this post was submitted on 07 Jun 2026
120 points (96.2% liked)

Fuck Cars

15890 readers
1102 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 20 points 15 hours ago (1 children)

I wonder if there’s even a gain in total miles they can travel given how much air resistance that sail adds. Wonder what RPM the engine is pushing going highway speeds.

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 6 points 11 hours ago (4 children)

Same speed = same RPM, regardless of load / air resistance. Unless they have to drive in a lower gear to make it work, but I doubt that

[–] CookieOfFortune@lemmy.world 6 points 7 hours ago

You’re right RPM is tied directly to wheel speed. There is increased fuel consumption because the load on the engine is higher.

[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 6 points 8 hours ago (2 children)

Wouldn't that mean that a car with a trailer uses the same amount if fuel? Which it doesn't, I am sure.

[–] StupidBrotherInLaw@lemmy.world 8 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

It just has to burn more fuel for each combustion cycle to keep the engine spinning at the same speed. It's like how it's easier to pedal a bike down an incline versus up the same incline, but your legs will still pedal at the same rate for the same speed (assuming you don't change gears).

[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 1 points 2 hours ago

As my reply in another comment

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 3 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 8 hours ago) (1 children)

No, because an engine can use different amounts of fuel even at the same RPM. At the most extreme, a car can go downhill at high RPM with no fuel injection at all, only driven by gravity.

During normal driving, the engine's crankshaft has a hard link to the wheels. It's going through a couple of gears etc. inside the transmission etc., but the speed conversion from that is fixed within a single gear. This means that the speed the vehicle is going is directly tied to the RPM the engine is turning at. For every gear, every possible vehicle speed correlates directly to a single specific RPM of the engine. Fuel use at that RPM can vary a lot though, entirely depending on the amount of energy needed to keep the engine at that speed with air resistance and other factors trying to slow the car down through the drivetrain.

[–] prenatal_confusion@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

I am following your reasoning here. The thing that tripped me up was the last sentence of your previous comment. I understood it like it's not necessary to switch gears since the load has no real effect on the force needed to move the car. You probably meant that the engine could handle the extra load while staying in the same gear and still use more fuel.

I think we are on the same page now

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

Ah, yeah, that's what I meant. I just assumed that at highway speeds, the additional drag in this scenario probably wouldn't be enough to warrant shifting down. Although to be fair depending on the engine it totally might, that was just a quick generalization on my part

[–] nullroot@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

More surface area = more drag. A big ol non aerodynamic cube will definitely be adding more drag. Other than that, yeah load doesn't really effect mpg

[–] hikaru755@lemmy.world 1 points 8 hours ago

Yeah for sure. I'm just saying that the engine RPM won't be affected as the original comment implied. Drag and mpg will definitely be higher.

[–] EddoWagt@feddit.nl 2 points 11 hours ago

Unless it's a CVT, which it probably isn't