Post #2874820

2026-03-27 10:28 UTC

@helge@mastodon.social @finestructure@mastodon.social For a given amount of time, sure, but for a given distance, if you use just a tiny bit more energy to get there significantly faster, then you use less overall, hence better fuel economy, right? Same logic applies to our Mac — sure the efficiency cores always win, but if you “must” use your super (lol) cores at all, better use them for the smallest duration of time you need if you want to get the most battery life 😛

Replies (1)

@leeloo@c.im 2026-03-27 11:06

@dimitribouniol@mastodon.social @helge@mastodon.social @finestructure@mastodon.social Moving a mass a certain distance requires a certain amount of energy. This part you cannot overcome by taking shorter time. Then you need to add air resistance on top, which if I remember 8th grade physics correctly goes up four times when you double the speed. So in theory, the faster you go, the more energy it takes to go the same distance, period. This breaks down in ICE cars when you switch to a lower gear, because then the engine needs to go faster to move the same distance. So generally, you will get the best fuel economy by driving the slowest your engine will willingly¹ go in the highest gear. But... Going a constant speed always beats acceleration, and braking is literally turning energy into heat and brake pad wear, so you need to factor traffic into the equation. ¹) As in, if your engine starts coughing and spluttering, you are going too slow and wasting fuel trying not to stall the engine.

Open ##2874821