2010 Green Grand Prix: Saturday May 8, Watkins Glen, NY -pics/results posted

[RobertSmalls]

Originally Posted by SVOboy

Ah, I thought it looked a little heavier. How much does it weigh in total? My experience with these centercaps is that they don't fall off easily, but they're also pretty expensive

299g, including the 84g center cap. I didn't try for light weight. I used the coarse glass cloth I bought for the boattail, used fairing compound to make it smooth, left the back side all drippy with epoxy, and didn't even think about vacuum bagging.

Materials cost for a set of four would be around $20, assuming you're buying epoxy resin and mold release in bulk to have some left for other projects.

[blownb310]

Originally Posted by tasdrouille

It was great meeting you all. I look forward to see you again at future events. I made it home last night after a bit over 8 hours of non stop driving. I think that's pretty much as far as I'm willing to go for weekend events!

The person I am most impressed with is Martin. He consistently puts in the long drives to get to these types of events. That's dedication!

His diesel Jetta always comes in at 75 mpg or higher [90 mpg at AMEC's Economy Run III]. He tries some different aero devices at each event too. I am quite looking forward to seeing him [and hopefully a few more of you] in June, at the next event in Montreal.

[MetroMPG]

1) Martin's definitely a trooper.

What MPG did you end up getting on the trip from Brockville to Watkin's Glen? I clocked in at 69 mpg (US), driving with load. I'm curious how your 4th gear P&G ice-on experiment worked for you. I got 70 on the return trip with the tail wind, going faster.

2) Thanks for posting all the pics, everyone.

3) Bob Gillespie e-mailed me and Mike today wondering what to do about the Sentra's result (concerned about credibility of the event).

I said the "first click" fill-up method is obviously problematic. It can be accurate (the 99.7 last year from the Firefly is consistent with multiple previous results in similar conditions, and with more accurate fill methods). It can also be terribly inaccurate. And ironically, the more efficient the vehicle, the larger the potential MPG error using first click on very small refills.

Left it to Mike for the final word.

[Christ]

I don't know how reasonable it would be to do so, but I would suggest running the same course again with the Sentra, if even on a warmer day, to get a new result for that car, or (gasp) dismissing that particular fill as erroneous, which just doesn't seem fair to the operator.

[MetroMPG]

Same issues come up at the other mileage competitions.

If you want to base the events on accuracy, the solution has to be a change to a more accurate fill method.

[Christ]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Same issues come up at the other mileage competitions.

If you want to base the events on accuracy, the solution has to be a change to a more accurate fill method.

Surely, you're correct about that.

Still, for a semi-fledgling event, credibility can be had or lost on a single issue, like this.

It's good that they're trying to talk to people to find a fair way of dealing with it, so that it's fair to everyone. At least that's what I presume they're doing.

[blownb310]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Left it to Mike for the final word.

Thanks Darin. I sent Bob a note this morning and asked him to scratch the result as it did not make sense. This happened at a couple of our A.M.E.C. events too, [but luckily they all had an in car display to use as a back up]. If I only had bothered to install a kill switch for the ignition, my new in-car ECUtalk dispaly would have worked as back up reference. But with cycling the key for each pulse, the display kept resetting to zero each time.

Mike

[moTthediesel]

I too see the "first click" technique as a problem for accurate results. If the circuit was much longer (say a couple of hundred miles) it would be less of an issue, but the combination of a relatively short course and our fuel sipping cars makes for problematic results.
I'd like to come up with something for my car that will give me accurate, repeatable results. As mine is an old-school mechanical injection diesel, I don't think there is a electronic method that will work for me. What I'm working on is a simple mechanical float gauge attached to a funnel that will fit in my filler neck. The idea is that the funnel will be made to fit in only one position, as fuel enters the tank, the float will rise - pushing a thin fiberglass rod inside the funnel neck. With a reference indicator in the funnel and a "full mark" on the rod, truly accurate, repeatable fills should be guaranteed every time. Also, by using a graduated beaker, I can do this even when I run on 100% bio-diesel.
I don't know if this will work for everybody - as some cars have very twisty filler hoses, but mine is a straight shot of about 45 degrees into the top of the tank.
What do you all think?

[RobertSmalls]

That would be about the same as a graduated filler neck or fuel dipstick, right? We've used that at the AMEC events: fill until the fuel is level with the flap in the filler neck.

You still have issues with fuel aeration, and you'd have to make sure the car is level. Parking at the same pump each time should be required.

[NeilBlanchard]

I think that filling up to the flap would be better, but is still prone to trapped air bubbles.