Volusiano
Well-known member
Let's say you want to reach the speed of 45mph in city driving before you start gliding. Accelerating with 3 bubbles to the right of the center bubble will get you to the 45mph mark faster than accelerating with 1 bubble to the right of the center bubble. So while it expends more energy, it does it in less time with the faster acceleration. On the other hand, slower acceleration may expend less energy, but it takes long to reach 45mph. So if you calculate the total energy it takes to reach 45mph in both ways, wouldn't they come out to roughly the same anyway? Assuming that the energy efficiency of the motor doesn't change much in either scenario.
If so, why wouldn't you want to do the faster acceleration to save time off your trip? Time saved off your trip would also mean less AC time and less overhead energy consumption time, so you'd come out ahead in the end.
What am I missing here? I know conventional wisdom says that slower acceleration is better than faster acceleration. But I'm not sure I can explain why. Can you?
If so, why wouldn't you want to do the faster acceleration to save time off your trip? Time saved off your trip would also mean less AC time and less overhead energy consumption time, so you'd come out ahead in the end.
What am I missing here? I know conventional wisdom says that slower acceleration is better than faster acceleration. But I'm not sure I can explain why. Can you?