The Gadgetman Groove: Latest Fuel Economy BS Hits NPR
 

Remember the Tornado? That little piece of foil you stuck instead your car’s intake with the hope of improving your fuel economy? Despite the fact that I still see one from time to time at the local car parts store, I’m thankful to say that that ill-advised craze has passed, for the most part. However, there [...] Related posts:

1. VW’s New TDI Blog (with Fuel Economy Competition)
2. One Big Reason Not to Trust “Real World” Fuel Economy Testing
3. PLX Announces New Kiwi MPG Fuel Economy Gauge

More...

This crisis of journalistic integrity isn't as bad as it sounds. AFAI can tell, this piece was written by a KUAR reporter, probably a college student who needed something to write a piece on and figured this was as good as any. Although KUAR is an NPR station, this is not an NPR article.

NPR is great about responding to feedback from the listeners, and many listeners are experts in some field or another. If NPR had published this piece, I would write to them, citing evidence that intake vortex generators are a scam, and they would issue a correction or retraction promptly.

As it is, Ben, maybe you should send KUAR a friendly note with a link to your blog post.

Indeed, I'd thought about it and then got distracted :p

FYI, the owner/representative of the product in question has commented below the blog entry, taking Ben to task for misusing his voice in leading readers away from the "Truth" (yes, of the capital "T" variety) regarding this device.

Goes without saying of course that I'm also highly skeptical.

I'd simply say to any company that markets a gas saver device in the U.S.: don't even bother talking to me until you've subjected it to (and seen significant results from) the EPA's approved testing regimen for fuel saving devices.

EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program

It's that simple. Testimonial evidence from customers isn't worth squat.

Amen to that

I sent an e-mail to the author, CC the news/programming director, and got a nice reply back promptly. He says they're working on a companion story to address the concerns of myself and other skeptics. Look for it "in the coming days".

Letters to the editor get results. Don't let me be the only one writing them.

Mr Smalls: nice rational response to the inventor/promoter in the blog thread. (Assuming you posted as "Rob".)

Popular Mechanics has also questioned the validity of Hatton's claims. See below:

KUAR: Skeptics question the claims of "Gadgetman Groove" backers (2010-07-07)

This is KUAR's follow-up piece. The creator of the Groove says he's going to hire an independent laboratory to run some tests, but we all know how that could go. If it's a dyno study at primarily low load, low RPMs, instrumented with an MPGuino, then the results should be valid. But if it's an on-the-road before and after study, it will leave way too many variables in play, and the results might just be skewed in favor of the party hiring the laboratory.

@Darin: Nah, I've been using my real-life name (Matt Gates) more and more across the internet. I used to post mostly in forums about current events and the latest video games, and having a veil of pseudonymity was nice. But now that my hobbies are a bit more grown-up, the forums I hang out in are the kind where you can use your real name.

No they don't. :mad:

I wrote to several news outlets re: Doug Palmear and his scam Mustang. Some never replied even after a follow-up from me; some did reply but they never expressed any interest correcting their wrong, acknowledging their role in promoting a scam, and/or putting any correct information out there.

Everything the media presents must be evaluated with a VERY jaundiced eye.

...I make a recommendation that this sentence become the ecomodders' "by-line" and be displayed in parentheses under the "green-E" banner.

Gentlemen, does the data count for nothing as well?

Please take a look at the YouTube vids and see the data presenting itself on good test equipment. There are about a dozen vids there showing the changes in the emissions.

Come on, now.... Start with this one. It showed the most dramatic improvement of all I have modified: (YouTube link removed by admin)

Since that one doesn't have the machine itself showing due to glare issues, here's another two that do:

(YouTube link removed by admin)

(YouTube link removed by admin)

And here's a test done by Panacea University out of Sydney, AU:

(YouTube link removed by admin)

Can you skip the emotional appeals, and post a link to the report instead of a video?

You are a magnificent statesman!

Thank you for showing your ability to take all matters under consideration according to your obviously high standards. You will be considered a legend in your own time. Mr. Smalls.

I am so obviously out of your league, and I appreciate you pointing that out.

Now, I will go back to my investors and collaborators and colleagues and tell them it's decided.

600 field tests and over a hundred testimonials are worthless.... According to some faceless nameless entity on a forum, we must now accept our investment totally wasted. All the reports are not worth the time it took to record them.

I guess I should hang my head in shame....

NOT!
;)

I am making a positive difference in the lives of people.

What are you doing?

Here's someone else you should contact and tell them what you think of his testing protocols:
Dr. John Balachandra of UC Santa Cruz the Director of their Center for Sustainable Energy and Power Systems opinion of The Gadgetman Groove
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhbMlg7rOQM

This isn't data. It's still mostly testimonials.

The Panacea University test had my interest until I saw the (inherently flawed) on-road testing. So I wasn't surprised to discover there is of course no "Panacea University" in a list of accredited Australian universities & colleges (source).

---

Final warning, Gadgetman: because you're selling something, you must meet a higher standard than the average tinkerer who wants to discuss his latest mod.

So, I've removed the links to your videos, and am giving this warning: you're welcome to provide credible 3rd party evidence as to what your groove accomplishes. If you can't post that kind of information, stop posting on EcoModder. (Or you'll be banned.)

FYI, the "EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program" is an "EPA-approved" test methodology designed specifically for evaluating devices that claim to save fuel or reduce emissions.

That video isn't data either.

What would be useful is if you could provide Dr Balachandra's research report. I for one would like to read about his testing protocols.

i thought id throw my 2 cents in here

initially i thought this was a hoax generally from the approach of hard selling and because i cant theorise how this could possibly work.
Having said that one thing that did catch my attention about this is that gadgetman offered for ecomodders in an certain area to test it out for free. To me this gives it a little credability (but not too much). Unfortunately the modification does require a non reversible change to be made to the air intake therefore i think many ecomodders will be hesitant to try it out unless it is conclusively proven.

Gadgetman, just a suggestion to you.
if you can explain the scientific principle behind how this device improves fuel efficiency then you are more likely to win over some more people. A large amount of the people on this forum are technically and scientifically minded, I believe there are several mechanical engineers so if there is any validity to your products claims they will be able to tell us if there is any possible way the concept will work.

the only other way you could convince me is to have one of the very active members on here try it out and report back to the group.
I would trust MetroMPG's feedback more than anyone else considering his history of valuable test data however I can completely understand his and other peoples hesistance to try the product due to the non reversible nature of the modification.

Frank Lee, couple of thoughts:
1. don't use the stationary with your picture up in the corner
2. maybe "and having a veil of pseudonymity was/is nice. "

I'm just saying......

Dear Ron

you said "Now, I will go back to my investors and collaborators and colleagues and tell them it's decided.

600 field tests and over a hundred testimonials are worthless.... According to some faceless nameless entity on a forum, we must now accept our investment totally wasted. All the reports are not worth the time it took to record them.

I guess I should hang my head in shame....

Two examples come to mind from your sarcastic comment.........
1. 1610, Galileo published his Sidereus Nuncius (Starry Messenger), describing the surprising observations that he had made with the new telescope. These and other discoveries exposed major difficulties with the scientific understanding of the heavens that had been held since antiquity, and raised new interest in radical teachings such as the heliocentric theory of Copernicus (published in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium in 1543). THe result was Galileo was looked up. Now don't think I am comparing you to Galileo. No, you are more like the Pope. Just because YOUR circle of friends agree with you does not make you right or replace true scientific testing.

2. In my own industry, Long-Term Care, the vast majority of the industry is completely off base on some core 'facts' and beliefs. I have reseached the true source of these errors and even written a book on the topic. I have been battling this for 10 yrs. Unlike you, instead of rushing uot and snagging investors who can 'prove me right', I wrote a book that lists each myth, the documented sources of the myth, and the documented truths and facts. There are no footnotes or index. Each source is listed right there in the text. I used these facts to convince MetLife to finally change a nationally distributed ESSENTIAL GUIDE TO LTC that had be WRONG for 9 years(and was reviewed for content every 2 yrs.
If you'd like, I'd be glad to send it to you (19.95 plus postage) so you can see how to actually, proffesionally, and in a business like manner validate and prove your point.

Saand: personally, I wouldn't test this mod without a lab/dynomometer.

If the mod isn't easily & quickly reversible for A-B-A testing under identical vehicle, speed & weather conditions, it allows too much variability to creep in.

Same reason I won't test fuel/oil additives.

Same reason I didn't test the difference between my standard & XFi camshaft.

And I maintain: it's not our job to test his product. If he's selling something, it's his responsibility to provide credible evidence to the consumer. (...Or be prepared to move on if he isn't willing to offer the level of evidence the consumer asks for.)

Seems to me to be a pseudo spin off on the Somender Singh grooves from a few years back. It sounded good on the Singh grooves in the cylinder head and the rationale about turbulence.

The Singh grooves revelation has fallen into the silence of the experimental that did not transition into the practical, although its funny to see similar grooves radiating from the prechamber area of a 28 year old Mercedes diesel.

I am assuming it is some method of modification of the throttle body area of the induction system. If that assumption is correct then it should be reversible (swap throttle bodies) and therefore any benefit could be documented.

Is my thought process flawed?

regards
Mech

metrompg, i completely understand you not wanting to test it even just the effort in getting good results takes so much time its really only worth it if you have a fair idea you will get some benefit.

your quite right its not the job of ecomodders to test his device if nobody on here thinks it worthwhile

I would be interested to hear the scientific basis for how it works. For me at least that will be the deciding factor to see if its even worth testing or even discussing any further at all.

Very well....
 

Since you have proven to me this site is not about truly exploring, but exercising your right to show how smart you are, I respectfully request you remove me from your list of users.

Were it not for your very nicely worded reminders that you wanted to "tempt me back" I would have long ago left your discussions where they need to be: somewhere other than in my life.

Your demands for proof are not helping in the development of fuel efficiency technologies. You are directly impacting it in a negative way.

Further, I have not tried to sell you ANYTHING. In fact, the OPPOSITE is true, yet you continue to insult, demean and diminish my efforts to provide SOMETHING to this forum that would inspire someone to at the very LEAST accept my offer so I can get the data you DEMAND.

As far as I'm concerned, this is a bogus site, managed by bogus people with NO desire to make the changes necessary for this planet to become what it needs to become: Cleaner and greener.

You are a wonderful example of abuse of power, MetroMPG. It is all about YOUR accomplishments and that is all.

Please continue to enjoy your power to limit the truth, my friend.

I will continue to make as much a POSITIVE difference in the world around me as I can.

Now, please erase me as a user. I have better things to do than to try to convince ANYONE like you... It cannot be done.

Thank you.

I'm tempted to post a response to the above, but I don't think there's a lot to be gained. Your words speak for themselves.

So, as requested, your email is off the reminder list.

If you ever undertake proper 3rd party testing of your product/service, you are always welcome to share the results here. Good luck with your business.

That's cool :thumbup:. Congrats!

Gadgetman said: "Your demands for proof are not helping in the development of fuel efficiency technologies. You are directly impacting it in a negative way."

That is the most ________________________________(fill-in the black) sentence I have ever read..............I am stunned. THe guy doesn't have a tin ear........he has NO ear.

Let me say, what I know I have said before. For a 'general web form' (not 'scientific' 'nuclear engineers, bio-scientists etc) this is the most open-minded, intellegent, thought provoking, stimulating, enlightening forum I am on. THat guy is really clueless. My really only complaint was when the moderator took down the posts on hood ornements.....wasn't that it Frank Lee.......you remember, the hood ornamets that were drapped clear across the hood (wink) (smile) (blush).

Thank you very much.:D

Those are gone?!? :mad:

http://peswiki.com/images/7/7c/Gadge...tion_95x95.jpg

Apparently, the idea is to allow air to somehow travel around the throttle plate with reduced restriction, therefore reduced pumping loss past the plate. The idea itself sounds possible in theory, but I severely doubt that this modification results in a 20% or more fuel economy gain.

There's also the matter of the increased airflow around the throttle plate. How are you supposed to control engine output with this larger-than normal opening around the throttle plate?

You'd let off the gas, end result being using the same amount of throttle restriction as pre-mod. Only thing it might do is screw up any tps readings to the ecu.

UC doesn't seem to have one of those: University of California - A - Z Index - Alphabetical listing of University of California systemwide site topics. <meta name="description" content="Alphabetical listing of University of California systemwide site topics.">

Re Dr Balachandra, I did find this: CenSEPS People | Center for Sustainable Energy and Power Systems | Jack Baskin School of Engineering | UC Santa Cruz

And for those who haven't seen it yet, EcoModder now has 'guidelines' for people who want to promote their commercial fuel-saving products on the forum...

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...uel-15251.html

.

For the record, I believe MetroMPG is speaking on behalf of the members of this site, not "abusing power".

It's amusing to see someone with a stable of modded Metros called "drunk on power". Do all megalomaniacs drive forklift-based EV conversions and 49HP Metros?

Ha!

Thanks for the moral support.

I guess I could fall into the category of someone trying to sell their idea, so that may make it easier to understand some of the reactions. On the other side of that coin I am not trying to sell anything but a better understanding of the means to make cars more efficient so inefficient drivers can benefit from better design.

regards
Mech

This mod is more or less documented on how to do it without spending any money.

I don't see any HARM in grooving the throttle body or for that matter the heads of the engine.

And I do know some manufacturers have put in their own grooves for one reason or another.

I would estimate that this would have some affect on fuel atomization but I doubt it would be enough to effect FE to the point that we can remove variability.

But if someone here wants to be a guinny pig :) Why not?