To be honest, when all you have to say about your testing procedure is this:
Quote:
|
However, in back-to-back testing over the same urban route, we saw a repeatable 15 per cent fuel economy improvement – and that comparison was with a well-driven car!
|
and you refuse to elaborate on it you are inviting skepticism. On road testing, especially urban, is notoriously prone to variation based on road conditions. You say repeatable, but did you do ABA testing? How many runs? What was the temperature? How did you control for different amounts of traffic during different points in the day? Etc.
I'm not saying it's not a nice gauge, but 99% of the article is about how to make it and 1% is about proof that it works, which isn't much of a motivator to use one.
But if it's now autospeed's policy to not clarify unclear portions of its articles, that would be a shame.