Gosh another non-story. Its Bo-jo sounding off as he does from time to time and the government saying 'Yes Boris, go have a lie down'.
I dont even know anyone who has been fine for 'idling' anyway, so its news to me theres even a law against it.
|
>> so its news
>> to me theres even a law against it.
>>
You will come across a target motivated jobsworth one day, or a camera will spot your exhaust smoke / steam. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 13:15
|
>> I dont even know anyone who has been fine for 'idling' anyway, so its news
>> to me theres even a law against it.
>>
Ignorance of the law is no defence.
This law has been discussed a number of times on HJ and has been mentioned here on C4P too.
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=4060&m=86273
www.car4play.com/forum/post/index.htm?v=e&t=5032&m=110755
Last edited by: John H on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 13:31
|
|
I dont need any defence, it doesnt apply to me.
|
The war on motorists is only just beginning!
What a pointless ruling. So its ok to waste fuel sitting in a authority-engineered traffic jam, but not in different circumstances?
|
BoJos request to the Transport Minister isn't part of a 'war on motorists', rather part of a 'war on the ignorant'.
When parked, what can possibly be the justification for leaving your engine running, needlessly polluting the atmosphere, and wasting your money in the process?
Bit cold? Get a life!
|
>> Bit cold? Get a life!
>>
No too hot, need aircon !
|
|
It was a pointless ruling 9 YEARS ago.
|
|
And if you are of the many almost taxed off the road motorists and can't afford a replacement for your dodgy battery?Stop your engine, can't restart? Probably get a ticket. Boris is even more stupid than he looks!
|
>> And if you are of the many almost taxed off the road motorists and can't
>> afford a replacement for your dodgy battery?>>
If you can't afford to replace your battery, I wonder what other safety-related aspects of car maintenance have been neglected? Motoring is a privilege, not a right. I think the roads would be better, and safer, without you.
|
|
A bit tetchy today BB! Calm down - it is a hypothetical scenario. What you think of me and my presence on the roads is irrelevant and uninteresting.
|
I realise the 'you' wasn't you PP, and the scenario was hypothetical, but 'one' always sounds a bit pompous to me.
My point stands, though.
|
|
Well it came across as a direct and personal reply. I accept that it wasn't meant that way so I guess that makes us both seem tetchy - LOL!
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 14:48
|
I fully support Boris on this.
It is not war on motorists, it is part of the war on the irresponsible antisocial selfish motorists.
|
>> I fully support Boris on this.
>>
>> It is not war on motorists, it is part of the war on the irresponsible
>> antisocial selfish motorists.
>>
>>
Its an income generator, and councils are feeling the pinch so don't push your luck with parking etc. They need to fund their wacky schemes, our lot are to spend an extra £5000 on speed bumps instead of fixing potholes.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 13:35
|
|
If they overfill the holes, they could kill two birds with one stone, so to speak?
|
Anybody who lives near a school or shops where people leave their engines running will applaud long & loud. Live opposite a parade of shops in Watford from 86-90; no sooner had one 'waiting for the wife' stopped boggler-boggler-boggler** under the window when another takes his place.
**Steve Bell's rendition of an engine at idle
|
How long does an engine need to idle to charge up the battery to replace the lost energy used when starting the engine?
Until we know that figure fining people for idling their engines has no scientific or moral basis.
|
>> has no scientific or
>> moral basis.
>>
Since when has that stopped the taxers and finers ?
|
>> Until we know that figure fining people for idling their engines has no scientific or
>> moral basis.
The Telegraph article refers to idling while parked not idling in traffic. Consideration for neighbours says you stop your engine in those circs even if only stopped for 2-3 minutes.
|
|
It's only a turn of the key (or whatever)...
|
I thought that, if stuck in traffic for less than 5 minutes, it was more economic to leave the engine running than to stop it and restart it.
If that is true (and I don't know if it is) then surely it means that idling for less than 5 minutes uses less fuel (and therefore pollutes less) than stopping and restarting.
|
>> I thought that, if stuck in traffic for less than 5 minutes, it was more
>> economic to leave the engine running than to stop it and restart it.
My thoughts exactly.
|
The makers of current cars with stop start technology wouldn't agree.
Drove one a week or two back for the first time as a courtesy car, but the dealer omitted to mention it. Quite disconcerting to be at the head of a queue at a red light and the engine stops.
But stop it does, even after just a couple of seconds.
|
>>Drove one a week
What make of car was that ,CK?
|
|
T'were an Toyota Yaris. Funny little thing too.
|
|
I drove a demonstrator with stop start, most disconcerting if you are not familiar with it. I switched it off after a couple of automatic shutdowns, even though it started again when I wanted to move.
|
A lot of new cars (I've been looking) have 'stop/start' technology. Put the engine into neutral at the lights, it stops, push the clutch to engage a gear, it starts.
Allegedly to reduce emissions.
This suggests in city driving, it will 'stop/start' lots. I'd hope this does not flatten the battery, otherwise we'll see the RAC/AA charging batteries of otherwise fine cars that had the misfortune to do some stop start driving.
Progress...
A luddite, SP
Last edited by: Slidingpillar on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 15:07
|
My engine is now so quiet now its run in that once warmed up it is as near silent as you can possible get, the heater on fan position 1 is quite a lot louder! The electric window motors are louder.
The only time I idle is at traffic lights and that can be for a few minutes.
|
>> The only time I idle is at traffic lights and that can be for a few minutes.
Better watch it then Sheikha.
At least if a tousle-haired middle-aged blond chap with his trousers tucked in his socks bangs on the window and denounces you loudly as a 'black-avised hippogriff' you will know why.
|
>> This suggests in city driving, it will 'stop/start' lots. I'd hope this does not flatten
>> the battery, otherwise we'll see the RAC/AA charging batteries of otherwise fine cars that >>had the misfortune to do some stop start driving.
As a low mileage driver I don't like that idea very much. I have to keep a close enough eye on my battery as it is.
|
>> This suggests in city driving, it will 'stop/start' lots.
Absolutely. The journey I undertook was all of about three miles, through morning rush hour in Cambridge, and although I wasn't counting, I'd estimate it stopped and restarted perhaps ten or eleven times, and of course similarly on the return that night. So perhaps 20 extra starter motor applications. I have no idea how much fuel it would have saved.
|
If the 5 minute thing isn't true, I'd be very keen to know, because I find myself in loads of situations where I am stationary for maybe 2-3 minutes, in queues where I have plenty of warning before I have to start moving.
I wonder if the stop-start technology does something different, which means that it can do so much more efficiently.
|
|
Most people wont be able to afford to turn their engine on anyway soon, so the councils may have to tax CO2 emissions - a tax on breathing perhaps, esp those cyclists all outta puff :-)
|
|
iirc stop strat involves bigger alternators so batteries recharge more quickly. And of course upgraded starter motors..
|
>> iirc stop strat involves bigger alternators so batteries recharge more quickly. And of course upgraded
>> starter motors..
>>
..which implies more weight over a standard design, using more fuel. It must be an interestingly balanced calculation.
|
The 5 minute suggestion is wrong - it's *much* quicker than that. In a similar vein, the calculation isn't finely balanced at all.
As per usual, the Luddites are crying wolf.
|
Ah, now then, NC, my choice of the word "interesting", rather than your substituted "finely", conveyed, I had hoped, an encouragement for a numerate person to give us all an idea of where the balance lies.
Unfortunately, you've not elected to take that opportunity, (although many thanks for providing a delightful mixed metaphor).
I imagine we'll have to look elsewhere if we want to know where the break even point is. Google it is!
|
>> It must be an interestingly balanced calculation.
>>
Averaging 54 mpg over the last 5000 miles and regularly breaking 60 mpg on a run not hanging about in a BMW 318d I have to say I'm a believer in the whole stop/start build for economy approach.
One thing to bear in mind, on my car anyway, during the exceptionally cold spell over December/January my stop/start hardly ever functioned with temperatures mainly below 2 degrees.
|
>> iirc stop strat involves bigger alternators so batteries recharge more quickly. And of course upgraded
>> starter motors..
>>
The system fitted to some Ceed's deactivates if the battery voltage drops to a certain level, also the engine has to be at normal operating temperature plus a couple of other things I can't remember.
I believe some cars use the alternator as a motor to restart the engine via the auxiliary belt.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 15:48
|
>> I thought that, if stuck in traffic for less than 5 minutes, it was more
>> economic to leave the engine running than to stop it and restart it.
>>
>> If that is true (and I don't know if it is)
Its not. That is why they are making cars with stop/start features.
|
|
SFAIK stop/start has been introduced by car manufacturers to get their vehicles into a lower vehicle duty band and has nothing to with hugging trees or saving the planet. My car is in the £30 bracket even without stop/start.
Last edited by: Perky Penguin on Fri 4 Mar 11 at 15:53
|
|
Mine is £30 too, god knows how but they have managed to get an 8v engine designed in 1983 into that band!
|
|
In mine they saved weight by not supplying a spare wheel, of any sort. I went and bought one and the added weight has, perhaps, taken it out of the low bracket but I am not going to tell DVLA!
|
|
They did on the Panda by using a different kind of oil which creates less friction and by using Contentental Eco Contact 3s.
|
|
I would agree with this law on the condition that Boris be fined £120 for every time a car is held stationary in traffic for more than two minutes inside the congestion zone.
|
Starting a normal (non stop-start) engine requires about 3 seconds of starter motor.
They run at perhaps 200A or so for those 3 seconds.
I guess an alternator can put back about 20A to the battery when the engine is running meaning 30 seconds to recharge.
Note the use of *guesstimation* and a complete disregard of voltage changes but I'm at work and don't have time to think about it properly!
Can't see 5 minutes being anything close to necessary.
Most S/S systems only work with a warm engine to reduce the demand on battery/alternator/starter motor.
|
The 30 seconds is a much closer estimate.
There are a couple of things which push the time down even further than Lygonos's fundamentally correct approach to the question - it's exactly the calc I would do as a first pass.
200A is close to the lockdraw current, i.e., the current drawn before the starter spins up and produces back EMF. So, 200A as an average over the 3 seconds starting time for a warm engine is a conservative estimate.
As Lygonos mentions, the calc doesn't take into account the differing voltages - about 11 volts during cranking, and 14 volts during charging.
There are differences between systems, but, between 10 and 20 seconds would be a much more realistic estimate than 5 minutes!
|
>> Starting a normal (non stop-start) engine requires about 3 seconds of starter motor.
On a hot engine? about half that on mine
|
Yes, I think we are still on the safe side.
Years ago, a colleague calculated it out properly, and came to an answer of 9 seconds.
How that 9 seconds would change as the engine's behaviour changes towards the end of a service interval, and how that value would change as the battery ages, I'm not sure.
I think the technology deniers aren't fully realising that starting an already warm engine can't really be compared with churning the engine over on a cold morning - neither battery or starter is getting anything like that sort of punishment.
|
My experience too is that even well-worn modern injected petrol cars fire more or less instantaneously, on the first couple of crankshaft revolutions. Any longer is a sign of knackered plugs or other malfunction, or that the car has been standing for days.
Carburettors were a different matter of course. But I can say that my Skoda Estelles all started on the first turn, hot or cold, if the right routine was followed with the choke, or not as the case might be. Of course they were fettled every three months or so and kept in proper tune.
|
|
My point, as picked up by N_C, is that even with very conservative guestimates, the energy required to start up a warm engine can be replaced in seconds rather than minutes.
|
War on motorists over? - Stuu
