The Fuel Cost of Obesity 285
thecarchik writes "America loves to complain about gas mileage and the cost of gasoline. As it turns out, part of the problem is us. How much does it really matter? A study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found a 1.1 percent increase in self-reported obesity, which translates into extra weight that your vehicle has to haul around. The study estimates that 1 billion extra gallons of fuel were needed to compensate for passenger weight gained between 1960 and 2002."
Remember... (Score:3, Informative)
Lets do a little math ... (Score:3, Informative)
The equation [wikimedia.org]
Ok, I don't have the time or inclination to figure this out. But I bet
Re:So? (Score:4, Informative)
Bad summary. 1B gals/year is quotes in the article.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:3, Informative)
How do they know it's passenger weight gain? Cars got heavier between 1960 and 1974
The car itself doesn't matter. If you're committed to taking car X then the increase in car X's load between a fat passenger and a thin passenger increases the load and thus the fuel use. That a heavier car uses more fuel than a lighter car is not the comparison. A heavier passenger in a heavy car still uses more fuel than a light passenger in a heavy car.
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:4, Informative)
We probably don't. Any round number like that is suspicious to start with.
However, your observation does lead to a good point. Extra vehicle weight, and other factors, do affect fuel mileage.
Every pound you add to your vehicle (whether it be lard or steel) reduces your fuel mileage by some small percentage (especially in city driving). Every item you add to your vehicle that interferes with the smooth flow of air around your vehicle also has the same effect, including roof racks, etc (especially in highway driving). Fast starts and heavy acceleration also have a significant effect, as does driving very fast (these two often add to maintenance costs, as well, and apply to both city AND highway).
These "little things" have a way of adding up to a measurable amount of money at the end of the year.
To keep the math easy, take a 20MPG pickup with $2/gallon fuel. That's ten cents a mile for fuel. If you drive 10,000 miles a year, fuel for that vehicle will cost you $1,000.
For every 10% (2MPG) increase or decrease, you are looking at an approximate additional expense or savings of $100 per year. So adding those cargo racks to the back of the truck just cost you the cost of the racks, plus $50-100 a year as an ongoing expense in lost fuel. If you don't need them, take them off. Or spend a few bucks on the ones that fold down out of the way.
Carrying around 200 pounds of bricks in your trunk for a month when it never snowed at all just cost you $5, which you could have saved by removing them until snow was forecast. Putting your studded snow tires on two months before it started snowing cost you $10 and made you put a couple thousand miles of wear on a set of studded snows that are a lot more expensive per mile than regular tires.
Racing off the line to beat the other guy in the shinier car to the merge cost you a between a dime and a half a dollar.
You saved $100 on a set of tires, but are annoyed because they are a tad noisier than you had hoped for. Guess what? That noise probably means the tires have higher rolling resistance, and over the 30,000 mile lifetime of those tires you'll end up spending $200 more in fuel to run them. Run them underinflated for a while and they'll wear out faster and cost you even more fuel.
Each of these things cost you money. Money you could use to buy other things if you wanted to.
Whether you choose to spend it on them is, of course, your decision. But it's a good idea to think about them.
Think about that the next time you are first in line at a red light, the lane merges ahead, and you've got some dude in a fancy car who wants to play. Do you want to be first? Glue a quarter on the dashboard near the redline indicator to remind you that it costs money. Spend it if you want, but be aware you are spending it.
Re:Lets do a little math ... (Score:3, Informative)
The first section of TFA clarifies that they looked also at the size increase of cars / tried to determine the influence of obesity on the trend of buying larger ones. After all, what size of a car / seat is comfortable to you (and as far as I can tell, there's not really any gain in going above "yup, it's comfortable" level) is quite tightly related to your shape - the photo in TFA is quite telling.
They also touched on the increased risk of crashes - apparently not only because of car sizes, also because obese drivers are less likely to use seatblets (troubles with fitting them...)
Re:How about (Score:3, Informative)
So suck my fat dick....
hmmm (Score:3, Informative)
In the grand scope of things, 1B gallons over that time span is piss in the ocean.
1B gallons / 31 gallons per barrel = 32,258,064.5 barrels. Thats less than the US consumes in 2 days [doe.gov].
Re:Less than one percent... (Score:3, Informative)
My 2007 mustang GT got 31mpg on the highway and has 300hp. Back in 1970 a 300hp mustang required 458 cubic inches and got 12mpg.
Go crash your Pinto and Beetle (Score:4, Informative)
Fuel economy has done well, not as good as it might have, but gasoline engine improvements are measured in percents.
When you start with an inefficient process your not going to get remarkable numbers without some major innovation.
Direct injection, turbo charging, start/stop, and other technologies are helping. Yet cars are heavier now because of all the creature comforts we desire and all the government regulations demanding the vehicles transmit the minimal amount of energy to the occupants in a crash.
Crashes that would have killed everyone in your example vehicles and left a vehicle barely recognizable now leave occupants nearly untouched and with some vehicles actually repairable.
Crashes that could not be avoided in your cars these days can be. Situations that were dangerous to drive in are very much less so.
No cars have come far, the race between efficiency and safety is erring to the side of safety.
While people throw out the bogeymen of SUVs and the like they ignore the fact that the majority of sedans get crap mileage as well.
Old beetles usually did 28 to 32 on the highway, took almost twenty seconds to reach 60. You could probably crash an infinite number of them into a new beetle before the new one was not drivable. You of course would have a lot of scrap old beetles laying around afterward.
Taking the mileage out of context does not make your argument better except at a cursory glance.
Frankly I would not dare drive most older cars everyday. Their brakes were horrid and their suspensions not much better.
As for the carb versus fuel injection comparison, get real. What you can do with direct injection shames a carb in both efficiency and pollution.
Bicycle (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Bicycle (Score:2, Informative)
And you would have lower blood pressure...
And you would have lower cholesterol...
And you would have fewer and lower medical bills...
And you would live longer...
And...
Re:How about (Score:3, Informative)
I ride a 600 pound motorcycle, so I use less gas than almost EVERY skinny person that drives their car to work alone. And I get to use the HOV lane, which means I'm not in stop-and-go traffic as often.
I'm not aware of any 600 pound motorcycles that get fuel economy worth a fuck. What is your actual economy like? And I don't mean theoretical or best-case, I mean what you get on average.
Further, you're probably polluting four times as much as an SUV or more per mile, due to the lack of meaningful emissions controls on motorcycles. So fuck you anyway with your allegedly fat dick. (If you really had one, you wouldn't need to tell us about it, or your motorcycle.)