Quote:
Originally Posted by msc
...
Option A (monastary)
Option B
|
I don't think that entering current temp/press via the button interface is too much of a hardship. You can get a "good enough" temp/baro for less than $10
WEATHER STATION ,TEMPERATURE, BAROMETER,HUMIDITY | eBay
or even weather.com in a pinch.
Obviously there is still some honor system here, and someone who understands the limitations can do more tests more quickly without messing with it under the right conditions. Still I would give them an estimated cdA and cRR readout, as that is far more meaningful to a human than random timings (not a lot of lab coats here). The goal of course is to find what works, and the quicker the better.
I'm less inclined to entertain the integrated online application to standardize results, mainly because it complicates things and would certainly delay implementation.
In any option you cannot be so sloppy to not account for adding/removing toolboxes though, that would be like saying "I forgot I put the snoblower gas in the tank while calibrating my mpg reading".
Truck scales are not all that convenient. If there were only some way is a way for the home budget modder to get reproducable weight results with like a bathroom scale... I bet you there is
Getting a reasonably accurate handle on weight has other benefits besides CDA (i.e. bsfc under acceleration).
I think we (or you, since you have a problem with it) should get a handle on the margin of error here, how inaccuracies in temp/press/weight manifest themselves. I haven't seen a response to the figures I posted earlier, so I will assume that we agree that you can be off by a bit on temp/press measurements and still be in the ballpark on cDA. Having the computer do the timing will be the biggest accuracy improvement for most users around here, the rest is completely doable. Also, not having users rely on fuel consumption data to determine the effect of a given aeromod will be an improvement.
30 years of spending other peoples money is impressive, hopefully you will be able to contribute something constructive
But as the newcomer here, hopefully you will be open to ideas that they don't even consider in the data aquisition ivory tower. Also have a look at the modders bible thread:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...ery-11445.html We know these are imperfect conditions.
There are more than average constraints/compromises on shoestring budgets here also. Your typical user is not on some funded research project, just an average schmoe trying to SAVE fuel (and money), and the easier we can help them get meaningful results the more people will figure out ways to save fuel. Some loss of precision is expected in such circumstances. And since folks are going to be playing in traffic on crowned roads etc there is going to be some fudge, get used to it. Again it is well understood that these are less than ideal conditions.
But that is not an excuse for people to be sloppy in their methodology, even if there is some inherent error in the accepted procedures (those procedures being the result of a compromise of a large number of factors). If conditions change dramatically between A-B-A or between mods then throw those results out, and don't "publish" uncorrected STD cdA figures in a serious context.
Ideally someone else will have the same model car and be in a position to validate your results for a given mod.
So yah, initially the 3 button interface to prompt for current temp/pressure (and weight is already in the configuration) is the way to go, and use the procedure I listed earlier for the test.
You *could* go completely over the top with probes and anerometers and wind direction sensors and pressure/temp sensors and figure out how to mount them well in front of your vehicle, but that would put the "solution" out of reach of most users and require a bunch more stuff that has to be occasionally recalibrated and etc. So I don't think that option is suitable for the masses.