Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Lee
I have much respect for Bondo and aerohead too but when they make an fe claim from one long highway trip I cringe.
You've seen how I wigged out when Truck Trend did the same thing...
|
Foremost, let me thank Darin (metrompg) for starting this thread 4 years ago today. The fine people I have met here on ecomodder and all the support they have given me has kept me going in the pursuit of getting the Aerolid to market. Again, my thanks to Darin for all the hard work he has done in creating and in keeping up and running this fine web page dedicated to fuel efficiency.
I quote Frank because I too can cringe. ABA tests are a valid exceptable format, by SAE (Society of Automotive Engineers) and others. As we have read in the news recently with the lawsuit against Honda by Honda hybrid owners who say Honda has made false claims as the the real world fuel efficiency of the hybrid they produce, fuel efficiency claims can be subjective a best.
This brings me to the cringe point. When one logs on to ecomodder, maybe for the first time, the third highlighted story on the home page is Fubeca's Silverado aerocap thread. The headline reads a gain of 4% in fuel efficiency as calibrated in an ABA test. An ABA test needs to have, as Darin has stated many times, "controlled as possible" conditions and calibratrions.
Temperature along with wind speed and direction, along with terrain, define conditions. Optimum conditions are calm winds and warm air temperature on flat ground. Cold and windy atmospheric conditions can greatly effect the calibration of an ABA test.
It is not my intention to bring Fubeca into a matter to which he has no fault. I only mean to state that the report of a 4% increase in fuel efficiency of his aerocap is invalid due to the atmospheric conditions of Fubeca's ABA test were far from ideal, air temperature of 10 degrees with a 10 to 15 mile per hour cross wind.
Again, fuel efficiency claims are subjective. We live in the real world. Some days atmospheric conditions are ideal for any type of testing, ABA or over the road tests, and some days conditions are lousy.
I must now make claim to a road test I completed over the Labor Day weekend last year. I purchased a set of running boards from an individual online and saved on the purchase price by driving from Little Rock to Johnson City, Tennessee to pick them up, a distance of 1300.8 miles round trip. Maybe I didn't save that much since it took me 52.15 gallons of gas to get there and back, but what a great opportunity for a road test. In addition, the test was made not with the Aerolid alone, but with the new extension box that sets on the open tailgate attached. Just wanted to make this qualification. If one wants to see what the Aerolid gets by itself in additonal fuel efficiency, check out the fuel log of my good friend round.boater at the link below. I realize the same percentage of gain with my truck with the Aeroid alone also, much better than 4%.
2006 Ford F-150 STX Gas Mileage (gear hauler) - EcoModder.com
I took two days to drive to Johnson City and back, again a total distance of 1300.8 miles. Atmoshperic conditions were light and varible winds for the entire trip with an average air temperature of around 87 degrees. The terrain was generally flat with some hilly areas encountered in Tennessee.
On the first leg, a distance of 644.7 miles was driven. Upon refueling in Johnson City, it took 26.6 gallons to fill up the 26 gallon tank I have on my 2009 F150. This equates to 24.23 mpg, a 22.1% increase in fuel efficency over the 20mpg highway the EPA rates my truck at.
On the return leg, I duct taped close the gap between the Aerolid and the extension box on the tailgate. On this return trip, I drove 656.1 miles and put in 25.55 gallons of gas to fill my 26 gallon tank back up upon arriving back in Little Rock. This works out to 25.68 mpg, a 28.4% increase over the 20 mpg rating for highway travel claimed by Ford for my truck.
Included are scans of the two receipts from the time I fueled up in Johnson City upon arriving there and the second fuel up when I got back home. Notice one receipt has "no gap seal" written on it and the other has "gap seal". I also include some picture of my truck with the extention box ducted taped up I took minutes after I arived at my house.
The point of this post is to show all types of tests, ABA, road tests, etc., used to calibrate the effectiveness of aerodynamic modifications have merit. Bottom line is I cannot misrepresent this road test because I could not have gone 644.7 miles on the first leg with my truck in baseline configuration on a 26 gallon tank ( with just getting 20mpg would have taken 32.2 gallons nor could I have gone 656.1 miles on a 26 gallon tank on the leg back which would have taken 32.8 gallons of gas). I would have run out of gas!
In closing, I have a shared respect for Frank and Darin as I do for all here on ecomodder who share our common interest to achieve the best fuel efficiency we can in our vehicles. This is good for the environment and for our national security to reduce our countries reliance on foriegn oil. I salute you all.
I do ask, since this may well be the year the Aerolid finally gets into production, that a qualifying statement is added to Fubeca's Silverado aerocap thread as it appears on the home page here on ecomodder which states the 4% increase in fuel efficiency gain calibrated by the ABA test is subjective at best because it was performed in very adverse atmospheric conditions.
This may greatly help a potential customer who is considering buying an Aerolid to be truthfully informed as to what type of feul efficiency they may expect to achieve by mounting an Aerolid on the bed of thier truck. I will welcome the day when the Aerolid goes on the market. I will be able to help sponsor this fine web page that Darin has worked his heart out on by advertising on it.
Sincerely,
Bondo