View Single Post
Old 11-03-2012, 04:05 PM   #282 (permalink)
aerohead
Master EcoModder
 
aerohead's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sanger,Texas,U.S.A.
Posts: 15,966
Thanks: 24,047
Thanked 7,249 Times in 4,669 Posts
observed liability

Since the rooftop cab-wing delivery to Gilkison trip and the Bonneville trip, I've had a chance to compare some of the logbook entries with that of the Viking trip data.
It appears that Viking is heavy enough that it will cause an overspeed bias during two-lane highway mountain descents.
Typically,without the trailer, closed-throttle engine braking is sufficient enough to control downhill speed during mountain driving.
With Viking,I am forced to use the brakes at times to keep at posted limits which burns off valuable kinetic energy.
Where I expected my highest mpg(82-mpg with the CRX),on the run from Cloudcroft to Artesia,New Mexico,I actually suffer about an 8-mpg penalty,falling from an indicated 39-mpg(without Viking),to 31 mpg(with), both to braking ,and also lifting on the uphill gradients.
This might not be so much a liability with regenerative braking on an EV,but as an 'overbuilt' and 'overweight' camping trailer one might want to favor interstate grades.
The lightweight boat-tailing is really showing positive gains with the T-100 ,so I think it's prudent to say that we can take that technology all the way to the bank.However,unless I put Viking on a pretty radical weight-loss diet,I'll never see its full potential unless I keep to the flatlands.Which kinda defeats her purpose.
Once I get the A2 Wind Tunnel trip behind me I'll have energy to spend in that direction.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Braggarts of the future: "Mine's smaller than your's!"
__________________
Photobucket album: http://s1271.photobucket.com/albums/jj622/aerohead2/
  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to aerohead For This Useful Post:
BamZipPow (11-03-2012)