What is it about acceleration that makes it less fuel efficient?
how about putting some thought into it .... what do you think the main reason would be ?
"Raw gas" through the carburetor in the "old days." Nowadays? Nothing but the sudden stops and starts. Everything burned in the engine goes up in smoke from the brakes.
let him think about it before answering
Don't get caught up in details of engine engineering. This question can be answered with basic principles and spherical cow assumptions.
How about firming up the question. Less efficient than what? And by what measure of "efficiency"?
LOL, I had to look that one up!
physics is based on spherical cow assumptions
The way you define 'Efficiency' will affect the result.
Mpg is a particular meaning of efficiency which is not really in tune with the normal Energy out / Energy in definition. If the 'useful Energy' were to be defined as 'how well you warm up the brake discs' then frequent speeding up and slowing down could give you higher 'efficiency'. (Tongue firmly in my cheek, here.)
As Dave has suggested, you need to be thinking about this on your own and then tell us your thoughts. (It's not straightforward School Physics.)
I got tripped up by the question, less efficient than deceleration, coasting.... what??
Maybe what is the most fuel efficient way to get from speed = 0 to speed = 100mph? There would be a clear answer to that I think.
For most cars, which are overpowered, you can get somewhat better fuel efficiency (versus distance) by accelerating and coasting (with clutch in or neutral), then a continuous speed, but that would interfere with traffic, coasting neutral with an automatic is illegal in some states in the USA, and it creates extra wear on a vehicle.
There's also the issue that for most cars, fuel efficiency (versus distance) is poor at speed below 40 mph == 64 kph, and there's a trade off on how fast you accelerate to 40 mph == 64 kph versus time spent at slower speed.
Accelerate/coast is efficient?
I would have thought continuous small acceleration?
If you didn't have enough fuel to reach your destination, how would you drive to maximize distance?
Is increase of drag with speed a factor to consider?
It's called the throttle for a reason. Would you expect an engine to be more efficient when it's throttled? (literally choking the fuel & air flow through the engine) or when the throttle is wide open and fuel & air flow is unrestricted? Modern injected engines are a bit smarter with how throttling is done but I suspect they're all still more efficient at WOT (wide open throttle).
If were talking about fuel economy then the easiest way to improve distance/fuel is to use the brakes less. And when possible, travel at the peak point of your cars economy vs speed curve.
So a drag car is fuel efficient??
Throttles I assume are wide open.
That's one way of looking at it. But, in the old days, you could buy a 'vacuum meter' which told you the pressure in the induction manifold. To help you get the best mpg, you avoided letting that pressure increase so you had to keep the butterfly valve as closed as possible - i.e. throttled.
But, as I have already pointed out, the term 'efficiency' is not used in this thread, in the way it is used in 'proper' Physics and Engineering. So everything here is little more than a matter of opinion.
As you say, use of brakes is wasteful of fuel and they are needed more often if you spend your time needlessly accelerating. Basically, you have to drive in such a way as to be a pain in the butt for everyone who's following you.
I assume you are being ironic here. The stench of unburned fuel at drag meetings tells you that drag cars are not designed for efficiency (conventional or mpg type).
I imagine that 'real' efficiency is an important criterion for F1 cars, which need to go as fast as possible and to eek out their fuel.
F1 cars I would think are not efficient, they are grossly overpowered to compensate for their constant deceleration/acceleration around tight tracks and cornering. They are literally the opposite of aerodynamic. Their top speed is not great and doesn't have to be.
But ya, the way efficient is used in the OP is ambiguous.
Their was a hybrid fuel / human power race with a total fuel limit. Efficiency became important for competitors.
it's one of the most inefficient uses of fuel on the planet
they are not interested in efficiency, just in generating lots of power and doing that very quickly
That may be true of an engine that is designed and built to run at WOT all the time, but an automobile engine is not. Up to 70% - 80% throttle, the fuel system is designed to run at stoichiometric air/fuel ratio. If it continued to run at stoichiometric ratio near WOT, the combustion chamber would develop too much pressure and heat and be damaged. To prevent this damage, additional fuel is added at and near WOT. This reduces combustion chamber temperature simply by absorbing heat to evaporate.
In the real world, engines are not simple mechanical heat engines anymore. There is some pretty complex software that controls them, and effects how efficient they are under different conditions. Generally the engines and matching software should be designed so that peak efficiency happens under the most typical driving conditions. (unless it's a VW, in which case peak efficiency correlates to governmental testing conditions instead. ;-)
Even at peak efficiency though, efficiency is pretty low because the engine needs to operate under a wide range of loads and speeds. You could make an engine that is very efficient at 2000 rpm at 30% throttle, that would get great highway gas mileage, and be absolutely onerous to drive under any other conditions. Nobody would buy that car.
This is 1 reason that hybrids get better gas mileage. They design the engines to be very efficient in a narrow range of conditions, then keep them in those conditions, by supplementing them with electrical power when demand is higher, and drawing off excess power to save for later when demand is low.
Separate names with a comma.