Date:         Fri, 16 May 2008 13:25:19 -0700
Reply-To:     Loren Busch <starwagen@GMAIL.COM>
Sender:       Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From:         Loren Busch <starwagen@GMAIL.COM>
Subject:      Re: better gas mileage
In-Reply-To:  <001b01c8b78a$8802bdb0$6401a8c0@Bohemian>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 12:24 PM, Matthew Snook <matt@snooksband.com> wrote:

> John said:
> "...Personally, I LIKE driving slow in my Vanagon. I seldom break 65..."
>
> So how did the Westy do, as I strove for 55 mph along the same stretch?
> Nine hours - a half hour slower than my best summertime trip over the 450+
> miles.  The thing is, contingencies bring the average speeds much closer
> together than one would think, and you lose much less in the real world
> than
> the calculator would predict, because it's not taking the cows into
> account.
>
> That's my side of the story. :)
>
>

I'll add my observations and experience  to Matt's.  I take a lot of trips
around Washington/Oregon that are mixed freeway/secondary road traveling.
Most of the time I've plotted my route on Streets & Trips to figure the
time/distance.  I set the options in Street & Trips to slower than normal
travel, set in fuel, food and rest stops.  And still run about 20% or better
longer till I get there than the predictions in the software say.  Example:
Last week the computer told me I'd drive for almost exactly 5 hours to get
where I was going.  So I figured 6 hours.  And the 6 hours was almost dead
on.  The predictions are based on ideal conditions on the road, not the real
world, especially when passing through more populated areas where traffic
congestion throws the 'average speed' concept out the door.
And it still comes down to "It's the journey dummy."