Gas Pods - Anyone try them?

[Frank Lee]

So Suzanne knew and admits that tire pressure was at least one variable that changed during the "test"; Suzanne ought to know that pretty much invalidates the whole thing. We didn't all just fall off the turnip truck, lady.

[Susanne]

Originally Posted by California98Civic

It's just not correct that there was just one other variable in his testing. Other variables he undoubtedly is encountering and apparently not controlling for would be ambient temperatures, tire pressure variation, humidity, pavements, throttling, city/highway mix, routes, wind patterns, drafting around other cars in traffic with him, and probably others I am not thinking of right now.

Yes. And, that is why the more distance traveled, and the higher the number of participants report back, the more relevant the data is. That takes time, and we're only a few months into public release.

Your criticism is true of any and all modifications, and to truly ascribe to it can only paralyze the process for yourself and others.

[sheepdog 44]

Originally Posted by Susanne

Yes. And, that is why the more distance traveled, and the higher the number of participants report back, the more relevant the data is. That takes time, and we're only a few months into public release.

Your criticism is true of any and all modifications, and to truly ascribe to it can only paralyze the process for yourself and others.

But this is exactly what we do at Ecomodder, we A-B-A test our aeromods with either a coastdown test, or an instant mpg map right down to windspeed and barometric pressure. Take for example:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/122488-post29.html
http://ecomodder.com/forum/145226-post241.html

If indeed Gaspods will give you a 1.3 mpg increase, it would easily show up in such a test. I can gain 1.3 mpg just by having my tires properly inflated, or rolling up my windows, driving less aggressive, which goes to show you how inaccurate your real world testing has so far been.

The administrator of this forum probably would gladly do such unbiased A-B-A tests for you in the name of science. And see if the computer flow modeling translates in real world testing.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Susanne

All criticism is made by individuals who refuse to try them.

At 80 to 125 USD + P&P for a mere 9 gaspods , I'm not going to join your test fleet

With you claiming they are not VGs, I'll pass completely.
For if they don't generate vortexes, I really don't see what they'd do ...

But VGs DO work.

I have glider dimple tape on the mirrors, A-pillar and top of the windscreen.
Car is noticeably quieter now - the V50 range is known for wind noise around the A-pillar.
The effect on fuel consumption is not measurable though - i.e. I simply can't single it out.

The dimple tape didn't do $h!t on the rear end though - so I removed it.
The dimple tape is too shallow (about 1/16th to 1/12th of an inch) compared to the boundary layer.

The gaspods look the right size to effect the boundary layer at the rear end - if they do something like causing vortexes ...


Variability in day-to-day driving is simply too great to test the effectiveness of your products. Wether it's over 2000 or 20000 miles.

[California98Civic]

Originally Posted by Susanne

Yes. And, that is why the more distance traveled, and the higher the number of participants report back, the more relevant the data is. That takes time, and we're only a few months into public release.

Your criticism is true of any and all modifications, and to truly ascribe to it can only paralyze the process for yourself and others.

Either I am confused or this comment about needing more time before your crowd-sourced testing proves whether Gaspods work contradicts what you were saying earlier in this discussion. It seems that while you believe they work, you don't actually know they work. In that case, I don't think you should be selling them yet.

[Susanne]

Its seems as if negativity without qualification is a right of passage endemic to Internet communication of today. Our in-house validation, which, of course, exists, is criticized as biased. Our 3rd party verification - CFD testing - is criticized just to be criticized.

And, client participation, which I thought is what ecomodder is about, and well, its also what AeroHance's GasPod project advocates is now criticized because it exists.

We all know that many variables affect your car's fuel consumption. GasPods are one more to add to the mix. Their beauty is in their ease of use, which allows for broader participation in the process of saving fuel.

But, a product like GasPods requires people to prove it to themselves. Our Test Team program gives value to that process. We have set up a protocol - distance over time - that controls for individual variance in driving habits and conditions, and, as the participation pool grows, further verifies results.

Its a positive process and does not warrant or deserve unqualified negativity.

[jakobnev]

Susanne -
How do you view the entire test-team, instead of just the few you have selected to show?

(including a count of those who failed to submit their data)

[Susanne]

Originally Posted by jakobnev

Susanne -
How do you view the entire test-team, instead of just the few you have selected to show?

(including a count of those who failed to submit their data)

I'm not sure the relevance of the number of those who do not submit data. Eventually we'll have the site programmed to allow for Test Team members to submit and publish on their own. In the meantime, while the site is in cumbersome to update beta format, we'll upload - excellent, good, mediocre and bad - results as time allows.

[arcosine]

I would not bother with them.

[Susanne]

arcosine - I wouldn't add a boat tail to my car. That doesn't mean its not worthwhile for you to have done.