Support road.cc

Like this site? Help us to make it better.

forum

Drivers and petrol - tea shop

Village Facebook noticing that our local garage is now charging £1.60 / ltr and saying it's 8p less in town (10 mile round trip to save £3, anyone?) Someone saying it'll be £2 by the end of the month.

I reacted cautiously to the "shortage" of fuel in September - a lot more desperate scratting about for supplies and not concentrating was my take.

I don't wish financial hardship on anyone, but there's the energy cap change and the increase in NI all coming down the track.  The best ways to economise on fuel are to drive less, drive smaller, stick at 55 mph, check tyre pressures, drive like you're a cyclist - keep a steady momentum.

I wonder what we'll see on the roads and at the pumps in the coming weeks? 

If you're new please join in and if you have questions pop them below and the forum regulars will answer as best we can.

Add new comment

39 comments

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
2 likes

A couple of reports on local FB groups of local filling stations being "out", diesel seems to be the most affected. Just Stop Oil being blamed. Drivers actually trying to steady each other's nerves and not kick off another wave of "brimming" your tank. 

Curious place, local FB.  This week I posted a builder's van 100% blocking the pavement. Our moderator doesn't usually allow this sort of thing, so I was suprised it ran.  Not sure who won that one, but the loudest voices, from white van man, were saying I should have (single-handedly, and there were 3 of them) asked them to move it, because that would totally would have happened, had I done so;  I'm clearly such a snowflake.

Not sure where we are getting to on councils enforcing pavement parking - not convinced it needs anything other than being prioritised, but I can see them being kept quite busy, at least to begin with. It's gone unchecked for too long now, many drivers no longer see it as wrong and will go into their usual victim mode if caught. 

Then elsewhere, on a new housing development fronting our main road, they've put in a small children's play area: why, oh why?? People seem to get that the side of the main road isn't a nice place for anyone to linger, but make no further connection. 

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
1 like

I predict a rise in this sort of thing:

NHS transport vehicles have fuel stolen in Blandford

https://www.bournemouthecho.co.uk/news/20065995.nhs-transport-vehicles-f...

Avatar
andystow replied to David9694 | 2 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
brooksby replied to andystow | 2 years ago
1 like

Last month a few tabloids ran a story about a thief filling up a wheelie bin with petrol...  I won't put links, and TBH I've half convinced myself it is fake news anyway.

Avatar
Rendel Harris replied to brooksby | 2 years ago
2 likes

brooksby wrote:

Last month a few tabloids ran a story about a thief filling up a wheelie bin with petrol...  I won't put links, and TBH I've half convinced myself it is fake news anyway.

Found the story (slow work day) and seems to be semi-fake news, from the video he's clearly filling containers inside the wheelie bin, the bin itself is just a convenient trolley to carry away the jerrycans or whatever he has inside it.

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
1 like

"Yesterday my daughter tried seven petrol stations on Sheppey and in Sittingbourne without any luck." (That's a 20 mile round trip)

Petrol and diesel shortages affecting Sheppey and Sittingbourne

https://www.kentonline.co.uk/sheerness/news/drivers-face-fuel-nightmares...

This is being blamed on Just Stop Oil, who get a brief mention. If they are descendants of Insulate Britain, wouldn't it be better to think that they might just be right, rather than arrest them and double down on ignoring the point they're trying to make?

photo caption: Sheerness roads gridlocked by drivers trying to get fuel at Tesco this morning. Picture: Googlemaps

Avatar
ktache replied to David9694 | 2 years ago
6 likes

Insulate British had a very good point.

Provide jobs, reduce people's heating bills, reduce carbon.

And relatively quick.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to ktache | 2 years ago
1 like

True - but those are not the skilled / "technology" jobs we are seeking apparently. Nor is "use less energy / resources and make your usage more efficient" the way things run long-term.

Digression: I suspect you can live a very fulfilling life at a former level of technology *.  But we all want to keep up with the Joneses because that drives our social lives and that involves having more / new stuff.

* Caveat - we'd almost certainly need to back-port some modern medical tech because no-one - not even "alternative medicine" types - wants to go back to shamans and herbalists to fix their broken leg. Healt spending as a percentage of "income" continues to rise and indeed faster than GDP.

Avatar
Rich_cb replied to ktache | 2 years ago
0 likes

It was an incredibly good point, made incredibly badly.

There was an opinion piece in the Telegraph (boo/hiss etc etc) recently calling for more insulation and better energy efficiency.

The comments were full of those vehemently opposed to the idea ostensibly because of IB's antics.

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
4 likes

They (IB) aren't making many friends. However I doubt there would be many people signing up to the idea - who haven't already - even if it was presented by Jacob Rees-Mogg (or indeed anyone short of the queen).  The objections you hear are almost exactly the same as for bike infra. "Yes we need to do something about this / I'm all for the environment, BUT..." It's usually "not now", "not in this way", "not here", "I'll do this for myself in my own time" etc.

Avatar
hawkinspeter replied to Rich_cb | 2 years ago
5 likes

Rich_cb wrote:

It was an incredibly good point, made incredibly badly. There was an opinion piece in the Telegraph (boo/hiss etc etc) recently calling for more insulation and better energy efficiency. The comments were full of those vehemently opposed to the idea ostensibly because of IB's antics.

The problem with protesting is that you'll either get criticised for not making enough of an impact, or you'll get criticised for making too much of an impact.

I'd suggest that if IB are winding up Telegraph (and other papers, too) commenters then they're heading in the right direction. Whether they will be successful remains to be seen.

Historically, if we look at almost any successful protests that ended up effecting a meaningful change, there were hordes of people criticising their tactics. My favourite example is the suffragettes and their use of violence to get what they wanted (eventually).

Ultimately, if you want to change the status quo, then people (especially the older and wealthier) will get upset and angry - there's simply no way to change things whilst keeping people happy unless you just kick the can down the road (c.f. conservative strategy). Unfortunately, the world has been kicking the can down the road for decades.

Avatar
David9694 replied to ktache | 2 years ago
2 likes

And relatively painless, I'd have thought.  Whether you scale it at one household or many, it's hard to see what the downside is.

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
0 likes
Avatar
Chris Hayes | 2 years ago
0 likes

I'd question whether driving at 55mph (as opposed to the speed limt) saves much on modern engines.  I had to drive to Yorkshire yesterday from my home in London to see my ailing mother and, as usual, set off at 0430 to avoid traffic and get there intime to have breakfast with her.  

As I wasn't in a rush I drove at 55mph to test this, then 60mph, then 70mph.  The difference in fuel consumption according to the trip computer between 55 and 70 mpg was less that that required to get up the gradient on the M11 just outside the M25.... 

The speed limit was lowered when engines were normally aspirated and cars were generally inefficient....

Avatar
OldRidgeback replied to Chris Hayes | 2 years ago
8 likes

It's not to do with the engine, it's to do with the aerodynamics. Your vehicle uses considerably less fuel at 55mph than at 70mph because air displacement is less of an issue at lower speeds. The energy required to contend with air displacement increases exponentially the faster you go. While cars are admittedly more aerodynamic than they were in the 1970s, the improvement has been that great that it brings such a benefit. Try making the whole motorway journey at 55mph and then at 70mph and you will see a significant difference. Bear in mind that the stop/go traffic you contend with at either end will burn a lot of fuel. Bear in mind also that to make you fuel go further, slow acceleration will make a big saving too.

Avatar
TriTaxMan replied to OldRidgeback | 2 years ago
4 likes

OldRidgeback wrote:

It's not to do with the engine, it's to do with the aerodynamics. Your vehicle uses considerably less fuel at 55mph than at 70mph because air displacement is less of an issue at lower speeds. The energy required to contend with air displacement increases exponentially the faster you go. While cars are admittedly more aerodynamic than they were in the 1970s, the improvement has been that great that it brings such a benefit. Try making the whole motorway journey at 55mph and then at 70mph and you will see a significant difference. Bear in mind that the stop/go traffic you contend with at either end will burn a lot of fuel. Bear in mind also that to make you fuel go further, slow acceleration will make a big saving too.

I agree.  I did just that in my previous car, if I was driving on a motorway at 70mph I would average around 50mpg (calculated from fill to fill), but I had been away visiting friends in Central Scotland and was driving back to Southern Scotland around 9pm on a Sunday evening.  I wasn't in a hurry and needed fuel so I filled the car up, reset the fuel consumption computer as I set off from my friends and I basically sat with the cruise control on at 50mph for the 90miles of driving on motorways and quiet A Roads, by the end of the journey the the car was displaying 65mpg average for the journey..... when I refilled the car the following morning and it came back at 62mpg.

That basically ties in with the estimates that fuel consumption is increased by around 20% for an increase of 15-20mph about 50mph.  Apparently however for electric cars the difference is bigger.  Estimates put that at 50mph a Tesla would use 220Wh per mile travelled but by 70mph that is increased to 300Wh per mile so that seems to be about 35% less efficent 

Avatar
Chris Hayes replied to OldRidgeback | 2 years ago
0 likes

I'd disagree that fuel efficiency has nothing to do with the engine, but I take your point.  I drove beyond Cambridge at 55mph, so a fair stretch: cruise control on empty roads with no braking; Cambridge to Grantham at 60mph and the rest - as far as was possible - at 70mph, but by this time traffic has picked up and there was some light braking.  

My understanding of aerodynamics is that circa 50% of fuel is expended overcoming wind resistance at speeds above 50mph... but the difference between 55 and 70 is negligible - 2-3mpg according to my fuel utilisation data anyway. I wish it were otherwise.  

Avatar
Troon replied to Chris Hayes | 2 years ago
2 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

The speed limit was lowered when engines were normally aspirated and cars were generally inefficient....

ICE cars are still hugely inefficient. The best you'll get from a diesel engine is about 40% thermodynamic efficiency, and that peak efficiency comes at relatively high load. This masks the aerodynamic effect to a degree — in electric cars and on bicycles it is clear. Aero drag goes up with the square of the speed.

Avatar
wycombewheeler replied to Chris Hayes | 2 years ago
4 likes

Chris Hayes wrote:

I'd question whether driving at 55mph (as opposed to the speed limt) saves much on modern engines.

I reckon you save the most by driving at 62mph, so you can sit in the left lane behind a massive great HGV

Avatar
chrisonabike replied to wycombewheeler | 2 years ago
0 likes

wycombewheeler wrote:

Chris Hayes wrote:

I'd question whether driving at 55mph (as opposed to the speed limt) saves much on modern engines.

I reckon you save the most by driving at 62mph, so you can sit in the left lane behind a massive great HGV

Motoring peleton.  Apparently also works for bikes if you can gear high enough.

Avatar
Prosper0 | 2 years ago
3 likes

Every day I still see drivers parked up, idling their engines, so clearly fuel is still too cheap..

Avatar
David9694 | 2 years ago
2 likes

not so far noticing less or better driving - you have to wonder what it would take for this to happen and when/how the effects will be felt individually.

It's a crude, regressive rise, affecting the poorest folk first and presumably leaves the richest able to carry on, perhaps with even more road space to tear up. Do the poorer people just not travel, or do they go by other means?

Do you pay your £55 to fill up from one-quarter and go ouch "then" or does it hit (mentally) at month-end? Or what?  What other (discretionary) spend is curtailed?
 

 

Avatar
Spangly Shiny | 2 years ago
2 likes

As I recall at the time of London Olympics the cost of Brent Crude was north o $130 a barrel yet the pump price was £1.32 (I still have the till runs). How is it that with a Brent crude price of $119 a barrel today the pump price is ove £1.50?

Avatar
mdavidford replied to Spangly Shiny | 2 years ago
1 like

Well, at least in part, it will be because the source crude is only one cost of many that has to be factored in. Leaving aside costs of refinement, there will be costs of franchising, of employment, of taxes, of heating and lighting, etc., etc., which may all have increased over the last ten years. Then you also have to consider sales of other products - if those have fallen, or margins have shrunk, the shortfall would have to be made up in the price of the core product.

Avatar
Simon E replied to mdavidford | 2 years ago
3 likes

There is also a suspicion that companies are making up for the loss of revenue when prices were low during the pandemic.

Avatar
kinderje replied to Spangly Shiny | 2 years ago
0 likes

I found out today that different refineries are set up to process specific types of crude oil. So, a refinery cannot start to process Saudi oil if it was originally set up for Russian supplies.

Avatar
mdavidford replied to kinderje | 2 years ago
2 likes

kinderje wrote:

I found out today that different refineries are set up to process specific types of crude oil. So, a refinery cannot start to process Saudi oil if it was originally set up for Russian supplies.

Also apparently different blends produced for summer and winter markets.

A bit like Pimms.

Avatar
matlockmark replied to Spangly Shiny | 2 years ago
4 likes

Spangly Shiny wrote:

As I recall at the time of London Olympics the cost of Brent Crude was north o $130 a barrel yet the pump price was £1.32 (I still have the till runs). How is it that with a Brent crude price of $119 a barrel today the pump price is ove £1.50?

Since brexit the value of the pound against the dollar has dropped by about 30%. Oil is priced in dollars, so this accounts for most of the difference you are seeing.

Avatar
Simon E | 2 years ago
6 likes

"The best ways to economise on fuel are to drive less, drive smaller, stick at 55 mph, check tyre pressures, drive like you're a cyclist"

That has always been the case but people are so blasé about the cost. Far easier to moan about fuel being £1.60/litre than doing something constructive about the amount of it they use.

The entitlement culture means that it's seen as tantamount to eco-fascism and "infringing their Human Rights" to suggest that they drive less or drive considerately/carefully (despite the fact that they are invariably trampling others' right to clean air and being able to get from A to B safely).

In one way I don't want vehicle fuel prices to rise - it will have serious knock-on effects on the price of food, probably everything - but if it resulted in people deciding to permanently change their habits and drive less (including those with EVs) then it would be in other ways a great improvement over the current state of affairs.

Pages

Latest Comments