FE Team Challenge -- Scoring Poll - Fuelly Forums

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

View Poll Results: In the FE Team Challenge, how should the 3-gallon mimimum rule be handled?
Take the Average of 4 team members -- the Team Captain chooses whose data to drop for the month 4 30.77%
3 Members' data are included: Automatically, using Max/Min number of gallons used 2 15.38%
Leave the Rule, Penalize the Driver (NOTE: if you choose this option, please provide some reasoning) 7 53.85%
Voters: 13. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 04-07-2007, 07:58 AM   #1
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Question FE Team Challenge -- Scoring Poll

From the contest's discussion thread, the 3-gallon minimum requirement may penalize some members.

This essentially "Penalizes someone for being efficient in an efficiency contest".

It was determined that a weighted average places too much emphasis on the driver who may have to drive the most.

What do you think?
  • Should we offer the opportunity to drop one member's data per team -- to get a 4-member average (the team captain makes the decision who to drop)
  • Take a 3-Member average, by automatically removing the members' data with the maximum and minimum gallons consumed
  • Just leave the 3-gallon minimum and disqualify that member for the month (if you choose this, a rationale as to why is requested).

Thanks for the Feedback.

-The Commish
__________________

__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 08:37 AM   #2
Registered Member
 
zpiloto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,225
Country: United States
Quote:
Originally Posted by rh77 View Post
From the contest's discussion thread, the 3-gallon minimum requirement may penalize some members.

This essentially "Penalizes someone for being efficient in an efficiency contest".

It was determined that a weighted average places too much emphasis on the driver who may have to drive the most.

What do you think?
  • Should we offer the opportunity to drop one member's data per team -- to get a 4-member average (the team captain makes the decision who to drop)
  • Take a 3-Member average, by automatically removing the members' data with the maximum and minimum gallons consumed
  • Just leave the 3-gallon minimum and disqualify that member for the month (if you choose this, a rationale as to why is requested).

Thanks for the Feedback.

-The Commish
Actually, originally it was to have a 5% penalty taken from the team overall EPA% if they did not make the fill not to disqualify that member. Which is not as disastrous as a disqualification.

If these are the options I'll go with the best 4 out of 5.

This is open to all to vote on not just those on a team right?
__________________

zpiloto is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 11:31 AM   #3
Registered Member
 
CO ZX2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 460
Country: United States
Rules Change?

I think it would be in the best interests of all concerned to leave the rules as they started. 14 of 15 team members accepted the rules as written and were very careful to follow them.

Everyone on every team was fully aware of the 3 gallon minimum fillup required each 28 days. Everyone was also fully aware that if there was no fillup that it woud cost their team 5% of their EPA average. Any one of us knew full well the consequences of not having a proper fillup.

I have gone over the 3 teams current fillup data and EPA vs their starting EPA and at this point in time 5% would show no difference in the standings for this period.

A team is a team!! When we start leaving out the results of one or more team members, it just doesn't seem right. They may even have worked harder than others on their team. Good or bad, a team is a team.

Sincerely, CO ZX2
CO ZX2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 11:48 AM   #4
Team OPEC Busters!
 
GasSavers_Brock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 196
Country: United States
I would second the leave them as is.
GasSavers_Brock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 11:58 AM   #5
*shrug*
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,195
Country: United States
I voted one because I believe competition within the team is always a good thing. It's more individual and exciting to bump heads with the people you are working with in order to help everyone get ahead.
SVOboy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 01:17 PM   #6
Team GasMisers5!
 
landspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 440
Country: United States
I myself have no problem making 3 gallons per month . So I could vote for option '3'. But I wont, due to the reasons below.

Some people might not make 3 gallons per month, due to efficiency, or newly created electric cars, and so on . So, how about :

Option 4...

(1) Members with no 3-gallon fills in the last 28 days will use the following system : Competition EPA = (90-day average * 0.5) + (Last fill * 0.5). If the last fill was < 3 gallons then just use : Competition EPA = 90 day average.
For the 'mileage' for the team calculations, use (90-day mileage) * (28/90) -> average mileage per 28days.

Any sub 3-gallon fill = 5&#37; team penalty for that cycle.

This is better than the above, because, it gives some 'weight' to your more recent fills, while giving a penalty based on the 90-day average. After 2 more competition cycles, the 90-day average will be similiar to the most recent fill.

So, how about option 4? (Not as extreme as 1 or 2, which will result in 1 or 2 team members consistently being dropped (whoever is lowest in the team). These people will no longer bother to be part of team, most likely?
__________________

Team GasMisers5 - #1 for first three rounds of the original GS Fuel Economy Challenge
Miles displaced by e-bike since 1 Jan 2008: 62.6 (0 kWh used)
Hypomiler
landspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 01:21 PM   #7
Team GasMisers5!
 
landspeed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 440
Country: United States
So, in essence, option '4' is a fairer version of option '3', and is what I would choose. If it isn't available I vote for '3'

Edit - I've voted for '3' but will vote for '4' if something like that is available.
__________________

Team GasMisers5 - #1 for first three rounds of the original GS Fuel Economy Challenge
Miles displaced by e-bike since 1 Jan 2008: 62.6 (0 kWh used)
Hypomiler
landspeed is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 01:31 PM   #8
Registered Member
 
jwxr7's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 291
Country: United States
The rules from the beginning seem fair for now. It's just for fun anyway right?
__________________
Best tank= 81.23 mpg on july 1st 2008
SAVE SOME GAS, SAVE THE WORLD!

jwxr7 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 04:46 PM   #9
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 1,978
Country: United States
Rock the Vote

Quote:
Originally Posted by zpiloto View Post
Actually, originally it was to have a 5% penalty taken from the team overall EPA% if they did not make the fill not to disqualify that member. Which is not as disastrous as a disqualification.

If these are the options I'll go with the best 4 out of 5.

This is open to all to vote on not just those on a team right?
OK -- instead of disqualification, it should read "5%" -- original rules in other words.

The vote is essentially for Challenge members (or those who plan to participate) -- hence the public vote so if it ends up being a tie, then the current-participant vote can be tallied.

To all -- If a private vote is more appropriate please let me know via PM or in this thread.

Landspeed -- as of now, it looks like there isn't an interest in an option 4 at this point with the current vote tally. If others think this option should be added, PM or say so here.
__________________
rh77 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-07-2007, 05:31 PM   #10
Registered Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 557
Country: United States
I'm with CO ZX2 on this one: Leave the 3 gallon minimum rule as it is. If that is an ammendment to the rule #3 in post 1 of this thread, with "5% penalty" replacing "disqualification", then that's the one.
It's finally sunk in to me that the weekly updates are not worth any 'points' or bonus to the teams' final 4 week standing. The 28 day tally will not be an accumulation of each week's team ranking or position, but will be based on the whole month. Any weekly penalty for not using 3 gallons that week will be moot when the 3 gallon per 28 day event period is satisfied.
I don't believe that any of us will be able to abstain from three gallons of fuel over a lunar month. If any of us are not wasteful enough to use 3 gallons a week, we should be congratulated. If any of us do not use three gallons a month however,....
__________________

Lug_Nut 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
Brake and light inspection SupraRXZ General Maintenance and Repair 8 10-04-2006 02:06 AM
Any foreign language speakers here? Matt Timion General Discussion (Off-Topic) 12 09-19-2006 03:13 PM
Honda Jet zpiloto General Discussion (Off-Topic) 1 09-14-2006 10:56 AM
Buy an Insight, cheap FormulaTwo General Discussion (Off-Topic) 13 09-13-2006 03:22 AM
State of the Union address touches on "oil addiction." Matt Timion General Discussion (Off-Topic) 31 02-06-2006 04:38 PM

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3


All times are GMT -8. The time now is 04:31 PM.


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