5thGenRams Forums

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Poor MPG Explained.

asgadf/lkjnadsfg

Active Member
Joined
Sep 26, 2021
Messages
154
Reaction score
189
Fair enough …. With durability in mind, let’s assume nylon 66
A challenging question indeed. I had to deploy some rarely used resources to get this one done (WolframAlpha dot com, Aqua-calc dot com, etc). One cubic foot of Nylon-66 weighs 71.16 lbs, while the same volume of pine weighs 45 lbs. The Nylon-66 would certainly add to the durability of the final product, but does so at a cost of a 58.1% increase in weight, which should have a significant impact on the equation.

The difference between leg lengths (irrespective of the difference in the thickness of the sole) I would expect would've been automatically compensated for by the bodies parasympathetic nervous system over time, so I can remove that from the equation entirely; which brings us back to our original dilemma regarding the block composition and it's impact upon mileage.

The increased mass of the Nylon-66 makes it more difficult to move, which would tend to indicate better gas mileage since it's compartively harder to push the pedal down with the added mass. However, as harsh a penalty as is added by the extra weight, one would also expect a slight offset since that increased mass would also make it more difficult for the pedal to return to its original state, which means it would take longer to come off the gas, thus increasing a tendency toward worse mileage. This leaves us with a pedal that is not only more difficult to push, but in laymans terms, one that is also slightly more difficult to "un push". In the balance of things, the greater weight in the equation must be given to the fact that (all things held equal) it is, by its nature, more difficult to push to begin with, which would tend to improve fuel milage.

Furthermore I would suspect that a driver with a foot size of just 5.5 (American) would be of such short stature they'd also need step bars to gain access to the cab, which could add more drag. Additionally they'd probably need a booster seat, which would increase the amount of payload the truck is carrying at all times, even if by just a bit. For that I'll deduct 0.04 MPG.

Now, moving on to the comparison. The average shoe size or an adult male in the US is a 10.5 which translates into a foot length of 10.5 to 10.9 inches. To keep things simple, lets call it 10.5 inches. A size 5.5 foot on the other hand (see what I did there) is roughly 9.1 inches long, which is a 13.1% deficit vs the average size driver. Rather than run the math on fulcrum lengths and their required force to move the pedal (a calculation that would add a host of other assumptions to an already lengthy list) I'll take an analytical shortcut and say the that the Nylon 66 blocks, when used on a Laramie 1500 by a driver whose right leg is shorter than his left (but compensated for by a thicker sole on the right foot), and who wears a size 5.5 shoe will see no less than a 13.1% improvement in fuel economy over the taller driver, simply due to mechanical disadvantage induced by the shorter fulcrum. Obviously this assumes the shorter statured driver is properly hydrated.

Here's a big caveat: this analysis holds up well unless one of them has a tonneau cover, in which case all previous calculations would need to be recast.
 

BowersFJ

Ram Guru
Joined
Oct 8, 2020
Messages
707
Reaction score
571
Holy Sheldon F#ckin Cooper !!!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 

Idahoktm

Spends too much time on here
Joined
Apr 27, 2021
Messages
3,758
Reaction score
4,825
Location
North Idaho
Sir, you are a gentleman and a scholar and I commend you for this most eloquent and astute educational depiction you have hitherto presented in such a striking and illuminating manor okay that went too far...
You sure did. 🤣
 

AngelPhoenix

Ram Guru
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
1,571
Location
Halifax, PA
You sure did. 🤣
Are you making fun of my manor of speaking??
 

AngelPhoenix

Ram Guru
Joined
Aug 22, 2021
Messages
1,319
Reaction score
1,571
Location
Halifax, PA
A challenging question indeed. I had to deploy some rarely used resources to get this one done (WolframAlpha dot com, Aqua-calc dot com, etc). One cubic foot of Nylon-66 weighs 71.16 lbs, while the same volume of pine weighs 45 lbs. The Nylon-66 would certainly add to the durability of the final product, but does so at a cost of a 58.1% increase in weight, which should have a significant impact on the equation.

The difference between leg lengths (irrespective of the difference in the thickness of the sole) I would expect would've been automatically compensated for by the bodies parasympathetic nervous system over time, so I can remove that from the equation entirely; which brings us back to our original dilemma regarding the block composition and it's impact upon mileage.

The increased mass of the Nylon-66 makes it more difficult to move, which would tend to indicate better gas mileage since it's compartively harder to push the pedal down with the added mass. However, as harsh a penalty as is added by the extra weight, one would also expect a slight offset since that increased mass would also make it more difficult for the pedal to return to its original state, which means it would take longer to come off the gas, thus increasing a tendency toward worse mileage. This leaves us with a pedal that is not only more difficult to push, but in laymans terms, one that is also slightly more difficult to "un push". In the balance of things, the greater weight in the equation must be given to the fact that (all things held equal) it is, by its nature, more difficult to push to begin with, which would tend to improve fuel milage.

Furthermore I would suspect that a driver with a foot size of just 5.5 (American) would be of such short stature they'd also need step bars to gain access to the cab, which could add more drag. Additionally they'd probably need a booster seat, which would increase the amount of payload the truck is carrying at all times, even if by just a bit. For that I'll deduct 0.04 MPG.

Now, moving on to the comparison. The average shoe size or an adult male in the US is a 10.5 which translates into a foot length of 10.5 to 10.9 inches. To keep things simple, lets call it 10.5 inches. A size 5.5 foot on the other hand (see what I did there) is roughly 9.1 inches long, which is a 13.1% deficit vs the average size driver. Rather than run the math on fulcrum lengths and their required force to move the pedal (a calculation that would add a host of other assumptions to an already lengthy list) I'll take an analytical shortcut and say the that the Nylon 66 blocks, when used on a Laramie 1500 by a driver whose right leg is shorter than his left (but compensated for by a thicker sole on the right foot), and who wears a size 5.5 shoe will see no less than a 13.1% improvement in fuel economy over the taller driver, simply due to mechanical disadvantage induced by the shorter fulcrum. Obviously this assumes the shorter statured driver is properly hydrated.

Here's a big caveat: this analysis holds up well unless one of them has a tonneau cover, in which case all previous calculations would need to be recast.
Fuaci was wrong, this dude is the science.
 

Shots

Ram Guru
Joined
Jun 27, 2021
Messages
734
Reaction score
727
Location
N.E. Ohio
giphy.gif



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Perfectly executed. Although I fear the joke may be too dated for many to catch. For those of us who know though, that was perfectly placed.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top