Craig Vetter Quote...
 

Interesting quote from Craig Vetter about "riding style" on the last Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge -

Bottom of this page: 2011 Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge rules discussion

"Speaking of the way we really drive...

Rumor has it that one (or more) of the Challengers exhibited an usual (I believe he meant unusual) riding style. I don't know if there is an official name for it but it is best described as follows:
"Speed up and coast. Speed up and coast. Speed up and coast...."

Apparently, this technique is known to produce superior fuel mileage. But is it the way we really drive?

I don't think so.

Would you drive your car this way with your family?

Would you drive this way with a Highway Patrolman right behind you?

I don't think so.

Who'd have thought this might be an issue?

Effective immediately, no more "speed up and coast" style driving."

Isn't it surprising that one of the largest supporters of high mileage cycles isn't familiar with, and doesn't approve of, the Pulse and Glide technique?

How could Matsu achieve 470 MPG back in the 80s without it? He even disassembled the trans to add a neutral available from top gear.

I don't get it...


Jay

Might have been the era the quote is from. Without fuel shut-off coasting wouldn't be as effective...

I checked the link and think he's looking for a way to "make it fair".

It's all about the minimum Cd anyway .

I really drive this way. Even with my girlfriend on the back seat. It just happens that we have very different approaches to achieve better FE. I'm too doubtful/lazy to aeromod my motorcycle. Craig is too doubtful/lazy to slow down or coast...

What surprises me is Craig wants people to think and act out of the box when building or modding bikes to be more fuel efficient, only to squeeze them back in when it comes to using a more efficient driving technique, because HE doesn't ride that way.

Well Craig, the way we really ride is without streamlined fairings all around, so why not let those come off as well ?

And what really fuels our bikes isn't Diesel, so out they go as well.

"if you come up with a lot of rules that force people to have to build a bike that looks exactly like yours, you will pretty soon find yourself having a Vetter Challenge with only yourself riding in it."

Craig would better heed the warning.

Who's going to develop a bike to possibly have it washed out of the competition by the next revision of the rules ?

Those folks are thinking outside your box, Craig.

Craig Vetter is conducting an experament as we all know. every experament requires controls in order to be meaningful, the rules are the controls and the rules are changing to get to the answer he/we are looking for. I use most of the hypermiling methods recomended on this site. We ecomodders are a vanishingly small group as a proportion of the driving public as we all know. Craigs question is about the vehicle not the driving of the vehicle. I have yet to see a set of rules that keep everyone happy, each rule sends us off in a deferent direction, Craigs rules are no different.
I for one had a good laugh when I read his comments and thought dam my secret wepon has been found and now I will have to pay even more attention to the aerodynamics. Which is exactly what the rules are aimed at.

I thought the Craig Vetter contest was to find the best fuel economy vehicle, not the most efficient driver.

Short of having a robot drive each vehicle, there needs to be some uniform driving guidelines. Like the old non-sense MPG records in Guinness book of world records, where they get astronomical values, but never exceed 15 MPH.

Good to see the latest "Real World driving" record with a Jetta applies to the average driver VW Jetta TDI sets Guinness World Record of 58.82 mpg

Technically, I think the Craig Vetter Fuel Economy Challenge is won by the cycle that delivers the lowest cost per mile - gas, diesel, electric, whatever.

As we all know, the driver/rider make a huge difference in the FE equation. The best drivers/riders will maximize the vehicle's potential buy using whatever driving/riding style they feel delivers the best efficiency.

To take the rider out of the equation you could just run the vehicles on the dyno at the same speed,with the same amount of fuel, and see which runs longer - but that's not real world either.

Vetter does have rules that keep a cycle from running too slowly. If I'm not mistaken they have a control vehicle that runs at the back of the pack. If it passes you, you're out.

I just can't understand why he feels that P&G riding wouldn't be feasible in the real world. Many riders here have produced amazing MPG numbers with very basic cycles using P&G on the street.


Jay

Maybe it's because Craig would like to separate driving technique from vehicle efficiency. I don't think anyone here would argue the point that each improvement has it's individual merits, but to properly compare either improvement they must be considered separately.

The Automotive X prize contest did basically the same thing.

Personally I have always advocated the incorporation of the techniques perfected in hypermiling into the vehicles operational capabilities and power train configuration. In essence a car or truck that hypermiles itself, using a pulse a glide technique that does not equate to a change in speed of the vehicle, which uses the mass of the vehicle as capacitive storage, but requires changes in speed, to a form of energy storage that is efficient enough to allow for storage and release of energy effectively enough to take advantage of BSFC points for the engine regardless of the sum of losses at any individual vehicle speed.

With the current 15 MPH average speed specialized vehicles approaching 11,000 MPG, using the burn and coast (engine off) technique it would be an unfair comparison if one driver relied on hypermiling skills to achieve a better overall mileage.

The funny thing is as aero improves, engine efficiency falls further from the best BSFC unless higher overall drive ratios are applied. Thus one benefit is somewhat countered by a corresponding decrease in efficiency. Capacitive storage allows this situation to be resolved, but it requires extreme efficiency in wheel to wheel and power plant to wheel efficiency, assuming in the case of wheel to wheel that there will be situations where regeneration is effective.

regards
Mech

Now I kind of understand his point.
And I also know that even if I lived there, I'd never participate a Vetter challenge. I've heard that his 'control vehicle' chased the participants at insane speeds (like 70mph), which does absolutely not fall under 'real world circumstances' for me. It's extremely rare for me to sustain such a speed for more than a few seconds.

At 45 mph tail vehicle would be real world for me .

I made the same comment to him as there isn't a 65 or 70 mph zone within 1/2 hour of me and of the two that I can get to in under an hour I rarely go on them anyway so 55 is what I'm accustomed to so a vehicle that is "comfortable" at 55 but not at 70 is just fine by me. However Craig is right to make his demands; 70+ IS his typical road condition and to plod along at significantly less out there IS an inconvenience at the least and a hazard at the most. Also I'm sure a regional solution is not in his or our best interests, so the vehicle should be able to handle the worst case condition.

The lead/chase vehicle requirement is a perfectly acceptable solution to prevent competition driving tactics like P&G. The contest is as much about the most efficient vehicle DRIVEN AS NORMAL as it is about the driver and his technique or lack thereof.

That sounds like an excellent case for extra classes ...Highway and Secondary ? I ride secondary every time I can .

From my front porch I can hear vehicles travelling down I64 East-West at average speeds of 70MPH. A few miles west the speed limit goes from 65 to 70 MPH. My choice when travelling East is to use the Interstate or the older state and US routes at 55 MPH or 45 MPH for 7 miles, then a nightmare of traffic lights that would kill anyone's mileage.

Most hypermiling techniques become practically ineffective at 70 MPH, the peak speed aero drag would be atrocious if you tried P&G, with the exception of Basjoos type of aero modifications (it would be neat to P&G his car at 60-80 MPH and see what mileage you could get!).

On a motorcycle P&G at 70MPH would be worthless on flat ground. Given a drafting opportunity and some fairly strong grades that would change.

Craig's focus seems, to me at least, to be on the aero component of vehicle efficiency.

The last time I drove cross country was just before the National 55 MPH limit was introduced around 1973. In the western states the speed limit was 85 MPH on some stretches of road

My average speeds for all of my driving is close to 40 MPG, which is verifiable on my car using the distance travelled and time travelled component of the factory instrumentation.
I will never be the mileage champ on this forum since my average speeds are close to twice those of the highest (over EPA) drivers. Even Franks 55 MPH roads in my Insight meant close to 12-15 MPG better than averaging 70 MPH.

regards
Mech

Agreed - how many people need to run "errands" (the 4 bags of groceries requirement) traveling 70 MPH? Only time most of us are running that fast is on the Interstate, when we have to because of traffic flow.

Did he really require them to go that fast on the roads where they ran the "Challenge"? That seems unsafe. Makes it more of a race...

I ran the backroads on my cycle last weekend and don't think I ever hit 70.

I appreciate Vetter's contributions to the motorcycle world - then and now - but some of the rules just don't make sense to me.


Jay

I've tried something like 60-80mph P&G when I was i a hurry. It really proved useless, Teresa's fuel consumption was around 4l/100km (<=60mpg, but no exact data just the distance from low fuel light and the filled quantity) - about the same as not giving a damn about P&G.

There are a host of fuel economy contests with a host of different rules. Pick the one that suit you, and if you can't find one that you like start your own with your own set of rules.

The problem is with the implications of the statement, and how it plays old guard to old thinking about how people SHOULD operate a vehicle. When in fact more and more people DO p&g, and DO choose slower/less conjested routes and DO synchronize their P&G with the traffic lites for little to no penalty.

Q. Would you drive your car this way with your family?
I spend maybe %0.2 of my driving time on the interstate, where I usually only bother with it on the big hills. But pretty much everywhere else, Yes, absolutely. Not necessarily constantly, I mix in some dwl so that I can time the pulses and the glides better with real world obsticles. As a counter question, would Craig carry a family on his freedom machine?!?



Q. Would you drive this way with a Highway Patrolman right behind you?
I don't usually have a hiway patrolman right behind me. I've had plenty of police right behind me in town who didn't give me a second look, p&g blends well with traffic in my experience, and can give you better than hiway mpg.


I hope Craig can clear this up, he is risking alienating some of his largest proponents. P&G and other efficiency driving techniques are things that real people are doing now to reduce consumption and increase energy independance, etc. Few right minded P&Grs would ever make discouraging statements about aeromods (i.e. a competition that sneers at the changes to body style because so few people are doing it)

If the rationalle were "Because we are trying to eliminate variables", then that is fine. But if it is because "we shouldn't be driving that way", even though it works for us, that is a problem.

And yes, I really wear a backpack when going to the store, this actually happens in the real world. It isn't imaginary, or wrong.

I think Craig is simply trying to take HIS econo challenge in a different direction from the first ones, which evolved into competition-only machines and conditions. He now wants competition results for everyman. Now he's saying, no puny underpowered non-practical non-fun machine that WON'T be the first choice of what to drive/ride in a stable full of vehicle options. To that end, there will be no puttering around at sub-speed limit speeds. There will be no wimpy machines that can't maintain the speed limit up hills and into headwinds. There will be no crumpling up into a little ball for a ride of over 100 miles duration. There will be room for stuff, as that is what often happens when people go out and about- they need to carry some stuff. This is all common sense, people. Of course the most objective measurement of all would be the same dyno routine the EPA uses. But where's the fun in that? Who would be excited about the contest and want to build and enter if there was only a dyno run?

I understand, and even sent him a link to this thread that he might have the opportunity to clarify things. P&G in countless situations is arguably the best/most affordable solution availalbe right now, and people use it, a lot. it is in part how we drive, and part of an ever changing public perception, which includes being more open to things like streamlining a motorcycle I hope.

As well as being more open to not demanding over-powered, over-sized, vehicles I also hope. On that note, I have to say I really enjoy the cb125, small and easy to throw it around, kick start is awesome, haven't even looked at the 250 in months. More people have come up to me and asked about it than any other bike (hey, is that a 125? Yup, it was garbage picked...).

Besides, everyone does stuff that they wouldn't do in front of a cop. Just not buying the stated position, not a fan of that particular vetter page at all at the moment. If he could rephrase it so it sounds less like "p&g is weird but aeromodding a scooter to be streamlined and carry groceries isn't", then I will reconsider. He has a history in aero/fairings, and might not even be open to hypermiling techniques.

Heh- finally looked at the Vetter link. I remember when everyone thought that when aero became important for cars, they'd all look the same. Well, a lot of cars do look the same now but it isn't because of aero. We can have a wide variety of aero bikes, trikes, and quads if that is what we want.

When I read about your "garbage picked" CB 125, for some reason I remembered Rogers Hornsby. He like to pick out the old bats that no one else thought had any life left in them.
Some career stats.
Rogers Hornsby - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

regards
Mech

Aug. 21, 2011: Craig says: Folks on the Ecomodder forum seem to be not happy about this. Let us assume that "Speeding up and coasting" is effective in reducing fuel use. "Making yourself real small" behind a small fairing is effective, too. Such are techniques for winning fuel economy contests, not the full goals of the Vetter Challenges. My goal is to encourage you to develop a truly useful vehicle.

When my contribution is over, I want to have helped to develop a formula that results in motorcycles that are so useful and so attractive that we really want to drive them. Consuming the least fuel is just one aspect of my goal. Comfort and usefulness are equally important. What good is great economy if we don't want to use it? Or can't use it for simple chores like getting the groceries?

The winning machines of the 1980-85 Vetter Fuel Economy Contests showed us what was possible. But they did not change vehicle design. They ended up in museums. Why? Because we focused entirely on "the least amount of energy."
This time around, I want to end up with solutions for the way we really drive today.

To restate my goals: I want to know how to consume the least fuel, measured in dollars and cents per mile, in real driving conditions like 70 mph into a 30 mph headwind, sitting upright and comfortable, with a useful load like four bags of groceries. My streamlined Helix, does this for about a nickel a mile. Equally, if not more important, my streamlined Helix is my first choice machine.

Already, other Challengers have proven that they can “beat me” in fuel cost. But as you can see, fuel cost is just one part of the design goal. So much of what I want to achieve is subjective. "Not ending up in museums" is subjective. "Being the first choice vehicle" is subjective. "Comfort" is subjective.

Four bags and fuel cost are the only goals that are quantifiable. I can see that the engineers among you are frustrated by such subjectivity.

Recognizing the value of subjective goals is what I do as a designer.
Craig Vetter August 21, 2011

I think the easy way to put it is, you want a vehicle and driving technique that your Mom or Grandmother could use (assuming most Moms and Grammas are not willing to tuck and P&G and etc.)

Hey Craig, thx for making it clear.

BTW, what happened with the streamliner, it looked pretty comfy, had some storage, and got 125ish without special technique (iirc)?

It sounds a lot better than the first quote.

My streamliner of 1980 is on display at the AMA Hall of Fame Museum in Ohio:

Craig Vetter high mileage fuel economy motorcycle

In the era of 55 mpg, it actually got 108 mpg. in my 1982 contest. It would have cooked its air cooled engine at today's 70, into a 30 mph headwind. It was pretty good but awkward to get on. For me, anyway. Ever since a horrible get-off at Road Atlanta on my RD350 in 1976, I have had a hip problem making it hard to throw my leg over anything high. Anyway, I have found that I just need a scooter configuration. Just sit and ride.

If you are referring to the current Helix, I ride it... refine it... refine it, etc.

Thx, also what would be your ruling on deliberate lean burn in a competition like this?

Deliberate lean burn? I am just a fairing designer and am out of my element in trying to answer this question. Let me tell you a little story about the above mentioned streamliner in 1981. We did not know much about getting the best mileage so we ran it lean. Too lean. We burned a hole in its piston en route to the contest. Joe Minton was scheduled to drive that day. We pulled the head and my brother, Bruce suggested that we save the day by putting a countersunk screw into the hole and go back to stock jets. It worked. If you pulled the head today, the screw is still in the piston.

If you asking about changing the fuel-air ratios? Personally, I don't care. But in the unlikely chance that some DOT official comes sniffing around, it is your responsibility to be legal.

Yah, I remember the screw story, that was a bit of Zen.

I think I wouldn't want to do anything special for the contest that the vehicle wouldn't always run i.e. leaner than usual, higher tire psi than usual, etc. because the goal of the contest is to be real.

Lol, good luck defining "real". So a neglected 7psi in the tires and 20 over the limit unless there is a cop behind you (since we are trying to emulate reality)? :)


"We're from the FUTURE, where the sh$t is Really Real!"

Maybe the contest should factor in a gaslog of at least 12 month's duration.

we already have that :)

:thumbup:

Though it's true that they are just piles of characters on the 'net without any hard evidence.

Even I know someone at another site who expressed his disbelief in my numbers, and I can't really do anything to prove them. Good thing that I don't really care. I know what's behind the logs and I try to keep them as accurate as I can (and somewhat detailed).

I wouldn't open a FE contest with a real prize based on logs like these.

Now I understand Craig's goal, to make vehicles that are efficient in themselves, ridden by a 'normal' person. That's fine, and leaves open the possibility to further hypermile them ;)

So I can't complain about anything other than the wording of the original quote.

You might be in for a surprise there, depending on whom and where you'd ask.

My dad's first reaction to me coasting along was that he used to do the same, way back in the 50s when fuel was relatively expensive and cars weren't household commodities yet, as Europe was still recovering from the war.

There's a prize? :confused:

remarks to post #24 by cvetter,
Most excellent way to put it. There are alot of good ideas on this site and like life, how far are we willing to go to achieve what it is we enjoy or want. Some will rush into it with all the sciences and forget about the fun. Some, the novelty (not the fun) of trying to squeeze every ounce will wear off never really enjoying the whole picture. I got my little Suzuki just to drive back and forth from work (saving about 5 bucks a day), now I find myself riding it for little errands and I do enjoy it. I can break the speed limit in 55mph areas what more do I need in top end :). It was written some where that life shouldn’t be measured by how many breaths you take, but by how many moments were breath taking :)

Fun is all in the eye of the beholder, be it "science" or beating your high mpg score, or laughing at the guy racing to the stoplight and having an aneurysm. Nobody gets to define what activities are "fun" or not, or what "real" is, without being horribly presumptuous. Watching people be presumptuous isn't very fun for me, especially when they are putting down good techniques. Lots of respect lost here.