Go Back   EcoModder Forum > EcoModding > The Unicorn Corral
Register Now
 Register Now
 


Reply  Post New Thread
 
Submit Tools LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 11-25-2012, 09:56 PM   #21 (permalink)
Aero Deshi
 
ChazInMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 1,065

MagMetalCivic - '04 Honda Civic Sedan EX
Last 3: 34.25 mpg (US)
Thanks: 430
Thanked 666 Times in 357 Posts
Susanne,

Do you not see that we're skeptical here for 4 reasons.

1st, we know that anecdotal evidence, even over vast amounts of time, is worthless. Your test team is biased because in general people are not going to spend around $100 on something and then report negatively on it. It's marketing 101 stuff, they'd make themselves look like idiots for buying them. People who get positive results are far more likely to report them than those who get negative numbers. In addition, your test team is going to, in all likelihood change other things about how they drive and maintain their cars in order to save fuel. The gaspod things are just one of several elements in their fuel savings efforts so to credit all the fuel savings to the gaspods is just silly.

2nd, to achieve a 10% savings in fuel, the gaspods would need to reduce the aerodynamic drag on the vehicle by 20%. 20% is a HUGE reduction in the Cd of a car, if the gaspods could do this, they'd be on every production car made these days. For a 20% savings, your devices would need to reduce drag by 40% on a car. Really? Automobile companies are spending millions to try and save 2-3%. We here understand these numbers and realize that gaspods alone CAN NOT be responsible for more than a few percent savings if any, so your bragging up 10,15, & 20% savings numbers again seems disingenuous and silly.

3rd, CFD testing is suspect because the program can be written to favor you. It is also a Hugely complicated problem to try and ask a computer what is going to happen with air flow simulations. To those who don't know any better, using a computer to test an aerodynamic element on a car is a good idea. To those of us who understand better, and know the limitations of the all-powerful computers, we know this is at best, a crude tool for letting us know whether we may be on the right track. Don't go giving us some NASA engineer mumbo jumbo either, we're celebrating 100 years of flight here and greater minds than yours, mine, and your engineer cannot agree on how exactly it is that an airplane flies, specifically, how is lift created. You wanna put that to the test start a thread in here regarding the theory of flight and watch the feathers fly. Might as well put a Baptist preacher and a died in the wool atheist in the same room and have them discuss the great hereafter.

4th, I and others have offered you an easy, low cost, very accurate method of determining whether the gaspods are actually reducing the aerodynamic drag as you purport by doing a coast down test, or by finding a hill and rolling down it in neutral with and without the gaspods in place and comparing the results. Within 2-3 hours of testing (which is less time than you have dedicated to reading and responding to these posts in here) you could have raw data that would be very difficult to dispute regarding the positive benefits of your devices. Yet you do not seem willing to do something this easy saying instead, you'd rather rely on methods which are not at all scientific in nature as proof your gaspods are effective. We here would be happy to draw up a testing protocol giving instructions to make it straight forward what needs to be done.

If you are genuine in your effort to sell a drag reducing device, why would you not do this simple coasting test? Why not ask people in your test fleet to do the same? It canít be time or money. Is it that youíre afraid the real world results will indeed prove a tiny, if any, improvement would result in a very long term payback?

Whatta ya think?

  Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to ChazInMT For This Useful Post:
mcrews (03-15-2013)
Alt Today
Popular topics

Other popular topics in this forum...

   
Old 11-25-2012, 11:20 PM   #22 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Hey - I'm the biggest skeptic. Auto industry consultants have the wind tunnel simulation programs pretty well down. When conducted by professionals, it is a more precise and better measurement of the effect on the drag coefficient than you can get rolling down a hill. Their task was to determine what the GasPods are doing. It was part of the R&D and economic feasibility study - whether the company was worth investing in at all - stage of business. They were paid the same, whether results were good or bad. Although useful when marketing, the CFD modeling was not conducted for that purpose.

Our goal is to benefit real world drivers, by reducing the cost and environmental effect of their day-to-day driving. I think we agree that a reduction in drag coefficient of one's vehicle does have a positive effect on their fuel consumption. I don't think the formula as simple as 50%. I think it varies as much as all things we might say about driving.

Scads of data are the only way to control for the multiplicity of variables that affect drivers efficiency. That's why we instituted our test team program with our first product release. First to give drivers a value to testing the product for themselves, and secondly, to build that data pool. Whereas driving behavior might differ at the outset, our test protocol puts that effect during the baseline - without GasPod - phase of logging. For most, habits die hard and changes in behavior over the cost of a tank of gas (The price to test team members is $59 - $79.) are pretty well controlled for over 4,000 miles of driving. Most people are honest, and our initial returns reflect that honesty.

However, if someone new learns to modify their driving, think more about their style of driving, or, maybe even become a hypermiler and join as a member of ecomodder to learn more - because of taking the first simple step of adding GasPods to their car - then, I think we have to agree that is a good thing.

Like I said, although it looks like a fun project, I would not add a boat tail to my car, but I have no problem plopping some GasPods on my roof - and I'm here learning more because of it. I think I'm indicative of most people in that regard.

Now, I know you love your roll down test, and will never be satisfied until its done, but,.... do I dare to open this can of worms?..... Well, I can respond without expressing an opinion, no company can advocate its use in California, in particular, when you have AAA and mainstream press publishing statements that its dangerous. Overcome that hurdle for your position, and only then could I have my staff consider it.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:25 PM   #23 (permalink)
Eco-ventor
 
jakobnev's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: sweden
Posts: 1,276

Princess - '92 Mazda MX-3 GS
House of Tudor
Team Mazda
90 day: 53.54 mpg (US)

Shirubāarō (*īω`*) - '05 Toyota Prius Executive
Team Toyota
90 day: 54.96 mpg (US)
Thanks: 57
Thanked 469 Times in 295 Posts
Send a message via MSN to jakobnev
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post
I'm not sure the relevance of the number of those who do not submit data.
(See the first point in post #21)

Without seeing how many failed to report, we don't know the potential skew in the results.

Just consider seasonal variations over 4000 miles. With biased reporting, they by themselves could explain all the results you are showing, without your product doing anything at all.
__________________




2016: 128.75L for 1875.00km => 6.87L/100km (34.3MPG US)
2017: 209.14L for 4244.00km => 4.93L/100km (47.7MPG US)

Last edited by jakobnev; 11-25-2012 at 11:43 PM..
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-25-2012, 11:32 PM   #24 (permalink)
(:
 
Frank Lee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: up north
Posts: 12,735

Blue - '93 Ford Tempo
Last 3: 27.29 mpg (US)

F150 - '94 Ford F150 XLT 4x4
90 day: 18.5 mpg (US)

Sport Coupe - '92 Ford Tempo GL
Last 3: 69.62 mpg (US)

ShWing! - '82 honda gold wing Interstate
90 day: 33.65 mpg (US)

Moon Unit - '98 Mercury Sable LX Wagon
90 day: 21.24 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,571
Thanked 3,508 Times in 2,195 Posts
Quote:
Now, I know you love your roll down test, and will never be satisfied until its done, but,.... do I dare to open this can of worms?..... Well, I can respond without expressing an opinion, no company can advocate its use in California, in particular, when you have AAA and mainstream press publishing statements that its dangerous.
= disingenuous.
__________________


  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 12:29 AM   #25 (permalink)
EcoModding Apprentice
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: winterpeg, manisnowba
Posts: 211

clank - '99 jeep tj sport
90 day: 17.32 mpg (US)
Thanks: 9
Thanked 18 Times in 18 Posts
i think your plastic car bling; is expensive, and has no effect; about as good as your defensive tactics are.

considering i'm driving with something similar on my vehicle right now; i find that they are a detriment to my fuel economy.

i went from 400km/tank before to 360-340km/tank after.(if you respond with the comment of it's my fault they don't work as intended, you really are someone with spin control in mind). while i will say they do increase my coast length/speed; i bet if i drove like a "Normal stop and go" person it would be way worse(considering my gf drives it every so often and can go through a 1/4 of a tank in half the distance or less what i would)

oh, and what i have on are:

Aerodynamic Fuel Economy Savers for Road Vehicles
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 02:36 AM   #26 (permalink)
Aero Deshi
 
ChazInMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 1,065

MagMetalCivic - '04 Honda Civic Sedan EX
Last 3: 34.25 mpg (US)
Thanks: 430
Thanked 666 Times in 357 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post

Auto industry consultants have the wind tunnel simulation programs pretty well down.
No they don't, it's why they still build multi-million dollar windtunnels.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post

When conducted by professionals, it is a more precise and better measurement of the effect on the drag coefficient than you can get rolling down a hill.
No it isn't, rolling down a hill is a real world, hard fact, can't deny it, test of whether the thing works or not.

Too bad you didn't check with us before you spent God knows what on your computer simulations. Fact is, I'm here at ecomodder because I was going to invent magnetic stick-on golfball dimples to put all over a car. The folks here helped me to see the err of my ways when I stumbled in here while doing research.

A computer simulation is a fantasy world collection of numbers that may or may not account for the insane amounts of variables that exist in something as simple as air moving around a car as it goes down the road. If it were a simple thing, a computer using 32 64bit, 3.2Ghz processors wouldn't need 8 days to figure it out.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post

I don't think the formula as simple as 50%. I think it varies as much as all things we might say about driving.
It's pretty darn close, it's a pretty basic fact about aerodynamics, you should know this. FWIW this 50% thing is for highway speeds, in town, it's much less. (Meaning, if you aren't hitting the highway a lot, your gaspods are even less effective)

Here's proof, see that "Power to Wheels" 17-21% and "Wind Resistance" is 8-10%, there you go, cut wind resistance in half, improve your fuel efficiency by a quarter. Or 50% or your Aero Gain is Fuel Efficiency gain.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post

Scads of data are the only way to control for the multiplicity of variables that affect drivers efficiency. That's why we instituted our test team program with our first product release. First to give drivers a value to testing the product for themselves, and secondly, to build that data pool.
Bad data is bad data whether it is 2 numbers or 30,000......surely this does not have to be explained to you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post

However, if someone new learns to modify their driving, think more about their style of driving, or, maybe even become a hypermiler and join as a member of ecomodder to learn more - because of taking the first simple step of adding GasPods to their car - then, I think we have to agree that is a good thing.

Of this I cannot disagree, however, you are making a claim or inferring that drag reduction by gaspods are the reason for the savings. This I contend is not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post

... no company can advocate its use in California, in particular, when you have AAA and mainstream press publishing statements that its dangerous. Overcome that hurdle for your position, and only then could I have my staff consider it.
Show me where it says this. One article in the mainstream press or on AAAs website or anywhere else. Should be easy enough to find since countless lives have been lost by people coasting down a hill for a mile, there are certainly warnings a plenty about it.

Think about it, if you coast down the same hill 10 times, alternating pods on/pods off going the same speed of 45-50mph at the starting point, shifting into neutral, then timing how long it takes for you to reach an end point and noting what speed you're going, you'll know pretty quick if there is a 10% reduction in your aerodynamic drag. If you find the right hill, you'll be going the roughly same speed the whole time. Certainly there are plenty of long downhill runs in the LA area for you to find which have minimal traffic, and late at night, no traffic whatsoever.

You don't even have to put the results on your website or anything, just tell us here....it'll be our secret.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 05:50 AM   #27 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Crono's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Victoria
Posts: 70

Pizza Geo - '92 Geo Metro
Last 3: 47.52 mpg (US)

Blazing Glory - '07 Yamaha C3
90 day: 108.96 mpg (US)

The Beast - '86 Pontiac Subird
90 day: 15.6 mpg (US)

Mom's Firefly - '92 Pontiac Firefly
90 day: 35.65 mpg (US)

Noris - '08 Toyota Yaris
90 day: 35.45 mpg (US)

Mirage - '15 Mitsubishi Mirage
90 day: 41.52 mpg (US)
Thanks: 10
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
My goodness, what have I done?
__________________
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 08:05 AM   #28 (permalink)
EcoModding Lurker
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Santa Barbara, California
Posts: 14
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crono View Post
My goodness, what have I done?
Just, take into consideration not one of these naysayers has touched or tried GasPods.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 09:58 AM   #29 (permalink)
Aero Deshi
 
ChazInMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Vero Beach, FL
Posts: 1,065

MagMetalCivic - '04 Honda Civic Sedan EX
Last 3: 34.25 mpg (US)
Thanks: 430
Thanked 666 Times in 357 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by Susanne View Post
Just, take into consideration not one of these naysayers has touched or tried GasPods.
So what's your point?

I also have not tried diving off a cliff to establish the practical limits of G-Forces on my body.

Susanne has never really tested her devices and can't seem to form a reasonable reply as to why not, always talking in circles instead of addressing the issues presented.
  Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 10:08 AM   #30 (permalink)
Rat Racer
 
Fat Charlie's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Route 16
Posts: 3,869

Al the Third, year four - '13 Honda Fit Base
Team Honda
90 day: 42.9 mpg (US)
Thanks: 1,611
Thanked 1,739 Times in 1,123 Posts
Susanne- You want to benefit real world drivers, but the only real world "testing" you offer is customer testimonials. The only testing your company seems to have done is "wind tunnel simulation programs."

A hill and the air around it are real world things, and the distance a car rolls down and through those things is easily measured. The AAA and mainstream press notwithstanding, is there no testing facility in California that has any elevation change?

__________________

Quote:
Originally Posted by sheepdog44 View Post
Transmission type Efficiency
Manual neutral engine off.100% @MPG <----- Fun Fact.
Manual 1:1 gear ratio .......98%
CVT belt ............................88%
Automatic .........................86%

  Reply With Quote
Reply  Post New Thread


Thread Tools




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.5.2
All content copyright EcoModder.com