Competition Averages - Page 2 - Fuelly Forums

Android Users - Coming Soon! - Migrating from aCar 4.8 to 5.0

View Poll Results: Keep the current average, or implement a cumulative calcuation
Keep the Current Calcs: MPG for each tank is averaged in the total 0 0%
New: Cumulative Miles per Cumulative Gallons = Final Result 12 100.00%
Voters: 12. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 07-27-2007, 09:25 AM   #11
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
Quote:
Originally Posted by CO ZX2 View Post
rh77, Rick,
Guess I'm not understanding this very well. How does the proposed new rule differ from the currently posted Version 2.0 rule quoted below??

Excerpt from current Version 2.0 rules:

Calculations:
6. The ?Final Percentage over EPA? is figured by the cumulative, Gaslog-sourced MPG values vs. the vehicle?s EPA FE-Combined (?Cycle-End Cumulative Percentage Over EPA?) ...
If I may be so bold as to answer this one...

Actually I don't think the proposed method does vary from #6 above (my interpretation of it anyway). I think the method of averaging all the mpg values from the gaslog doesn't really reflect #6 as it weights the miles in a short tank much more heavily than those in a long tank.

I think it's a matter of us agreeing on what was the intention of the rule, and stating it clearly so there won't be a question on it.

My two cents.
My thanks to Rick and to all of us for following this.
__________________

__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 10:21 AM   #12
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Single Fills not Effected

Quote:
Originally Posted by LxMike View Post
I don't think a rules change in mid "season" is right. with the mileage that some get here they would only get 1 fill and it would get posted near end of cycle.
For the season, single-fills wouldn't be affected. It's when multiple tanks are used:

Example:

Tank 1: 400 mi / 15 gal = 26.67 MPG
Tank 2: 350 mi / 13 gal = 26.92 MPG
Tank 3: 100 mi / 3 gal = 33.33 MPG

The current method takes the MPG averages: (26.67 + 26.92 + 33.33) / 3 = 28.97 final MPG

Proposed "cumulative" method: 850 miles / 31 gal = 27.41 MPG

The newer method weights each "gallon" equally as Bruce just mentioned.

Baselines would be calculated similarly...

-Rick
__________________

__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2007, 10:49 AM   #13
Registered Member
 
brucepick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 722
Country: United States
Location: Connecticut
Note, in Rick's example above, the 100 mile short tank had by far the best mpg of the three tanks So when averaging the three individual tank mpg numbers the short tank pulled the result up to a higher number.

For a case where the short tank has a very low individual score, averaging the individual tank mpg's together will give you lower score than you would get if you average by dividing all miles / all gallons.
__________________
Currently getting +/- 50 mpg in fall weather. EPA is 31/39 so not too shabby. WAI, fuel cutoff switch, full belly pan, smooth wheel covers.

Now driving '97 Civic HX; tires ~ 50 psi. '89 Volvo 240 = semi-retired.
brucepick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2007, 07:23 AM   #14
Registered Member
 
CO ZX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 460
Country: United States
I just selected cumulative calculations when I voted. A vote should not have been necessary. This method is delineated in the Version 2.0 rules and should have been used from the start. But anyway, good to have it straightened out.
CO ZX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2007, 07:42 AM   #15
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 358
Country: United States
Cumulative makes more sense. If I fill every great tank at 3 gallons, then let the bad ones run until I am nearly empty, it will be falsely bumping my standing.
repete86 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2007, 12:47 PM   #16
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 303
Country: United States
Cumulative. That is the only way it makes sense and seems fair to me. I alwags thought it was that way but did not pay much attention.
__________________
usedgeo
usedgeo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2007, 10:45 AM   #17
Registered Member
 
s2man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 123
Country: United States
Ditto

Quote:
Originally Posted by usedgeo View Post
Cumulative. That is the only way it makes sense and seems fair to me. I alwags thought it was that way but did not pay much attention.
Ditto. I thought we were doing cumulative, and I didn't bother to look a the calculations in the Standings spreadsheet.
__________________

__________________
Roll on,
S2man

s2man is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Average MPG calculation?? GizIQ Fuelly Web Support and Community News 2 04-06-2010 05:28 PM
EOC problems repete86 Transmissions and Running Gear 9 11-13-2006 09:52 AM
The state of commuting in America theclencher General Fuel Topics 32 10-21-2006 07:21 PM
Brake and light inspection SupraRXZ General Maintenance and Repair 8 10-04-2006 02:06 AM
Old article...water injection...Condensator.... ZugyNA General Fuel Topics 2 07-23-2006 11:03 AM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.