RV Fuel Issues & Prices - Post 'Em Here!

Don't see that anybody ever said that. Back in the old days, they came up with much of what we use in modern life today. I was a huge fan. I saw the Challenger disaster in person live. The first shuttle landing was a thrilling event. I followed what happened to them over the years. I have camped on the Space Coast for decades and talked to hundreds of former NASA workers. Almost to a person, they share my same opinions. It is very sad. The notion that NASA is thriving is just wrong.

Regardless of what they are doing now is anyone dumb enough to claim that they were not the source of much innovation?

cekkk wrote:
Living where we live means dropping 3 to 4k feet every time we go to I-25. Miles per gallon are pretty darn good going down. But then we have to come home. The mileage is poor going uphill, but once at the top, well, now you're coasting. DW's Toronado and STS had instant mpg readouts and they'd show 80 some mpgs when coasting downhill and various high numbers when under reduced power on the downhill side. On a trip using a tank of fuel, I'm convinced it comes out more or less a wash.

...

More or less. The uphill/downhill is a gravitational conservative field so that's a wash (ignoring friction in bearings which is non-conservative). But wind effects are more complex since they are non-conservative and non-linear (usually some kind of power law, like square law, is used at such speeds) and then there are losses in the irreversible carnot cycle of the engine (the air brake made George Westinghouse a billionaire because of that). But the overall Hamiltonian is dominated by the potential/kinetic energy of the mass, swamping out the other terms.

Name 3 high yield results that have come from the robotic Mars probe.

Agreed, the uphill overrides the downhill, but we're talking average miles per gallon. Over a tank of fuel, at least on my truck, my biggest number variances come not from terrain, but from head/tailwinds.

I have a ScannGuageII which gives a very accurate reading of mpg every couple of seconds as well as an updating trip odometer/mileage gauge. The uphill seems to overpower the downhill. You get worse mileage in the hills than on the flat. With a Class A, I think speed is the most important factor in mileage once you get into 5th gear. It is amazing how much you can improve your mileage by being aware of your momentum and avoiding braking.

Living where we live means dropping 3 to 4k feet every time we go to I-25. Miles per gallon are pretty darn good going down. But then we have to come home. The mileage is poor going uphill, but once at the top, well, now you're coasting. DW's Toronado and STS had instant mpg readouts and they'd show 80 some mpgs when coasting downhill and various high numbers when under reduced power on the downhill side. On a trip using a tank of fuel, I'm convinced it comes out more or less a wash.

My truck gets about ten mpg getting out of the mountains westbound, about a tank, and onto the flats, where it then gets, well, about ten on I-40.

Of course city driving reduces mileage a lot, but we tend to talk about pulling trailers on this website. Most city driving while towing is on freeways passing through, so even then mileage isn't too negatively affected. And I admit, if one were to use up a tankful of fuel driving around Manhattan all day pulling his rig, wind resistance would, for all practical purposes, not be a factor and mileage would suck. But since that's apples and oranges, I stand by my statement.

cekkk wrote:

tomman58 wrote:
Mileage worst in TX as had 35-40 MPH headwind. lost 3-4 mpg.

Off topice - HORRORS! - but that's just more evidence that mpg is primarily related to wind resistance.

I think mountains,hills and traffic are as big problems

I may be wrong but on my many,many fill ups I think the fuel from Shell and Flying J and Sinclair gave better mileage.

tomman58 wrote:
Mileage worst in TX as had 35-40 MPH headwind. lost 3-4 mpg.

Off topice - HORRORS! - but that's just more evidence that mpg is primarily related to wind resistance.

LindsayRichards wrote:
I guess, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Regan, Bush 41, Clinton, and Bush 43 all had it wrong. Who would have ever thunk it? Thanks for straightening us all out.

You better inform India, Ecuador, Japan, Iran and Malaysia of their foolishness, as they have begun human space flight plans, too.

Actually, NASA has sent RFPs out to several wind generator companies as the administration believes turbines can generate enough power from the blades rotating in space to power spacecraft without fouling the fragile eco system up there. The secret is perpetual motion. Since there's no gravity or resistance, a couple of Energizer AAAs will only be required to give the windmill a single turn. Voila! It will never wind down!

Diesel steady at about 3.90.

Anyone heard about plans to increase fuel taxes?