what's better, time vs distance

**mrpink** · February 24th, 2006 01:18 PM

hahaha .. akala ko sa title away ng mag syota .. kelangan lang ba ng time apart .. or kelangan lumayo ..

**XTO** · February 24th, 2006 01:43 PM

A route ako, better to go longer route basta di malubak and less traffic. lakas makadumi ng air cleaner pag traffic. gastos pa sa clutch and brake.

**altec** · March 17th, 2006 01:24 PM

ibang route naman. One route is 5kms, takes 20 minutes to travel. Another route, much less traffic, is 7.5kms, but also takes 20 minutes to travel. So it takes the same time to reach your destination.

Which would you prefer? The 2nd route seems to have less stop and go, more highway driving, but takes 2.5kms more, the 1st route more on 2nd/3rd gear some 4th gear, but less kms to travel...

**niky** · March 17th, 2006 02:38 PM

Here, one route has you going an average of 16.6 km/h for 5 kms, the other has you going 25 km/h for 7.5 kms. Both routes have you going below the optimum economy speed of 50 km/h, so you go for the one that lets you spend less time traveling... theoretically, you'll use the same amount of gas because you're driving so slowly... the amount of aircon you use will have an even greater effect than distance travelled given such low speeds. The traffic on your routes, by the way, is atrocious.

But since you spend the same amount of time on both routes, go for the one that makes you stop less. Slowing down and getting back up to speed drinks more gas. Apparently, the second route lets you stay at a steady speed longer, so this may be the more economical route.

Originally Posted by altec

I measured two different routes:

Route A: 9.5 kms, total time it takes to travel, 20 minutes. Much less traffic, frequent fifth gear opportunities.

Route B: 7 kms, total time it takes to travel, 30 minutes. Mainly 3rd gear, with occasional 4th gear, very few 5th gear.

With fuel prices this high, which would be better, overall?

As for your first question, travel time indicates an average speed of 31 km/h in route A and 14 km/h in route B. Again, travel times indicate a lot of traffic, so distance becomes less of a factor. Again, the clincher is really which route lets you get away with maintaining speed longer. Apparently, this is route A, but unless you record the average number of stops and the amount of time spent idlingper route, you can never be too sure.

**albert_b** · March 17th, 2006 02:54 PM

check your RPM ... more stop-and-go's or more acceleration-deceleration means more gas consumption, so the best route is the one with the least stop-and-go's. But ofcourse, sa option 1 mo dapat mga around 60-80kph ka lang ;-) doing a 150kph will definitely consume more gasoline.

**altec** · March 17th, 2006 11:54 PM

di naman ganun lang ang takbo, based on the average speed, kasama na kasi yung time you were on a standstill while waiting for the stoplights to turn green.

**niky** · March 18th, 2006 11:12 AM

Then go for the one with less stoplights.

Idling with the aircon on consumes a lot of gas at 0 km/l... and accelerating after a stoplight uses more gas than just cruising at one speed.

**jim** · March 18th, 2006 11:56 AM

ganyan din situation ko. if i take the aguinaldo hiway everyday i consume more gas. ubos ang 5-6 liters ko in one day due to traffic and bad road conditions. on the other hand when i take the aternate route (salinas - talaba) which is 10 kms. longer than the aguinaldo hiway, i end up consuming only 4 liters everyday since less ang stops at no traffic pero same BAD road conditions!!!

**wren** · March 19th, 2006 10:02 PM

to me, the scenery is important too. i have a choice between two highways to go to a certain destination, and i always end up taking the more scenic one. mas relaxing kasi, kahit na 20 miles longer, tsaka mas mabilis pa ang flow ng traffic.