One of the things with the old challenge is that, if a team did very well early on, they would reach a brick wall of e.g. 240% above EPA. Then they will become the losers from then on,, whereas a team with gradual improvements up to 180% EPA might 'win' more often overall.
I think there should be some kind of formula, where you set your current mileage (e.g. 20% above EPA) for each car as the 'zero' mark. Then, if you are 15% above that, you score 15 points for the team. But also, there should be a 'delta' score, for the percentage change.
So, if someone starts at 20% above EPA, and gets to 80% above EPA, they will get 60 points + 60 delta points. If they remain at 80% above EPA next cycle, then they get 60 points + 0 delta points. This would give a way to reward people who keep high MPGs but can't improve as their MPGs are already so good.
Starting the competition with the car's starting % above EPA as being the 'zero' mark would allow newcomers and longer-term hypermilers to compete on a more level playing field.
If I join the competition I will be making some BIG jumps with my manual gearbox, when it gets fitted, and extreme aero mods
__________________ 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)
I had an idea the other day that such a challenge should be indexed to weight. Something like Mile-tons Per Gallon. So my Escort for instance at 2450 lbs getting 40 mpg would be getting 1.225 tons x 40 mpg = 49 MTPG. Similarly, a 3 ton pickup getting 13 mpg would be getting 39 MTPG.
Such a system could make it viable for all comers to compete, regardless of vehicle type or weight. Aerodynamic cars will likely still have the advantage, but a 3 ton pickup turning in 20 MPG on the highway would be netting 60 MTPG, and that's actually pretty close to or possibly even exceeding the efficiency of much smaller vehicles.
This is my first post and this one really jumped at me brightly...
I was browsing the FE challenge stuff to see how it worked, and it really doesn't seem all that honest or accurate, but am sure there is other stuff to check out here.
A 40 ton rig at 5.6mpg == 224 mtpg. love the concept. Its REAL.
A 2300 pound sube at 40 == 1.15 x 40 == 46.
Anyhoo, great post.
I'm not a railroad person, but I think I got the idea from them since a straight MPG calculation for them is really a worthless figure. On the other hand, we could flip this around to People Miles per Gallon and see some equally interesting figures. 1 person driving a Metro would get trounced by SUVs and trucks actually carrying 5 or more passengers.
It's hard to quantify every quality that might be worth figuring in. There's power, acceleration, comfort, quantity of people, cargo carried, reliability, features, etc...
I don't think weight would actually be a good thing. It would send me to a higher position, sure, but that's because weight doesn't actually have that much effect on fuel economy for hypermilers (or for anyone who drives reasonably / highway driving).
Comparing by percent above EPA rating is a pretty fair way to do it, but could be divided into additional categories:
- automatic vs. manual
- heavily modified vs. stock/lightly modified