Resend my activation email : Register : Log in 
BCF: Bike Chat Forums


Fuel efficiencies - car vs ship vs plane

Reply to topic
Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat
View previous topic : View next topic  
Author Message

proximity
Crazy Courier



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:29 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Fuel efficiencies - car vs ship vs plane Reply with quote

Ive been doing some random maths on fuel consumption (bored). Completely useless information as usual, here goes:

Lets say the average car gets 40mpg.
A cruise ship will do six inches to the gallon !
Quote:
A cruise from London to New York would roughly burn 36.7 million gallons of fuel

London to New York is 10411 miles (i hope).
Say a cruise ship has 2000 passengers, thats 0.19 mpg per person. Very efficient!

Onto a 747:
A fully loaded 747 with 409 passengers will cruise at 576mph and uses 3378 gallons per hour.
That works out at 61 thousand gallons from london to new york.
Per person this is around 70 mpg, not bad!

So all in all you have learnt to stay away from ships. Bikes rule!

(I am probably well out on all this but this is what ive collected from the interweb, feel free to correct me.)
Cheers, bye.
____________________
2004 Aprilia Tuono
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Silver
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 02:42 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fascinating facts... however, surely the speed comes into it (economy wise). At what capacity are these travelling? For example, Is the ship flat out, or is it an average?
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

loply
World Chat Champion



Joined: 24 Mar 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 03:10 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not surprised the ship is so inefficient. A bike or plane you get going and it goes by itself, but a ship would stop incredibly quick with all that resistance, it needs constant hard pushing to make it budge.

Interesting that the plane worked out exactly the same as an efficient bike! So you could go round the world on a bike for the same cash as a plane... Roughly.
____________________
Yamaha SZR660 Caution to the wind, the throttle pinned!
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

mchaggis
World Chat Champion



Joined: 10 May 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 03:11 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

New York to London is apparently only 3471 miles. Shifty

My calculations still say 0.19 mpg per person though... Confused

https://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html

You might get more heavy fuel oil from each gallon of crude oil than you get petrol or paraffin (kerosene), but don't quote me on that.

My 747 calculation worked out at 23 mpg though. Shhh!
____________________
I must not be a troll...
Mmmm, Guinness
Discovering the delights of Hammerite and a 3/4" brush. Very Happy
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Silver
World Chat Champion



Joined: 03 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 03:15 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

loply wrote:
Interesting that the plane worked out exactly the same as an efficient bike! So you could go round the world on a bike for the same cash as a plane... Roughly.


Yeah, a boat has a lot more in the way of resistance to fight through. The speed that the boat travels and the height of the plane (they are more efficient at higher altitude) would make a big difference though I would think.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:16 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi

I would expect the ship to be far better than either of the of the bike. Once moving they don't take much to keep them going. Look at the canals where a single horse happily pulled massive loads which they could not hope to bodge on the roads.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

G
The Voice of Reason



Joined: 02 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 11:59 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don't know how many people they do take, but a large ship could reasonably take a lot more than 2000 people... that's only 4 times what the plane could take, yet it's massively bigger.

Maybe better to consider a ferry, that doesn't have quite so much onboard entertainment for it's size.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 12:57 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Re: Fuel efficiencies - car vs ship vs plane Reply with quote

proximity wrote:
A cruise ship will do six inches to the gallon !


Hi

Found this:-

https://www.cunard.com/onboard/default.asp?OB=QE2&Sub=sp&SubSubSection=TechInfo

According to that the QE2 will move 49.5 feet on a gallon of fuel. About 100 times better than the figure you gave and which seems about right.

With 1791 passengers and 921 crew it is managing 26.36 person miles per gallon.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

proximity
Crazy Courier



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:08 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm, if thats correct and london to new york is only 3471 miles, the plane would use only 20356 gallons, which still works out out 70 mpg (it will get the same efficiency per mile no matter how far it goes).
Those QE2 specs seem a lot more accurate than mine too, i couldnt think how you could use a gollon going 6", thats nothing.
____________________
2004 Aprilia Tuono
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 13:15 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi

Think it is take off that really kills aircraft fuel consumption, and once up to cruising height they are far better.

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts

Danny
Ask Me About Stoppie School



Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:34 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kickstart wrote:
Think it is take off that really kills aircraft fuel consumption, and once up to cruising height they are far better.
Take off uses more fuel than any other part of the flight, however landing also uses quite a bit of fuel as pilots generally keep the engines spooled up incase they need to abort.
Oh and you'd be shocked at how much fuel is wasted while taxiing.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

proximity
Crazy Courier



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:35 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yeh i have no idea how much they use on takeoff, i took the figure 3378 gallons per hour from BAs website, so that would be cruising speed i would think.
____________________
2004 Aprilia Tuono
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Danny
Ask Me About Stoppie School



Joined: 26 Jan 2003
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:38 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

proximity wrote:
Yeh i have no idea how much they use on takeoff,
You can't really get a standard figure as the amount of fuel used depends on the air pressure and weather etc.....
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Robby
Dirty Old Man



Joined: 16 May 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 16:42 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

One of the new big planes - newest airbus I think - is supposed to be capable of averaging the equivalent of 75mpg per person.

But yes, mass transport uses a lot of fuel, but it is fuel that wouldn't be used elsewhere much. The stuff that huge ships burn is practically tar, jets pretty much run on kerosene.

Tax is also minimal for them.
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

proximity
Crazy Courier



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:02 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

I thought you turn crude oil into stuff like petrol, i didnt think you could take the petrol out of the oil and still have all the rest left for other uses.
So say you take out 1000 litres of petrol out of the oil, can you still take out kerosene etc from the same bit of oil?

I thought the idea of "cracking" (it was a long time ago i did this) was to turn the hydrocarbon chains into what you want, like petrol. So you can get more petrol out of some oil than all the other things.
____________________
2004 Aprilia Tuono
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

proximity
Crazy Courier



Joined: 08 Oct 2004
Karma :

PostPosted: 17:19 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually i never mentioned trains, now theres a joke right there. I remember JC mentioning efficiencies of those on top gear a while back.
____________________
2004 Aprilia Tuono
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message You must be logged in to rate posts

Kickstart
The Oracle



Joined: 04 Feb 2002
Karma :

PostPosted: 18:11 - 03 Jan 2005    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi

Think an average train works out at about the energy efficiency of a single occupancy 55mpg diesel car, so worse than that of an averagely loaded car (and that is ignoring the extra bits of journey at either end trying to get to and from a station).

All the best

Keith
____________________
Traxpics, track day and racing photographs - Bimota Forum - Bike performance / thrust graphs for choosing gearing
 Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail You must be logged in to rate posts
Old Thread Alert!

The last post was made 21 years, 294 days ago. Instead of replying here, would creating a new thread be more useful?
  Display posts from previous:   
This page may contain affiliate links, which means we may earn a small commission if a visitor clicks through and makes a purchase. By clicking on an affiliate link, you accept that third-party cookies will be set.

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Bike Chat Forums Index -> General Bike Chat All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Read the Terms of Use! - Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group
 

Debug Mode: ON - Server: birks (www) - Page Generation Time: 0.10 Sec - Server Load: 0.33 - MySQL Queries: 13 - Page Size: 95.49 Kb