Miles per Gallon vs Gallons per Mile

I read this article at HybridCars.com regarding how in America, we look at Miles-per-Gallon (MPG) as opposed to how many Gallons we use per mile (GPM).

In the article, it states how "most people ranked an improvement from 34 to 50 mpg as saving more gas over 10,000 miles than an improvement from 18 to 28 mpg," when in actuality that isn't true. Let's look at why it isn't.

I get that
10,000 miles / 34mpg = 294 gallons used,
10,000/50=200
shows a difference of 94 gallons saved...

and
10,000/18=555
10,000/28=357
shows a difference of 198 gallons saved...

The problem is that I think the point they're trying to make is this: 200 gallons used /294 gallons used = only a 32% reduction in fuel usage switching from a 34mpg to a 50mpg vehicle, while 357 gallons used / 555 gallons used = a 36% reduction in fuel usage switching to a more economical SUV. The percentage of reduction in fuel usage is higher with the 10 mpg change than the 15 mpg change. That doesn't come across to clearly, though.

But that's still not the point (I don't think).

The get-to-the-bottom-line point is: with a higher percentage of reduction in fuel usage over 10,000 miles, the SUV driver will spend $792 (with gas at $4/gallon) by making a 10mpg change in vehicles from $2,200 to $1,480. This as opposed to the $376 the 15mpg change will save the other person ($1,176 to $800).

So they're saying: "you don't have to turn in your SUV and get a Prius; even a small change to a higher mpg vehicle will burn less gallons per mile and save you more money at the pump."

Well...duh?

Honestly, anything that gets better gas mileage OR gets to 10,000 miles using less gallons is going to save fuel in the long run.

But their idea is best described in graphical form:



As you can (kind of) see, as the MPG gets higher from left to right, there is a significant cost difference when you go from 10mpg to 20mpg, as opposed to 40mpg to 50mpg; the chart basically starts to level off the farther right you go. We could essentially continue this out to the right where we would be getting 10,000mpg (so it would cost you $1 to go 10,000 miles), but you should get the picture.

Of course, it's a good idea to try and get the person in the H2 Hummer thinking about how much they could save by just switching to an H3 (going from 7mpg -> 14mpg would be a $2,850 savings in gas over the 10,000 miles), but are that many people who bought a Hummer really thinking about cutting their gas bill in half? Maybe.

But think about this: Over the course of the 10,000 miles, it would take 200 gallons of gas with the 50mpg Prius as opposed to 555 gallons with the 18mpg Tahoe. So if each of us drove Priuses, we'd each use 355 less gallons of gas every 10,000 miles. In pocketbook dollars (at $4/gallon), that's $1,400 a year. If the Hummer H2 driver isn't concerned about a $2,850 difference, are Tahoe drivers going to be concerned about a $1,400 difference?

Maybe. The bottom line is that less gas used = less cost. So whatever way people think about it, be it in miles-per-gallon or gallons-per-mile or in dollars-and-cents, we need to change our ways and use less gas.

That's what we should all be striving for.

Roxy

I'm a pushover. Or just easy. Or a sucker.

Whatever you call it, I'm surrounded by females, so when they all want something, I'm powerless.

Tonight, it was a puppy.

I said "no" 30 times, but when the first word out of my wife's mouth was "awwwwww!" I knew I was toast.

So here's the new addition to our family, Roxy.


== Closeup ==


== The Pose ==

All together now:
"Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww!"

Edgar Allen Poe vs. the Dan Browns of the literary world

I enjoy reading, although I don't do enough of it. I spend too much time on this damn computer nowadays, and I realize it. However, when I do get off the desktop computer and take on something bound on paper, I usually focus on two categories.

Category One: Authors I've either heard are good, or the authors that I've already read something by and enjoy. For example, take Christopher Moore. Someone had once suggested that Lamb: The Gospel According to Biff, Christ's Childhood Pal by Christopher Moore was a good, funny read. So I looked it up on Amazon, read an excerpt which made me audibly laugh out loud, and I bought it. After reading that novel, I tore through the rest of his stuff until I read them all. Unfortunately, once I read them all, I now sit around impatiently waiting for him to write his next book. I did the same with Dan Brown, after reading The DaVinci Code, but he probably made so much money off of that he'll never write another book.

Category Two: Authors (or books) that are so popular (like The DaVinci Code) that I figure it's something I should read. This doesn't occur to often, usually around a book that transcends "bestseller" and becomes a type of phenomenon - like the Harry Potter book series - but it does happen.

Now, I've tried getting into reading "classic" books lately, authors like Voneggut and Poe. I'm not sure which "category" this falls into, because obviously they have been vastly popular (over time), while many others have said they're good. I also might have to read *something* by them - be it for a college class, or for a book club.

Most of the time, though, I don't enjoy reading "classics" because they're harder to understand, and therefore less enjoyable.

It's not that I don't understand the words - I'm rather adept at understanding this English language. In my opinion, I shouldn't have to put a lot of effort into understanding the paragraph, let alone the whole book. I should be able to read and be easily immersed in the descriptions of the story and the characters. Overtly descriptive words that embellish descriptions of things make the sentences too wordy and to me are just unnecessary.

To be clear: I enjoy good, in-depth descriptions that are well written.

For example, in The Fall of the House of Usher, Poe writes: "The room in which I found myself was very large and lofty. The windows were long, narrow, and pointed, and at so vast a distance from the black oaken floor as to be altogether inaccessible from within."

I get it, and in two simple yet descriptive sentences, Poe lays out the room for the reader.

However, from the same novel he writes: "I looked upon the scene before me - upon the mere house, and the simple landscape features of the domain - upon the bleak walls - upon the vacant eye-like windows - upon a few rank sedges - and upon a few whose trunks of decayed trees - with an utter depression of soul which I can compare to no earthly sensation more properly than to the after-dream of the reveler upon opium - the bitter lapse into every-day life - the hideous dropping off of the veil."

Yes, it's descriptive, but overtly-so. It's too wordy for my tastes, and makes me have to work at understanding what Poe is trying to accomplish with this description. Is it any better than the preceding example in communicating the scene? From both examples, one can conclude that "the room is big with black floors and big windows" for the first, and "the house was bleak and hungover-like" for the second. Some would argue that the second example is classic Poe. Great. Then I'll leave classic Poe alone, thank you, especially when the latter example of embellishment is more indicative of his work than the former.

What's my point with all of this? Between the "classics" and the "Dan Browns" of the world, I'll gladly choose another Dan Brown book over a classic when given the choice. Will I rob myself of the literary classics such as Shakespeare and Poe? Certainly, but why waste my time reading something I don't enjoy when I could be reading something I do?

Signed,
patiently waiting for the next Dan Brown book.

One Sheet

Cool images I was sent via email:

Entries for an art contest at the Hirshorn Modern Art Gallery in DC. The rule was that the artist could use only one sheet of paper.