Aug. 21, 2011: Craig says: Folks on the Ecomodder forum seem to be not happy about this. Let us assume that "Speeding up and coasting" is effective in reducing fuel use. "Making yourself real small" behind a small fairing is effective, too. Such are techniques for winning fuel economy contests, not the full goals of the Vetter Challenges. My goal is to encourage you to develop a truly useful vehicle.
When my contribution is over, I want to have helped to develop a formula that results in motorcycles that are so useful and so attractive that we really want to drive them. Consuming the least fuel is just one aspect of my goal. Comfort and usefulness are equally important. What good is great economy if we don't want to use it? Or can't use it for simple chores like getting the groceries?
The winning machines of the 1980-85 Vetter Fuel Economy Contests showed us what was possible. But they did not change vehicle design. They ended up in museums. Why? Because we focused entirely on "the least amount of energy."
This time around, I want to end up with solutions for the way we really drive today.
To restate my goals: I want to know how to consume the least fuel, measured in dollars and cents per mile, in real driving conditions like 70 mph into a 30 mph headwind, sitting upright and comfortable, with a useful load like four bags of groceries. My streamlined Helix, does this for about a nickel a mile. Equally, if not more important, my streamlined Helix is my first choice machine.
Already, other Challengers have proven that they can “beat me” in fuel cost. But as you can see, fuel cost is just one part of the design goal. So much of what I want to achieve is subjective. "Not ending up in museums" is subjective. "Being the first choice vehicle" is subjective. "Comfort" is subjective.
Four bags and fuel cost are the only goals that are quantifiable. I can see that the engineers among you are frustrated by such subjectivity.
Recognizing the value of subjective goals is what I do as a designer.
Craig Vetter August 21, 2011
|