Idling: Socially unacceptable?

Nasher · 19 Oct 2019 at 12:32

Jonnycoupe said:
It’s not good no, it’s definitely better than everyone with their engines running. It’s almost like there is legislation to encourage such technology and now there’s even a transition to where stop start is equipped the driver can no longer turn the feature off. The move to 48V systems with lithium batteries that tolerate much deeper depth of discharge makes your point even more invalid.

Stop/start works differently though. It's not the same as actually turning the car on and off.

And yea you can disable it, in the ECU

Conscript · 19 Oct 2019 at 13:05

Pretty sure this argument has been done before, and the amount of fuel needed to start an already warm engine is something like the equivalent it would need to idle for 3-4 seconds. So if you're stopping for any longer than that, it's more efficient to switch off.

Jonnycoupe · 19 Oct 2019 at 14:58

Nasher said:
Stop/start works differently though. It's not the same as actually turning the car on and off.

And yea you can disable it, in the ECU

yea it is in terms of cranking effort which is the primary electrical load you are trying to refer to.

Amp34 · 19 Oct 2019 at 20:43

Nasher said:
It takes a lot of energy to start an engine, especially a diesel...

If everyone is turning their engines on and off in traffic it's not good.

https://afdc.energy.gov/files/u/publication/which_is_greener.pdf

Testing at 21°C ambient conditions on a late-model mid-sized American car shows that idling for more than 10 seconds uses more fuel (Figure 3) and emits more CO2 (Table 1) than engine restarting.

US link but it's relevant to the UK too (although I'll admit it uses an older car with a larger engine than most UK cars, but idle and startup figures will be affected).

I turn my engine off at lights regularly - although usually ones I know the timing of. I also very rarely idle the engine, even in winter. It's just a waste in most situations and a car can usually keep the heat in long enough when waiting for someone.

Even with that the idle time counter on my car is still higher than I'd expect. You can spend hundreds of hours idling. That's a lot of fuel.

Scania · 19 Oct 2019 at 20:55

I often get shouted at for idling my truck, Central London and Cambridge for whatever reason, usually in a situation where I’d be pulling away in seconds regardless.

I usually ignore them or just point out I’m no worse (emissions wise) than a VW Polo.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vw-polo-as-toxic-as-fully-laden-lorry-6zx9295g5

ironically, Scania are owned by VW....

almoststew1990 · 19 Oct 2019 at 23:24

I hate people idling for no reason. It always seems to be an annoyingly loud 15 year old zafira diesel. In the summer evenings its nice and quiet outside until some neighbour's visitor pulls up and we're treated to 15 minutes of DAG DAG DAG DAG until they switch It off. In the supermarket car parks people like to wait with the engine running whilst someone goes in for 10 mins. Its a basement car park and it stinks of diesel fumes for a 10m radius.

Im sure petrols and modern diesels drivers do it too but I can't hear that so it doesn't bother me

I remember I was driving a colleague who had onlybbeen driving a year and she had a 15 year old diesel golf - definitely not a car person other than the badge . We were in my 15 year old 330ci petrol and she asked "did you stall?" when we pulled up to the first set of lights as it idled so quietly and smoothly in comparison to her golf!

bimbleuk · 20 Oct 2019 at 06:44

Coincidentally I went to so a shop and a car was idling in a bay near the entrance and because of this thread I mentally noted. Sure enough when I can out the driver was still sat there idling so about 15-20 mins of pointless idling. In traffic it would be harder to enforce unless it was an unusually long delay or the drive was familiar with the route and made that decision. Otherwise stop start should be the norm from now on or EVs of course.

Anyway some facts for you from my favourite source Engineering Explained. Simply put idling longer than ~7.0 secs for a small 4 cylinder used more fuel than turning the engine on and off. Stop Start does save fuel and obviously reduces emissions though that wasn't the point of the vid.

Lopéz · 20 Oct 2019 at 10:23

Jonnycoupe said:
wow. You are still making stuff up.

Correct

Jonnycoupe said:
Just been into town and saw a car parked up half on the kerb with the engine running for 30 minutes whilst clearly his missus was shopping. That is the sort of thing they are talking about with idling. Not when you are simply part of traffic.

Also correct

Terminal_Boy · 20 Oct 2019 at 10:40

Idling when parked has been an offence in France since 1963.

The law required parked cars to have their engines turned off, "except in case of necessity, in particular during cold weather".

€135 fixed fine. Has started to be widely enforced recently, so people park up and head into the shops (all the larger supermarkets have a cafe inside) if it’s too to sit in the car without the AC running.

Freakbro · 20 Oct 2019 at 11:03

Scania said:
I often get shouted at for idling my truck, Central London and Cambridge for whatever reason, usually in a situation where I’d be pulling away in seconds regardless.

I usually ignore them or just point out I’m no worse (emissions wise) than a VW Polo.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/vw-polo-as-toxic-as-fully-laden-lorry-6zx9295g5

ironically, Scania are owned by VW....

How do the CO2 emissions compare?

Nasher · 20 Oct 2019 at 11:12

No2 is about 10x worse than co2 so probably irrelevant

chaparral · 20 Oct 2019 at 11:29

Don't most cars on the road today have stop/start ?

Even my mother old 2011 ford KA has stop/start so am guessing almost all cars that are up to about 8 to 10 years old have stop/start fitted as standard

[TW]Fox · 20 Oct 2019 at 13:58

Nasher said:
No2 is about 10x worse than co2 so probably irrelevant

Not really, as it's co2 that is the worry from a climate change perspective.

Nasher · 20 Oct 2019 at 14:10

[TW]Fox said:
Not really, as it's co2 that is the worry from a climate change perspective.

No2 is much worse and will damage plant life (and the lungs of animals) directly over time, as well as cause acid rain. In the UK we have our tax system backwards really and don't factor in NOX/NO2 emissions. If we did many diesels would shoot in to the highest bracket.

Co2 is only a problem because of the amount of it we produce, it's not a harmful gas.

Simon · 20 Oct 2019 at 14:57

Go have a lung full of co2 and see how you get on

bainbridge · 20 Oct 2019 at 15:40

Simon said:
Go have a lung full of co2 and see how you get on

Well you're generating lung fulls of it right now, how are you getting on?

CO (carbon monoxide) is the poisonous stuff that comes out of the exhaust and can kill if inhaled.

Simon · 20 Oct 2019 at 17:09

bainbridge said:
Well you're generating lung fulls of it right now, how are you getting on?

CO (carbon monoxide) is the poisonous stuff that comes out of the exhaust and can kill if inhaled.

Not quite full lungs as only about 4% co2 is emitted. Humans will die if they breathe in air with too much co2.

Obviously I’m being dramatic but government tax on co2 isn’t the only thing driving emissions down. The EURO emissions standards do too but obviously nasher is ignoring these.

Nasher · 20 Oct 2019 at 17:18

You can die if you breath in to much of any gas. Including pure oxygen...

NoX is also a carcinogenic, Co2 isn't.

Lopéz · 20 Oct 2019 at 17:18

Nasher said:
Co2 is only a problem because of the amount of it we produce, it's not a harmful gas.

It's pretty harmful if you try breathing it.

Jonnycoupe · 20 Oct 2019 at 17:20

He also forgot to mention PM aswell which is an element to consider when make articulating an point on pollution. The problem lies when you are simple regurgitating stuff - it’s like the internet Daily Nash report.