something to add to this conversation. From PERSONAL experience, when a vehicle is OUT of gas and is being propelled by pushing said vehicle it is very difficult to maintain a constant speed although one must apply your variables such as, are we going up a hill?, down a hill?, are we buff?, or are we underfed? So much to consider, so little time. But the one thing that is a certainty, YOUR FUEL CONSUMPTION IS VASTLY IMPROVED.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I'm a just a lay person, but I think you're missing something pretty big, a function for the change in engine efficiency (And maybe transmission efficiency with an automatic) with respect to the change in engine operation. Most BFSC maps for SI engines will indicate that at high load efficiency is ~30% while at low load it can be as bad as ~10%.

    If a car is at something like 15% at at steady 60mph, and the driver can break up their drive into periods of acceleration with the engine at ~30% efficiency, and coasting with the engine off, then even if it's less efficient in terms of wind resistance to accelerate then coast, it can be more efficient in terms of engine efficiency to do so, depending on the car and what is meant by coasting.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sounds reasonable. Like I said, I'm not considering any of the details about how the engine works, since I don't know anything about that. However, if a basic assessment of the situation (like mine) goes one way, and a more complex view goes the other, then the difference can't be too huge. I know you describe yourself as a lay person, but you clearly know much more about engine mechanics than I do...

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ha! You can tell he's a real physicist because he says, "I'm not considering any of the details."

    ReplyDelete
  10. I once heard an excellent summary of the branches of science: Physics is the exact description of simple things, biology is the approximate description of complex things, and chemistry is a compromise between the two.

    ReplyDelete