I'm still fairly new myself so not sure how much I can add to the discussion. I had previously just puttered around at speed 1 with my lamp on. That didn't seem to work out well because I would burn through fuel quickly. I have found that going at speed 2, and frequently flipping the light on and off gets me places quicker, and adequately keeps the terror at bay. Using this method I've been able to get most of the way across the map and visit 15 ports in a single voyage. Be sure to get port reports at every port you stop at and fuel isn't too big of an issue.

It's like the question, do you get less wet if you run through the rain. Which I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. Likewise, you should save fuel and supplies if you get there faster. Or at the very least time and supplies...

so fuel consumption is the same at speed 2 as speed 1 ?

just tested this in game. Sailed due east and used 1 barrel of fuel at speed 2, then repeated it at speed 1. I used exactly the same fuel for both trips, and only covered about 60% of the distance at speed one.

In other words, speed has no effect on MPG. Fuel consumption is the same at both speeds.
There is no point in ever travelling at speed one (asides manuevering). Seems like a slightly odd omission for a survival-ish game.

Yup the fuel efficiency is the exact same for gear 1 and 2. Although it gets worse with "full power". Speed 1 is just for not crashing into stuff and under steering.

Originally posted by Lцсᶖаᶇ º¹:

Yup the fuel efficiency is the exact same for gear 1 and 2. Although it gets worse with "full power". Speed 1 is just for not crashing into stuff and under steering.

Actually, no, fuel efficiency is NOT the same at the two speeds. In another thread someone was proposing a Mod to change the engine power and ship weights. Reading that I built a spreadsheet to calculate speed and fuel consumption of various combinations of ship and engine. From that I could calculate an equivalent to MPG. For example, the starting ship has these fuel efficiencies at different speeds with lights on and off in "Distance Units per unit of fuel". I don't know how long a "distance unit" is in the game but this at least gives you some comparisons.

Speed (Distance Units/second)
Ship Speed (1) 9.3
Ship Speed (2) 16.8
Ship Speed (Full) 28.05

Fuel consumption in %/second (Note: lights ALWAYS consume 1%/second regardless of speed, including not moving at all.)
Gear 1, lights off 0.40 (I.E. 0.4% of a single unit of fuel per second)
Gear 1, lights on 1.40
Gear 2, lights off 0.80
Gear 2, lights on 1.80
Full Speed, lights off 1.60
Full Speed, lights on 2.60

Fuel Economy (distance units per unit of fuel)
Gear 1, lights off 2325
Gear 1, lights on 664.2857143
Gear 2, lights off 2100
Gear 2, lights on 933.3333333
Full Speed, lights off 1753.125
Full Speed, lights on 1078.846154

Eventually, when I have some time, I will try to upload the spreadsheet so others can use it but I don't know when that will be.

Originally posted by Dimensional Traveler:

Actually, no, fuel efficiency is NOT the same at the two speeds.

It is the exact same per distance unit travelled. You just travel twice as fast (and thus consume twice as much fuel) on speed 2. There is no reason to ever use speed 1 manually.

Originally posted by Dimensional Traveler:

Speed (Distance Units/second)
Ship Speed (1) 9.3
Ship Speed (2) 16.8
Ship Speed (Full) 28.05

(1) 9.3
(2) 18.6
(Full) 32.55

Originally posted by Dimensional Traveler:

Fuel Economy (distance units per unit of fuel)
Gear 1, lights off 2325
Gear 2, lights off 2100
Full Speed, lights off 1753.125

(1) 2325.0
(2) 2325.0
(Full) 2034.375

Seen as this hasn't been answered to my satisfaction i will do it myself.

NO gear 1-2 has NO affect on fuel used.
Your LIGHT uses 1%/s

So its actually WORSE to go on gear 1 with your light ON because you will use MORE fuel to cover even less distance.

For the best distance to fuel economy its best to have your light off and gear 2.

Originally posted by Dimensional Traveler:

Originally posted by Lцсᶖаᶇ º¹:

So in other words you are quite wrong because you didnt take into account the useage of the lamp and how it takes you SO much more fuel to go the same distance to say nothing of supply usage.

Originally posted by Lцсᶖаᶇ º¹:

It's like the question, do you get less wet if you run through the rain. Which I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.

I know your reply is many years old but someone recently necroed this thread and I just saw this. The Mythbusters tested this and in their tests running a set distance in the rain (artificially produced rain in a controlled environment) made them approximately twice as wet as walking that same distance.