View Single Post
Old 02-22-2017, 04:56 PM   #89 (permalink)
t vago
MPGuino Supporter
 
t vago's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Hungary
Posts: 1,807

iNXS - '10 Opel Zafira 111 Anniversary

Suzi - '02 Suzuki Swift GL
Thanks: 830
Thanked 708 Times in 456 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
Just to throw a possible wrench in your gears, to be really scientific you need A-B-A type testing where the driver doesn't know what is A and what is B. Psychology goes a long way to make things happen the way you hope they will. Maybe even A-B-A testing where there is no difference between A and B just to be sure.
My wife serves in this purpose. She likes the idea of getting good gas mileage, but she does not have the same depth of knowledge that I do, with regard to mechanical principles underlying operating cars.

I also think a good substitute for single-blind testing, is driving under conditions where it's not really possible to modify driving technique to skew the results in favor of showing a perceived increase in fuel economy. For instance, commuting to work on an interstate with heavy traffic near rush hour. It'd be kind of hard to use pulse-and-glide or driving-with-load under those conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hersbird View Post
I do believe there is merit to reducing power to increase throttle to reduce pumping losses.
Indeed. I am all in favor of reducing pumping losses where and when I can.
  Reply With Quote