GasPods: stick on airfoils

[christofoo]

This is quickly becoming my favorite thread.

This testimonial result is +18%, even better than the CFD reduction in Cd, and that's on an Audi that's already limited by throttle loss. For a Cd of -5% you'd think the MPG would be more like +2%.

I know a guy who gets 32 MPG in a similar Audi. He's a jack-rabbit (goes without saying of Audi drivers), doesn't particularly hypermile, but drives the speed limit. Email her and let her know she can gain 2MPG by taking them off.

Reminds me of how a doctor who recommended a product made by the company I work for claimed our laser is 50% efficient "electrical-to-optical." I design lasers (but not that particular laser, thank heavens), and I worked that number out to 2.5%. I pointed this out to the company - guess who's word is in the marketing literature?

But seriously, I'm sad that VG's don't seem to work in the real world on the 80's-90's sedans rear windsheild problem. That's exactly where you'd expect them to work (I'd expect them to work). Not as well as a Kammback or boattail, mind...

[ChazInMT]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

(And the countdown begins for our first non-scientific testimonial new user to sign up...)

6 Hours 36 Minutes, Yer killin me Smalls.

Susanne, If a team of Japanese engineers with a wind tunnel, super computers, months of time, and a mission statement can only realize a 2% reduction in drag using "Not Vortex Generators" remarkably similar in shape and general placement of GasPods by AeroHance, How is it people can get a 20% increase in fuel mileage by just slapping these on where it seems right?

As someone who has put 55,000 miles on my Honda and kept track of every gallon during this time, I can tell you my mileage varies from 28 to 42 MPG per tank, so someone just saying "Shucky Darn, I be getting 4 MPG gooder fuel E Fish in Sea!!" just does not get it.

This Ecomodder forum is a very unfavorable place for you to try and gain any sort of foothold in credibility points, we're a skeptical bunch, and generally have figured out quite a bit about road vehicle aerodynamics.

Your marketing of these GasPods smells of a scam along the lines of HHO generators, fuel line magnets, LED light therapy devices, water ionizers and snake oil. You don't have a shred of actual test data on your site showing results of an ABA test that demonstrates a significant reduction in the Cd of a vehicle.

Living out on the West Coast, it would be a simple thing for you to go find a hill, and roll down it in neutral keeping track of your speed with and without the GasPods a bunch of times on different vehicles to get real data. If you can show the car goes faster with the GasPods than without, you have something. My guess is you've tried this, and it didn't work out too well. But, since you aren't going to let significant facts stand in the way of a good marketing plan, you're charging ahead anyway.

Unfortunately for you, this Ecomodder place has you on its radar, so anyone searching Google will likely run into us here and read what we say, warts and all.

If you want to rise above, get testing, show us your methodology, and results. Tell us what it is doing and how it is reducing the drag. Explain the rationale of your "Not Vortex Generators" we'd love to hear it.

[Piwoslaw]

How to properly test modifications (AKA: don't believe every MPG claim you read)

We don't want to believe, we want to know. We want raw data, not computer images and "I could hear the engine using less gas" testimonies. If GasPods reduce fuel consumption by up to 19%, then please tell us how this was tested (vehicle, GasPod placement, test track and instrumentation details, etc.). If you like, then we can organize our own testing and if we get similar results, then we will not only stop being sceptical, but we will praise you for the simplicity of your invention.

Susanne, with all due respect, we are not saying GasPods don't work, we are saying that the FE claims are outrageous. In the posts above we've told you why, now we ask that you explain to us (in a scientific manner) why we are wrong in our opinion.

[oil pan 4]

18% isn't just a lot. It would be revolutionary.

It would take all of the lesser extreme aero mods in the ecomodder arsenal to get near 20%.
Here are some more realistic aero mod numbers:
2%-3% side mirror delete.
2%-3% grill block
2%-3% rear wheel skirts
2%-4% smooth wheel covers
3%-4% belly pan
4% kammback
3%-5% front air dam
7%-8% pickup fast back or aero shell bed cover
10% full boat tail
14% deleting a big ugly OEM roof rack.

[UFO]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Moved to the corral for now, mainly because it's better that people are skeptical of the product.

(And the countdown begins for our first non-scientific testimonial new user to sign up...)

Fanned for prescience.

[euromodder]

Originally Posted by Susanne

and invite you to read the scientific basis before dishing the product.
[link to site removed by admin - Google Gaspods, if you like ]

Nothing much in the way of science there, I'm afraid.

Same firm that does the same modeling for BMW, Mercedes, Ford, most of the industry. And, GasPods are not vortex generators.
Request permission to have thread moved to aerodynamics.

Great.
Can you please explain how they work when they are not VGs ?

On that very page, it seems that you want them to do the very thing VGs do, energise and bend the airflow to conform to a shape it normally wouldn't conform to.

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Susanne

and invite you to read the scientific basis before dishing the product.

[link to site removed by admin - Google Gaspods, if you like ]

Same firm that does the same modeling for BMW, Mercedes, Ford, most of the industry. And, GasPods are not vortex generators.

Request permission to have thread moved to aerodynamics.

Yes, I am President of AeroHance, makers of GasPods.

Hello Susanne -

First, you may wish to read this page to understand why you're facing skepticism here: http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthrea...uel-15251.html

Re: "I ... invite you to read the scientific basis" ... I'm sure folks here would welcome the chance to read the full research report by the testing company in question. Is that available on your web site?

I wonder if you have submitted your product to testing good enough to be approved by the EPA Motor Vehicle Aftermarket Retrofit Device Evaluation Program ? If the pods work as well as claimed, wouldn't having the EPA's "seal of approval" be marketing gold? Surely worth the investment.

[gone-ot]

...paraphrasing Cuba Gooding Jr's statement: "...show me the FACTS..."

...it's all about "...FACTS & proof..." not "...FAITH & promises..."!

[shovel]

Anybody who's started a business necessarily has to be that business' biggest fan, and defend their business against attacks whether legitimate or baseless. I can't blame the company president for arriving in defense of her business.

It is important to be aware that while some people respect testimonials, others do not. Possibly because of the era in which I was raised, or the nature of my experiences in this world I've come to understand that all marketing claims are outright lies. Sting-free sunburn ointment stings like hell. You still have to do a lot of old fashioned scrubbing when you use Scrubbing Bubbles bathroom cleaner. No movie has ever "Blown Me Away!", whatever that even means. - even claims that aren't outright lies are usually stupid, of course the 2013 BMW is the "Best BMW Yet®" .. why would you make it worse than last year's?

You want to sell me a product? Underwhelm me. Tell me, with absolute certainty, the least I can possibly expect from it. Let the product surprise me by outperforming my expectations. THAT would blow me away. Whatever that means.

The company I work for, for example, makes amplifiers. We'll tell you it makes 45 watts per channel on the box because that's the absolute minimum the design might make - but the individual device you receive will always outperform the ratings you expected. The problem we face is that people are so accustomed to being lied to by everyone else that they have no idea what a correctly measured standard is. They will wonder why our 45 watt amplifier is $400 when a 500 watt amplifier is $12.55 .. a watt's a watt, right?

A 18% improvement from one tank of gas to the next under utterly uncontrolled circumstances clearly indicates that the stick-on, universal plastic thingie causes all cars driven under all conditions to improve by 18% right? Those silly automotive engineers on whom we depend with our very lives to design braking systems and collision safety systems which work well, sure can't seem to get aerodynamics figured out....

If you want to sell this product to us, don't put testimonials on your site. To a skeptic, testimonials have the opposite effect that you want, we actually avoid products marketed by testimonial because we associate them with bogus claims and failures to perform. Instead, offer extremely modest claims. Approach us with the truth. Your customers are your friends, and one doesn't BS one's friends. Perform coast-down tests with the vehicles you have access to, publish your results and methodology - including failures. This will build trust, and trust builds business.

As I said in a prior post, this like many other unicorns probably can actually work under the right conditions and where a problem actually exists in need of correction. It can also serve as a conversation starter, and all fact-based conversations on the topic of resource conservation can be a good thing (nevermind the fuel the UPS truck burns delivering these petroleum-based-plastic objects to us, and the fuel the barge burns while carrying neodymium here from South America... )

If I had a vote, which I don't, it continues to be that this stays in the unicorn corral until such time as it proves itself with more than mere verbal testimonials and pretty simulations.

[Susanne]

As far as testimonials go, if someone is excited, I think they should have the opportunity to be heard. I expect and hope that overtime we'll have many more to share, but they will not be developed by a marketing department. As far as I'm concerned, they'll only be from clients with real world comments.

AeroHance is not based upon 1 testimonial, nor was I the one who posted it here. The press piece - [link to site removed by admin - Google Gaspods, if you like ] - that precipitated this thread gave the following results based upon logging mileage for a minimum - note that all drove much further - of 2,000 miles of driving with and without GasPods on their car. And ranged in results from 1.65% through 11.83%. That is representative of the spread we're seeing so far.

Our company is transparent, and as more results come in, and time allows good and bad results will be posted to AeroHance.com. Our goal is to have the broadest cross section of data upon which to grow as we can. I trust that some will get over their initial glee at having a new kid on the block to throw stones at, and join in. [Link to site removed by admin - Google Gaspods, if you like. ]