Hi dhairyajain,Good news: your approach isn't a fluke. It's genuinely valid, and the number you called a "proportionality constant" (
45/
36 =
1.25) is exactly the same k·d that the longer solutions in this thread arrive at. Let me show you
why it works, because the reason is subtle.
The key move is turning "per hour" into "per mile."The rate is C = k·v2 gallons
per hour. But fuel over a stretch of road is rate × time:
- Fuel for a segment of length x at speed v = k·v2 × (x/v) =
k·v·x.
Dividing by v (the time factor) cancels one power of v. So while fuel
per hour ∝ v2, fuel
per mile ∝ v - just one power. That single fact is what makes your shortcut legal.
Now watch your "weighted average." Total fuel over the whole trip is
- k·(
40·
0.8d +
20·
0.2d) = k·d·(
32 +
4) = k·d·
36 =
45.
The
36 you computed is the
distance-weighted average speed (weights = the
0.8 and
0.2 distance fractions), and total fuel = k·d × (that average). So k·d =
45/
36 =
1.25. At
30 mph over the same distance d: fuel = k·d·
30 =
30 ×
1.25 =
37.5. Perfectly valid.
One caution: it works here only because fuel per mile is
linear in speed
and the total distance d is the same in both scenarios. Contrast reyrest's attempt earlier in the thread: they found an average speed and plugged it into k·v2. That fails, because you can't square an average - (avg of v)2 ≠ avg of v2.
Quick check to feel the "per mile" idea for
1 mile:
- At
40 mph:
1600k × (
1/
40) =
40k- At
20 mph:
400k × (
1/
20) =
20kDouble the speed, double the per-mile fuel - linear in v, exactly as your method assumes.
Answer: Bdhairyajain
Is the Weighted average approach correct here?
The logic I used was since 80% of the journey is at 40 miles/hr and the remaining is at 20 miles/hr
==> the weighted average speed becomes 36 miles/hr
and since the fuel consumption is proportional to speed, 45/36 is the proportionality constant.
and the fuel consumption at 30 miles/hr = proportionality constant * 30 = 37.5