The reason I haven't been updating my fuel logs:
 

Not specifically this one, but I've been hauling crap around for the last few tanks, ranging from lawn mowers to motorcycles, stone to bricks and logs.

Yep, it's a Minivan. :thumbup:
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ch...4-dscf2185.jpg
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ch...3-dscf2186.jpg
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ch...2-dscf2187.jpg
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ch...1-dscf2188.jpg
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ch...0-dscf2189.jpg
http://ecomodder.com/forum/member-ch...9-dscf2190.jpg

I R teh Winrar!

Anyone wanna guess what breed/year/model/size of motorcycle it is?

My take on fuel logs is they should be all or none. It ain't a contest where we win by picking out the "bad" entries.

Christ -

Honda GL1000?

Flat-4 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...f/Glengine.jpg

(but the fuel tank and horn don't look OEM)

CarloSW2

I don't pick out the "Bad" entries, but the ones where I'm loaded to capacity for any large portion of the tank aren't exactly representative of the norm. Except lately, I guess.

I could have started another fuel log to show what I"m getting while hauling crap around in my 4 cylinder 3 speed auto van... :thumbup: I didn't though, because the numbers hauling are still above EPA... LOL.

I will post this next fill up, though. Even though I just hauled this thing at 70MPH home for like 140 miles, after a 140 mile trip up to get it, again, at like 70 MPH. I believe I may have still gotten close to or right at 30 MPG for this tank, based on the fuel gauge. I'd at least guess it's close to my normal average, but I've been EOC as much as possible this tank.

I had a Ford Aerostar, nuff said.

And what praytell, are ya gonna do with that? (almost afraid to ask...:p )

And tell us again how hauling a few hundred lbs (about 2 passengers worth) in an enclosed vehicle would have any effect on your mileage over 140 mi @ 70 MPH ????

Maybe if now you go "Well I forgot to mention it was all stop and go back roads" :rolleyes:
Like frank lee said, you cant take the good and dump the bad. Heck I'd love to dump all my hauling tanks so would some others that use open trucks / trailers for work but we don't.
It's kind of like the thread about deflating your EPA #s to make your percentages seem bigger .........

Carlos -

Of course, your Google skills are WIN!

Everything on it is stock, but it sat in a field for a year, and was repainted at least once, so the tank decals are gone, etc.

I wish it came w/ the bags and trunk, front fairing, etc. They'd have been nice pieces.

I actually am using the whole frame, 1000cc engine, transmission, and driveline for a reverse trike project I'll probably never finish. (Or even start, the way things are seemingly going lately.) Better to have the parts and never start, than to start and not be able to get the parts.

Frank -

Yeah, I do that, even though it hurts sometimes. But thanks to you, I now add my Saturn's "oil burning" to my fuel log (:mad:). If I have a bad tank, I document the reason in the details section of the fuel log. Almost unlimited room for bellyaching there.

CarloSW2

To be honest, I can do what I want with it. It's for my benefit, not yours.

Frankly, I remove the tanks that have a large amount of hauling things, because as I said before, they don't represent the average, or even the norm.

That bike weighs nearly 800 lbs in full trim. It probably weighs at least 600 the way it sits right now. You must have some fat friends.

Also, I wouldn't "go" anything with quotes. :rolleyes:



Carlos - that's not the fuel tank, either. The tank is under the seat:

Christ -

The two parts that scream Honda are the rear taillights, the rear shocks, and the disk brake oil cup thingy on the handlebar. Everything else was fuzzy.

CarloSWiki2

Other interesting features might include the fuel pump, as mentioned before, the integration of electronics and radiator overflow into the perceived fuel tank, the dual disc brake front wheel, some models were produced with a reverse gear in the transmission, since it was thought that due to size and weight, riders might not be able to move the hefty design easily backwards.

I'm not sure if this one has reverse or not, I'll have to check. Early models had kickstart and electric start. The 4 cylinder engine sits atop the manual transmission, rather than in front of it. The shaft drive was also a first for Japanese bikes, adapted from BMW's then-used design.

My mileage is down right now due to new tires. They're awesome in the rain and pretty comfortable even at elevated psi's, especially compared to the rock-hard, bald OEMs. But they knock a few MPGs off. Eh. New winter tires going on soon, that will probably put another blip on the chart. I just record them all, except the ones where I can't get an accurate mile/gallon reading.

Nice bike btw. As often happens Japan copies a good design and adds their own innovations.

For maintenance items and such, things that are part of normal routine, I would still record them.

I still wish it came w/ the bags/trunk/fairing. It had a Craig Vetter WindJammer fairing, nicely painted and with OE speakers. The guy wanted another $50 for it, and I didn't have it. The bags were taken by the "abondoning" owner about a year ago, right before he abandoned it. Same w/ the seat.

Measuring can be a funny thing. Just about all we do related to fe modding is made or broken on measuring.

True you can record whatever you want. What you may have then is an incomplete data stream. Don't know how that helps.

Jah it is for your uses. But sometimes I'll look at someone else's fuel log to correlate with things they've said/claimed in a thread. Sometimes it can be revealing and help put things in context i.e. if they're making fe claims based on a 1 gallon top-up.

Eh, yet another thing that must be approached with skepticism i.e. you'd hope it's accurate and true but you can't know.

Christ, I also believe that all data should be in the fuel log, but since you didn't put everything up (I do hope you're at least recording the 'haul' tanks somewhere), you're honest about it:) That's a plus.

Ditto. Everyone is going to have bad tanks here or there, thats life. If my wife drives my Paseo, it probably drops the mileage almost in half.

I throw out any tank where I spend considerable distance offroad, for my Jeep. By considerable, I mean better than 50, or whenever most of the time is spent in 4LO. That becomes more a fuel per hour measure than by mile. And I'm not sure the best way to value that.

Except for the opposed engine and gas tank, it looks like a Kawi KZ1000. Can't tell beyond that.

Anyhow, go ahead and post them. I post every tank, good, bad, or indifferent, for any reason. But then again, keeping a fuel log is for your own uses...

yah, said "GL" as soon as I saw the pic :)

wow, kick starter and spokes (I'm a fan of both)

looks like a 1977 or earlier
http://motos.home.att.net/gl1000history.htm

I quit keeping track of my gas mileage for about 3-4 tanks just because I had car troubles and couldn't actually properly fill it up and drive. It was stuck back home and such.

Going to keep track again even if I'm not really hypermiling so much.

I agree.

The only fill-up I didn't post for my "White Pony" was the first one after the dealership filled it during a test drive. They didn't reset the trip odometer when they filled it, so I didn't have an accurate "miles traveled" number on my first fill. So I didn't post that one. I DID post my worst fill-up ever, and explained the reason.

I omitted the first 6+ years on "Big Red"'s fuel log because I didn't have the inclination and enthusiasm to post another 100+ fill-ups. And it would have just been "more of the same"...:p

In my humble opinion, I've managed to squeeze some fairly impressive fuel economy out of my 4-liter Mustang. My next fill-up won't be as impressive, due to colder weather, but I believe I can break 32 MPG next year.:)

I promise to keep my fuel logs current and accurate. :)

There is a difference between cherry picking data and expunging bad data.

Well, that's how I feel, but apparently, you and I are in a league all our own.

Bad data is corrupted with errors or equipment malfunctions... and then there's data you just don't like.

...as the 19th century British Prime Minister Disraeli said: "...Lies, damn lies and statistics!"

...bad data = "outliers" ie: beyond the normal distribution.

And, of course, statistically, hauling loads heavier than Oprah are outside the realm of "normal" for a minivan, especially my minivan.

Technically, I'm still following scientific method by eliminating those entries that would corrupt the basic data stream that is required in the fuel log, if one were to consider the fuel log a series of test data used to obtain a viable average.

Regardless, I'm not going to discuss it further, because it's pointless.

...actually, I've found a PROBLEM with entering data here! It won't let me enter all three decimal places for gallons used, ie:

actual gallons: 11.236
entered gallons: 11.23_ <--last decimal digit gets truncated, not accepted!

...this makes the MPG either slightly too HIGH or slightly too LOW. And, as Goldy-Locks would say: "...definitely NOT just right!"

I just use place-rounding for that. It's funny, though, that you can enter 3 decimal places for the cost, but not for the fuel reading.

In the case of your entry above, I'd have rounded to 11.24, more likely to 11.25.

Usually, I round the mileage down, and the gallons per fill up. It's only ever by 1/10 or 1/100, so the variance is well within noise.

Christ -

I note the third digit in the details section and round up/down as necessary. That way the data is all there.

CarloSW2

Olympic sport? Extreme Data Gathering/Recording!

I realized a long time ago that it's just not going to change anything horrifically if I were to just round the mileage down and the gallons up every time. After all, it's only a few 1/100 of a gallon that gets changed, and that's WELL within even allowable pump error (FTC says it's OK to be off by some unbelievably small number, apparently.)

I do something similar - I keep no less than four logs, so the entire data set IS there if and when I want to look.

Christ -

Yup, rounding evens out over time. I use the details section mostly to have all the information in one (ethereal) place. I keep these little notebooks in my car that, once filled up, inevitably dissappear into my bags 'O crap.

If I were you (and I'm not), I would record the MPG on the forum in some way. If I split it into a "Cara at Work" fuel log, I would try to roughly figure out my hauling load for that tank and keep it in the details section. In that way I would have a rough way to calculate the fuel efficiency of the "work" that my car is doing.

On a similar note, I re-purposed one of my Trip Logs to be a repair and/or mod log. That way, in theory, I can correlate changes to the car to changes in MPG.

CarloSW2

Well, when I fill up this time, I'm going to include it in the normal fuel log for Cara. I'm also going to zero out all the logs from Granny, since she's not mine anymore, and re-purpose that one for Cara's working trips, since, apparently, working will become *the norm* for her shortly.

Once I get the Metro situation figured out, I'm going to start using the Metro as a DD (if it's good enough for the purpose), and then I'll be working on/using Cara specifically so I don't have to go get a truck. :)

I like your dual logs.

Good idea to keep them clearer.
1 MPG, wow that thing guzzles ;)

Good laugh... I've decided that I'm going to post the next fill in the work log instead of with everything else. Unfortunately, I couldn't get rid of all the fills, so I had to keep one to be edited (probably tomorrow) when I fill 'er up again.

I have not been updating either because of running around town for parts
 

and hauling firewood. I think it is near 30mpg but not sure since i have to scrounge up change to put in a gallon or two at a time.....

...yeah, but it makes for real simple mathematics: 1 MPG =1 gallon per mile (GPM)!

...which is basically what the oiriginal Chrysler Abrahms turbine-engined tank got! Back during the Carter administration, I instrumented and measured its fuel-consumption tests at the Yuma Army Proving Ground...300 gallon fuel tank = 300 mile range...which was virtually same as the GM variable-compression ratio diesel tank.

Even carpooling and flying along at 70 mph I'm still beating EPA. Plus my car is really slow at doing emissions tests so it gets out of fuel-waste, protect-the-catalyst mode. Oh well, my mileage will improve. 31 mpg today running around the highways around town, and fighting traffic at the stores.

I haven't updated yet, because of the way things ended up happening, but it's roughly 28 MPG with a good bit of EOC on this tank. I think I have to perfect my EOC method, though... I'm getting into areas where I don't anticipate certain things, and have to start back up sooner than I should, so I lose benefit.

Also, once wife goes back to school, I'll have more time that I can work on Cara, especially on warmer days, when I can have my kid outside with me for any length of time without him getting too cold, so I'll be able to spend some time getting my air shocks on the back of Cara, and seeing about some mods for better efficiency, like the lockup switch, and an alternator-off circuit, engine kill switch, few other things.