Post your commute MPG with elevation change.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by D.O.G.

...I guess it's obvious that, although I don't use much fuel going to work I use double on the way home

You are getting better fuel economy by driving hills, otherwise you are likely doing it wrong.

[Mustang Dave]

That's a cool website. I never realized how drastic some of the elevation gradients were.
My normal commute to work - 16.5 miles; 663' net elevation change; 3 stop signs; 21 stop lights; .5957 gallons; 27.7 MPG.



My normal commute home - different route to avoid city traffic - 18.5 miles; -663' net elevation change; 2 stop signs; 9 stop lights; .5 gallons; 37 MPG.

[AbeisAverage]

This is to school, so it's nice and early(cold) in the morning. I don't have concrete averages but I get anywhere from 28-31 (closer to 28-29, 30 if I'm lucky)


Coming home is obviously easier, I can get 32-38, usually about 33-35.

One thing this doesn't really take into account for me is that I park in a parking garage, don't have much choice in that matter. That always saps a few tenths from me on my way to school. One thing I've noticed is that since I pumped the tires up to 49 and took the mudflaps off I was able to get 30 going to school on a much more regular basis. It is starting to get colder though so those numbers are starting to recede. I might look into new tires before the snow comes. This is pretty cool though, thanks for the thread.

[California98Civic]

I can't figure out how to copy and post the map, but here are the stats going to work:

Distance: 15.5 mi
Elevation: + 1444 / - 999 ft
Max Grade: 18.7 %
Avg. Grade: 1.2 %

That maximum grade is a mile or two long at 45 mph and starting at a traffic light that always stops you completely. It crushes FE. Otherwise there are two peaks to negotiate. I can get a 2-mile shorter route, but it gives me a third steep grade to negotiate, with traffic lights all the way up, and all the way down. Nonetheless, on good days when the lights don't get in the way too badly I get over 60 mpg on this route--and over 70 coming home.

[k-vette]

Distance: 21.0 mi
Elevation: + 3183 / - 2097 ft
Max Grade
13.2 %
Avg. Grade
0.5 %

Looks like I get more elevation changes than most.

[sheepdog 44]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

Use (Map Bike Rides with Elevation Profiles, Analyze Cycling Performance, Train Better. Ride With GPS)

You have to create an account but it's free. It works like google maps, but' it'll give you elevation and most importantly overlay the grade on top of the that. Once you map your route, save it, then go to share on the right hand side of the map and it'll give you a link to your elevation image.

For fun i decided to see what a trip to florida would be like. Thats 35,000 feet in elevation gain and loss! Like climbing and descending mount Everest (6.6miles up and down). All of this takes place between 0 and 1,345 feet over 1,300 miles, but all those minor ups and downs on the highway add up even with.1% average grade. We really do live in an imperfect world!

Minimum Elevation
-1 ft
Maximum Elevation
1345 ft
Avg. Grade
-0.1 %

[mcguire]

Originally Posted by Mustang Dave

My normal commute to work - 16.5 miles; 663' net elevation change; 3 stop signs; 21 stop lights; .5957 gallons; 27.7 MPG.

My normal commute home - different route to avoid city traffic - 18.5 miles; -663' net elevation change; 2 stop signs; 9 stop lights; .5 gallons; 37 MPG.

56.6 miles, ~15' elevation change overall (but 2202 up and 2224 down), maximum grade 9.1%, 7 stop lights, 1 stop sign.

I never realized the two smaller hills (just to the left of the big peak) were the same order of magnitude as the other peak at 15.9 miles.

[sheepdog 44]

Originally Posted by mcguire

56.6 miles, ~15' elevation change overall (but 2202 up and 2224 down), maximum grade 9.1%, 7 stop lights, 1 stop sign.

I never realized the two smaller hills (just to the left of the big peak) were the same order of magnitude as the other peak at 15.9 miles.

Your challenge now is to try to alter your commute to delete those hills. Even if those hills at 15.9 and 40 miles aren't that tall, the grade is way to steep and your losing good mileage going up them. Besides max grade, average grade is a key factor. Even my -.7 average grade to work makes a 13mpg difference one way.

In my commute i go for the least elevation gain and the most lost. I have to routes to work, one with long shallow downhills for max mpg. The other is to top off my battery with regen. It's steeper downhills where i couldn't use all the momentum i gain due to speed limits. Probably only a 5mpg penalty.

[slowbro]

Originally Posted by sheepdog 44

The question is would you get better mileage if your commute was level? 44.5mpg round trip is pretty good. Sorta like pulse and gliding the terrain.

Too bad fuel economy doesn't work that way. You can't average the averages. 14 mpg one way and 75 mpg the other way does not give 44.5 mpg
i.e.
(14+75)/2=44.5 is the WRONG way to do it

In actuality, you have to divide the total miles driven by the total number of gallons used to find the average.

i.e.
Gas used on the trip there:
(15 miles/14 mpg)= 1.071 gallons used
Gas used on the trip back:
(15 miles/75 mpg)= 0.200 gallons used
Overall gas mileage:
(30 miles travelled)/(1.071 gallons + 0.200 gallons) = 23.6 mpg
Quite a bit of difference.

Which brings an interesting point: This shows that having a large elevation change that significantly affects gas mileage actually does hurt pretty significantly over the round trip when compared to no elevation change. You may get great numbers one way, but overall the fuel economy suffers.

Sorry about rambling on. I'm quite a math nazi, and this is one of my pet peeves.

[sheepdog 44]

Okay, now i'm thoroughly perplexed why the two ways of calculating give completely different answers! This is gonna trouble me all day now.

EDIT, Okay, this fit's into my assumption that if you get 15mpg going uphill a 1 mile hill, and then coast all the way down with the engine off getting INFINITE mpg for 1 mile, then the most you can gain is double the mpg you had going up, which is 30mpg. But shouldn't mpg be a metric of volume used over distance already?

Which in a hybrid, electricity is always used going up hill, so your recoverable mpg going back down hill is potentially greater because the mpg going up is the factor that will double ideally?

?

???
???????????????????????????