View Single Post
Old 05-19-2013, 08:28 AM   #104 (permalink)
mikeyjd
Master EcoModder
 
mikeyjd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 838

Matchbox - '93 Ford Festiva L
Team Ford
Last 3: 70.16 mpg (US)

Salamander - '99 Chrysler Concorde LXI
Team Dodge
90 day: 30.3 mpg (US)

Urquhart - '97 Toyota Tacoma 4x4 V6 3.4L DLX
Pickups
90 day: 25.81 mpg (US)

Smudge - '98 Toyota Tacoma
90 day: 40.65 mpg (US)

Calebro - '15 Renault Trafic 1.25 dci
90 day: 39.39 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,380
Thanked 209 Times in 155 Posts
Thanks allot!

Quote:
Originally Posted by LioNiNoiL View Post
psi feet

20 568
20 570
30 662
30 672
40 677
40 679
50 667
50 679
60 681
60 692

The same type of analysis of these earlier data is a bit more interesting than the previous analysis, because of the high SRC (+0.8944) between 60psi and 50psi, which has low significance (at 0.167 level) due to small sample size of only four pairs of data.
Including the 40psi data reduces the SRC to +0.667 with greater significance (at 0.074 level) because of more data.
Including the 30psi data increases the SRC to +0.761 significant at 0.014 level.
Including the 20psi data further increases the SRC to +0.877 highly significant at 0.0004 level.
In these data, it appears that increasing pressure to 60psi may result in an increase in feet (unlike the previous data) but the significance is low enough to diminish our confidence in this result. As is stated nearly always in such cases, we need more data.
Thank you for optimizing our understanding of the existing data. I've been rocking 55-60 psi on my cars since I came across this thread and I've been happy with the balance between ride comfort and rolling resistance. Thanks to everyone who added to this thread.
  Reply With Quote