790:'s looking into the source paper, for which I would also like to apologise as I should have done more extensive research myself. That said, while maybe "factually inaccurate" is not the most precise term, I do think that the article cannot be written in a manner where due weight is given. Since car speed is such a minor portion of the efficiency of automobiles (this part I think everyone here agrees with), any article that talks about only the impact of car speed is going to create an impression of disproportionate impact. In any case, that is not my main point, and if you still want me to remove "factually inaccurate" I am open to doing so.
650:"The external air drag is the air resistance of the car when it moves on the road. It is proportional to the square of the driving speed and directly related to the size and shape of the vehicle, usually expressed as a multiplication of the drag coefficient by the projected front area . In this study, 60 km/h is assumed as an average driving speed for all cars globally in urban, highway, and any other kind of driving.". Holmberg et al. do not further address the effect of speed.
794:
let's roll with it.) Everything else is a textbook, relating to the elementary derivation of the v^2 formula for air resistance (and other forms of resistance). We can cut all of that and simply cite the proportionality to the papers involved since there is no need to piece together our own derivation when the result is accepted. (Notable pieces of OR that would be cut include, for example, "energy consumption over a distance" section.) We are then essentially left with:
948:. My opinion of the article is that it will mislead readers because it only considers the very minor terms, not the big ones. Consider the two main Figures, Graph 1 and Graph 2. From Graph 1 I should drive at 30 km/h or less. From Graph 2 I should drive a Prius at 30 km/h or less, and not buy a BMW which does not obey anything in the article.
1058:
article that everyone agrees is flawed and driving away the editor. Big deal. If on the other hand you ask what can we do to guide an editor towards better contributions, that editor may go on to make improvements over time. Since all of the dumping takes time I don't see any real cost of a more positive approach.
848:
That air pollution is proportional to the speed squared. Neglecting how ill defined "air pollution" is (total emitted pollutants? Pollutant concentration?), the statement "air pollution increases with petrol consumption" is unsourced, and off the top of my head I can think of several factors (such as
819:
With this in mind, what can the article actually say? "Theoretically, energy consumption scales as v^2. Because of 'various factors', this doesn't actually happen at all (see graph). Also, it turns out other things have far more impact on energy consumption than car speed does, so it doesn't actually
1025:
makes the important point that the graphs that MacKay chose are not the ones that are important to drivers. What counts for drivers is mpg vs speed, not energy vs speed. And the graphs on energy.gov show that the speed effect is much less dramatic once you factor in the miles gained at higher speed.
284:
the presented analysis actually is slightly above secondary education level in the
Netherlands, so above high school level in the US: there rather on the level of first year university physics. The analysis is meant to be accessible to advanced high school students, within the scope of the Knowledge
793:
The article currently cites two papers. One of these papers talks about a factor of energy consumption independent of speed, and the other is essentially an appendix to a popular policy document (which to be fully honest looks self-published to me, but I don't see anything wrong with the content so
377:
by
Kenneth Holmberg et al. (2012, 2013), agrees we have 1. acceleration, 2. air drag, and 3. further friction, and the applicable formulae. The quoted "5% air drag" holds only at constant 60 km/h, while the wikipedia article considered the quadratic effect over a range of low and high speeds. It is
1000:
For fun, something you won't find clearly spelt out here or elsewhere. A few years ago as an experiment a German automobile company worked on a very clean and efficient automobile engine, so there would be no particulates in the engine to lead to wear or frictional losses. The result, horrible. It
1057:
In my opinion this overall approach of dumping on the article does not improve
Knowledge (XXG). Our goal should be better articles and telling editors their work stinks and should be deleted the worst way to accomplish that goal. The most you can accomplish that way is the deletion of one small
820:
matter that much unless you're on a highway." If we have to mention all kinds of different factors not included in the title to have an article, then essentially throw our hands up and say "see results here, which we can't predict, but doesn't matter anyways", why not simply do all that at
295:"in short, I’m not disputing the factuality of the derivations in the article, but WP:NOTTEXTBOOK applies.", so she/he apparently retracted the complaint of "incorrectness to boot". I am correcting the textbook style i hope satisfactorily for all, by comparing the article with, e.g.,
378:
irrelevant for the thrust of the article: there is basically a quadratic dependence on speed of energy consumption, everybody agrees on that. The source of the
Knowledge (XXG) article is the report by professor MacKay, official scientific adviser to the British government, the book
925:
I'm not arguing that we should delete the article because things are incorrect, I am arguing that we should do so because there is nothing left that isn't either essay or reproduction of information after those things are removed. I pointed out several factual inaccuracies because
1072:
We will agree to disagree. I am not an expert on automobiles and lubrication, I have only collaborated with people who are for ~20 years. My focus has been more on nanotribology, so I only know the applied results from conferences and general relevance in papers/proposals.
438:
Thanks for the suggestion which i followed up. The dominant contribution of heat losses at low to moderate speeds has been included in the article. At high speeds however, air drag losses exceed other losses, refer to Graph 3 and the discussion in the article. Thank you,
657:, STLE Annual Meeting, Detroit, USA, 5-9.5.2013, echo the MacKay argument for a quadratic dependence on speed on their pages 8 and 9, with graphs similar to MacKay we can use as reference in the article, and refine the argument on other sources of friction.
844:
The graph captions and text don't really mention the fact that there is a large mismatch between v^2 predictions and actual data. I personally had to read through the thing three times, and the associated source twice, before I figured out what was going
288:"plenty of OR", probably meaning "plenty of Original Research", is factually incorrect, as the complete argument in the article was condensed from the referenced book/website of MacKay, Science Advisor to the UK Department of Energy 2009-2014.
203:
908:
409:"At higher speed the energy consumption of a car per unit distance increases proportional to the square of the speed. This is caused by the air drag which dominates over the tyre rolling resistance at high speeds."
413:
This is misleading as it is focusing on the 5% contributions, and ignoring the dominant 95% internal loses due to friction in the engine/transmission and also the efficiency of the engine etc as a function of
870:
These would allow the article to instead talk about the way the speed dependence influences other factors, which would not require any synthesis. With a cursory search I have not been able to find any.
973:. This is lubrication science, and not a simple high-school problem. At low speed you can have boundary lubrication; at higher speeds you transition to lower friction and hydrodynamic lubrication, see
725:
690:
602:
on the other hand, would be a win. That article is more comprehensive and yet it has no reference to Mackay or to
Holmberg et al The vehicle speed section is weak compared with this article.
56:. As it seems from the discussion here that such a merge has already taken place, the history must remain for fulfillment of attribution requirements regardless of the redirect's utility.
197:
721:
686:
356:
I don't see the merit in merging content that has to be fixed wholesale before merging, rather than writing from scratch whatever we don't already have in the suggested target article.
1001:
turned out that they made it so clean that there was no graphitic material being produced inside the engine, and graphitic materials are good solid lubricants. Tribology is complex.
160:
365:
262:
133:
128:
266:
137:
120:
258:
339:. While the analysis presented in this article leaves much to be desired, the topic itself is notable enough to be included as a section in the proposed target.
92:
107:
254:
997:
which is far more detailed. I see no reason for this article to exist. Energy efficiency, engine efficiency and lubrication are not simple topics.
389:
Knowledge (XXG) needs a relatively simple article on the vital subject of energy consumption by cars and the effect of speed, right? Thank you,
1054:
is a good article. For example, the mpg effect per the energy.gov example is not discussed. It needs work and we should encourage improvements.
779:
is an essay, although it undoubtedly is (I can elaborate more on this if need be but don't see the need right now), but that it can be nothing
218:
890:
185:
124:
485:
The case claims the article is factually incorrect citing a discussion which includes exactly one -- disputed -- claim of incorrect content.
849:
increased combustion temperatures at high engine rpms) that could change the speed dependence of total amount of air pollutants emitted.
382:
2008, free online www.withoutthehotair.com. We can easily incorporate the results of
Holmberg et al. in this Knowledge (XXG) article.
87:
80:
17:
854:
I think that there is a possibility for the article to merit a keep, if we are able to find sources to cover some of the following:
1119:
1082:
1067:
1010:
939:
920:
880:
833:
761:
729:
715:
694:
672:
625:
611:
584:
522:
488:
In the linked discussion the "tone" of the article was disliked. It seems to me to be a completely typical
Knowledge (XXG) article.
448:
433:
398:
348:
327:
308:
278:
246:
62:
179:
540:
116:
68:
234:
Essay. The article is a high school level analysis of air drag, with plenty of OR, and is factually incorrect to boot. See also
838:
Some additional notes, as the above message was getting clunkier and clunkier with every note I tried to add and edit into it:
575:
versus engine efficiency, drive train and related frictional losses and other contributions such as drag and rolling friction.
699:
682:
175:
101:
97:
863:
The effects of speed limits, or other forms of speed control, on roadside pollution, gas consumption etc in certain areas.
1039:
reference is about engine speed effects, not vehicle speed effect. As you know transmissions cause these to be not equal.
744:
985:
962:
Engine efficiency is not linear, in many cases it increases with speed if we ignore frictional losses, see for instance
225:
1136:
475:
The case claims is is "high-school level analysis"; the audience of
Knowledge (XXG) includes high-school level readers.
40:
821:
595:
544:
536:
336:
164:
1115:
563:
as well as popular science articles. The energy consumption is a very well-trodden topic, being a balance between
1107:
1051:
994:
703:
599:
598:
is off base. I think the thrust of the article is actions existing drivers can take. Merging this content into
548:
466:
53:
191:
969:
Frictional losses in cars are not speed independent, it is much more complicated than this, see for instance
647:/ Tribology International 47 (2012) 221–231 agree with this Knowledge (XXG) article, they state on page 223:
539:. This has a comprehensive list of the energy consumption contributions, which is far larger than the two in
496:
It is possible that only a minimal case was presented because it was assumed that everyone will vote delete.
491:
The case did not make the claim that the topic was not notable or otherwise unsuitable for
Knowledge (XXG).
405:
Knowledge (XXG) should have an article, but only if it is correct. The current
Knowledge (XXG) page states:
1132:
1063:
916:
711:
607:
518:
361:
36:
1111:
811:
A dependence of efficiency on speed is not the major focus of the one paper that actually mentions it.
935:
876:
829:
668:
621:
444:
394:
304:
274:
242:
1016:
702:
is about different modes of transport, not about the effect of driver actions on energy efficiency.
386:
the article with other long articles muddles the arguments both ways, the TooLongDidNotRead effect.
211:
981:
323:
57:
663:
Thanks for considering this matter, important for traffic air pollution vs. car speed as well,
1078:
1006:
814:
The experimental results from aforementioned paper have nothing to do with the v^2 dependence.
772:
for going so long without replying. I will respond to his points both on my tp and here below.
755:
580:
572:
429:
76:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1131:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
1059:
1042:
The Rolling resistance of tires is approximately constant once you have purchased them. See
912:
860:
Adjustments that car designers make to control the dependence of energy consumption on speed
707:
603:
528:
514:
357:
899:
If an item in the article is incorrect and referenced, find another reference or let it go.
637:
374:
235:
945:
931:
927:
886:
872:
825:
769:
664:
617:
532:
440:
421:
390:
343:
300:
270:
238:
479:
655:
Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars, transportation and industry
974:
296:
1030:
Performance of a small compression ignition engine fuelled by liquified petroleum gas
319:
1029:
1015:
Your posts with these detailed references make a compelling case that this topic is
963:
841:
There are still claims I consider factually inaccurate in the article. For example:
1074:
1002:
787:
636:: the physics is sound, according to the MacKay source and further literature. The
576:
425:
154:
896:
If an item in the article is incorrect and unreferenced, correct it or delete it.
640:, incorrectly used for refutation, actually support the Knowledge (XXG) article:
1043:
568:
551:
plus there are numerous Google searchable articles from organizations such as
340:
977:. You also have to worry about viscosity changes with engine temperature etc.
1036:
970:
857:
Popular misconceptions about the dependence of energy consumption on speed
797:
A reproduction of the proportions of modes of energy loss from said paper;
1019:. Again the accuracy of the article should be discussed in the Talk page.
685:. Exact same topic with duplicate material. better covered in other page
292:
373:@Fermiboson @Ldm1954 The physics is incorrect? No, everybody, also the
1023:
952:
800:
A reproduction of a graph of energy loss vs velocity from two papers;
786:
With regard to the factual accuracy claim, I based it entirely upon
660:
Air drag losses dominate at high speeds, Holmberg/Erdemir agree.
469:
to include those parts of the subject article I consider notable.
902:
If an item in the article is incorrect don't threaten to delete.
1127:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
594:
As I said on the physics talk page, comparing this article to
560:
556:
552:
747:
to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
980:
Rolling resistance is not so simple, see the decent article
645:
Global energy consumption due to friction in passenger cars
956:
291:
submitter of this deletion proposal wrote on 19 November
424:
will write an accurate version that includes all terms
150:
146:
142:
803:
A description of the trend represented in such graphs.
210:
775:
In summary, my argument is not just that the article
1106:. All the encyclopedic material has been merged to
783:
an essay, under the area that the title delineates.
753:Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
224:
543:. You can also look at the similar information in
889:Sorry, but please put these kinds of comments on
537:Fuel economy in automobiles#Energy considerations
472:The case presented against this article is weak.
43:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1139:). No further edits should be made to this page.
964:http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/237/1/012011
253:Note: This discussion has been included in the
959:a different picture emerges. Three key points:
951:If I now go to an authoritative source such as
1044:https://www.trb.org/publications/sr/sr286.pdf
8:
499:The major issues I see with the article are
108:Help, my article got nominated for deletion!
1032:does not seem to be related to the article.
513:These are all issues that can be repaired.
911:but none of them include incorrect items.
252:
971:https://doi.org/10.3390/lubricants7050039
380:Sustainable energy without the hot air
891:Talk:Car_speed_and_energy_consumption
18:Knowledge (XXG):Articles for deletion
7:
966:(as just a source I pulled quickly).
822:the place where this is already done
638:referenced Holmberg/Erdemir articles
505:Relies primarily on a single source
502:Title seems a bit non-encyclopedic.
1110:, and the redirect is not useful.
993:We already have a good article at
953:https://afdc.energy.gov/data/10312
24:
547:, and the comparable article in
541:Car speed and energy consumption
257:lists for the following topics:
117:Car speed and energy consumption
93:Introduction to deletion process
69:Car speed and energy consumption
700:Energy efficiency in transport
683:Energy efficiency in transport
567:for simple steels compared to
545:Speed and fuel economy studies
1:
1083:12:10, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
1068:02:56, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
1011:00:43, 29 November 2023 (UTC)
940:16:18, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
921:16:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
881:04:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
834:04:12, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
762:07:33, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
730:18:09, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
716:15:31, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
695:05:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)
673:13:35, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
626:22:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
612:23:39, 20 November 2023 (UTC)
585:21:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
523:16:16, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
449:10:08, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
434:13:40, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
399:13:04, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
366:00:29, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
349:22:14, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
328:13:24, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
309:09:19, 27 November 2023 (UTC)
279:12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
247:12:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
1120:06:21, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
986:low rolling resistance tires
930:asked me to do so on my tp.
63:09:08, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
596:Fuel economy in automobiles
337:Fuel economy in automobiles
83:(AfD)? Read these primers!
1156:
984:. You can always purchase
616:I'm working at it, thanks.
508:Contains disputed claims.
1129:Please do not modify it.
1108:Energy-efficient driving
1052:Energy-efficient driving
995:Energy-efficient driving
706:is a much closer match.
704:Energy-efficient driving
600:Energy-efficient driving
549:Energy-efficient driving
467:Energy-efficient driving
54:Energy-efficient driving
32:Please do not modify it.
957:https://tedb.ornl.gov/
375:referenced nice papers
165:edits since nomination
643:1. Holmberg et al. /
81:Articles for deletion
955:or the full data at
808:Note moreover that:
653:2. Holmberg et al.,
293:on her/his talk page
482:citing no examples.
907:There are lots of
909:reasons to delete
764:
760:
573:refractory metals
535:, please look at
281:
98:Guide to deletion
88:How to contribute
61:
1147:
1050:I disagree that
754:
752:
750:
748:
478:The case claims
255:deletion sorting
236:this discussion.
229:
228:
214:
158:
140:
78:
60:
34:
1155:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1137:deletion review
743:
741:
420:, and perhaps @
346:
171:
131:
115:
112:
75:
72:
48:The result was
41:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1153:
1151:
1142:
1141:
1123:
1122:
1100:
1099:
1098:
1097:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1093:
1092:
1091:
1090:
1089:
1088:
1087:
1086:
1085:
1055:
1048:
1047:
1046:
1040:
1033:
1020:
998:
991:
990:
989:
978:
975:Stribeck curve
967:
949:
944:I agree with @
905:
904:
903:
900:
897:
868:
867:
866:
865:
864:
861:
858:
852:
851:
850:
846:
817:
816:
815:
812:
806:
805:
804:
801:
798:
791:
784:
773:
751:
737:
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
642:
641:
631:
630:
629:
628:
589:
588:
587:
511:
510:
509:
506:
503:
497:
494:
493:
492:
489:
486:
483:
476:
470:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
415:
411:
406:
402:
401:
368:
351:
344:
330:
313:
312:
311:
297:Drag (physics)
289:
286:
285:(XXG) mission.
232:
231:
168:
111:
110:
105:
95:
90:
73:
71:
66:
46:
45:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1152:
1140:
1138:
1134:
1130:
1125:
1124:
1121:
1117:
1113:
1112:Jähmefyysikko
1109:
1105:
1102:
1101:
1084:
1080:
1076:
1071:
1070:
1069:
1065:
1061:
1056:
1053:
1049:
1045:
1041:
1038:
1034:
1031:
1028:
1027:
1024:
1022:The graph in
1021:
1018:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
999:
996:
992:
987:
983:
979:
976:
972:
968:
965:
961:
960:
958:
954:
950:
947:
943:
942:
941:
937:
933:
929:
924:
923:
922:
918:
914:
910:
906:
901:
898:
895:
894:
892:
888:
884:
883:
882:
878:
874:
869:
862:
859:
856:
855:
853:
847:
843:
842:
840:
839:
837:
836:
835:
831:
827:
823:
818:
813:
810:
809:
807:
802:
799:
796:
795:
792:
789:
785:
782:
778:
774:
771:
768:Apologies to
767:
766:
765:
763:
759:
758:
749:
746:
739:
738:
731:
727:
723:
719:
718:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
698:
697:
696:
692:
688:
684:
680:
677:
676:
675:
674:
670:
666:
661:
658:
656:
651:
648:
646:
639:
635:
627:
623:
619:
615:
614:
613:
609:
605:
601:
597:
593:
590:
586:
582:
578:
574:
570:
566:
562:
558:
554:
550:
546:
542:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
520:
516:
512:
507:
504:
501:
500:
498:
495:
490:
487:
484:
481:
477:
474:
473:
471:
468:
464:
462:
458:
457:
450:
446:
442:
437:
436:
435:
431:
427:
423:
419:
416:
412:
410:
407:
404:
403:
400:
396:
392:
388:
387:
385:
381:
376:
372:
369:
367:
363:
359:
355:
352:
350:
347:
342:
338:
334:
331:
329:
325:
321:
317:
314:
310:
306:
302:
299:. Thank you,
298:
294:
290:
287:
283:
282:
280:
276:
272:
268:
264:
260:
256:
251:
250:
249:
248:
244:
240:
237:
227:
223:
220:
217:
213:
209:
205:
202:
199:
196:
193:
190:
187:
184:
181:
177:
174:
173:Find sources:
169:
166:
162:
156:
152:
148:
144:
139:
135:
130:
126:
122:
118:
114:
113:
109:
106:
103:
99:
96:
94:
91:
89:
86:
85:
84:
82:
77:
70:
67:
65:
64:
59:
58:Seraphimblade
55:
51:
44:
42:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1128:
1126:
1103:
780:
776:
757:CycloneYoris
756:
742:
740:
678:
662:
659:
654:
652:
649:
644:
633:
632:
591:
564:
465:I've edited
460:
459:
417:
408:
383:
379:
370:
353:
332:
318:- per nom.
315:
233:
221:
215:
207:
200:
194:
188:
182:
172:
74:
49:
47:
31:
28:
1060:Johnjbarton
913:Johnjbarton
708:Johnjbarton
604:Johnjbarton
569:superalloys
529:Johnjbarton
515:Johnjbarton
263:Engineering
198:free images
1017:WP:Notable
946:Fermiboson
932:Fermiboson
928:Hansmuller
887:Fermiboson
873:Fermiboson
826:Fermiboson
770:Hansmuller
722:बिनोद थारू
687:बिनोद थारू
665:Hansmuller
618:Hansmuller
533:Hansmuller
531:and also @
461:Keep Merge
441:Hansmuller
422:Hansmuller
391:Hansmuller
358:XOR'easter
301:Hansmuller
271:Fermiboson
267:Technology
239:Fermiboson
1133:talk page
777:currently
37:talk page
1135:or in a
745:Relisted
384:Merging?
320:Sgubaldo
161:View log
102:glossary
39:or in a
1075:Ldm1954
1037:Knauder
1003:Ldm1954
788:Ldm1954
592:Comment
577:Ldm1954
426:Ldm1954
265:, and
259:Science
204:WP refs
192:scholar
134:protect
129:history
79:New to
1104:Delete
720:agree
565:$ $ $
463:Delete
418:Delete
414:speed.
354:Delete
316:Delete
176:Google
138:delete
982:on it
681:with
679:Merge
480:WP:OR
341:Owen×
335:with
333:Merge
219:JSTOR
180:books
155:views
147:watch
143:links
52: to
50:merge
16:<
1116:talk
1079:talk
1064:talk
1035:The
1007:talk
936:talk
917:talk
877:talk
830:talk
726:talk
712:talk
691:talk
669:talk
634:Note
622:talk
608:talk
581:talk
519:talk
445:talk
430:talk
395:talk
371:Keep
362:talk
324:talk
305:talk
275:talk
243:talk
212:FENS
186:news
151:logs
125:talk
121:edit
845:on.
781:but
571:or
561:DOE
557:RAC
553:AAA
226:TWL
159:– (
1118:)
1081:)
1066:)
1009:)
938:)
919:)
893:.
879:)
832:)
824:?
728:)
714:)
693:)
671:)
624:)
610:)
583:)
559:,
555:,
521:)
447:)
432:)
397:)
364:)
326:)
307:)
277:)
269:.
261:,
245:)
206:)
163:|
153:|
149:|
145:|
141:|
136:|
132:|
127:|
123:|
1114:(
1077:(
1062:(
1005:(
988:.
934:(
926:@
915:(
885:@
875:(
828:(
724:(
710:(
689:(
667:(
620:(
606:(
579:(
527:@
517:(
443:(
428:(
393:(
360:(
345:☎
322:(
303:(
273:(
241:(
230:)
222:·
216:·
208:·
201:·
195:·
189:·
183:·
178:(
170:(
167:)
157:)
119:(
104:)
100:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.