Aha! But mine was a round trip ;)

But still, the mods you're doing are only going to send your FE further up...

The weekly reports are either a 3-gallon minimum fill, a SG (or equivalent) reading, or if you're confident making an accurate estimate based on experience with your fuel gauge, we're accepting those too.

It'll all come out in the wash with the 30 day calcs (which require at least one 3 gal min. fill).

Correct, Z?

Got it, i thought I missed something. :thumbup:

I am inspired to find a 6 mile coaster myself, you guys are pushing the limit, way to go....:D

Yes that is Correctamundo. Except I guess it will really be a 28 day fill to match up with Monday starts.

Yes, the web site name is "gassavers" and less distance is inherently less fuel consumed.
With that noted, I propose that the team average improvement over the baseline be weighted for miles traveled. This may not be possible until the competition period ends (monthly), and possibly won't be implemented until some future session, but will balance one member's 0.5% of distance being 20% of the team's week average.

Since this is the last week before the final tally I wanted to make sure we are all on the same page. Since I'm not the brightest bulb on the porch Metro could you explain how the scoring will go with the % epa and the 28 day reset.

I agree it should be weighted.

For the Sake of Discussion
 

I have no stake in either method, but a few mediating comments...

Yes, this is indeed "GasSavers.org" -- saving gas; however, my take on the site focus is that it's a discussion to help the community of members modify vehicles and driving habits, so that you are saving gas in what you drive, no matter how far you have to drive it. A few points against the weighted average:

• Many participants have a long commute
• Public Transit or HPVs aren't available or practical for all participants
• Fewer gallons calculated, yields a higher rate of error

I agree that it is a noble proposition to reward those who use less fuel, but the heart of the competition seems to be that of "How high above the combined EPA value you can get out of your vehicles".

Perhaps an honorable mention or special award could go to:

• The Least Amount of Fuel Used, and
• The Most Improved Reduction in Number of Miles Driven

Just some thoughts...

RH77


EDIT: I think I see where this was heading (2 directions possibly). First of which was the above, secondly, the most efficient participant could do most of the driving, whereas the others could hit their minimum 3 gallons. But how would you rate the higher-miler inversely?

I can see the points made on both sides. I'm leaning towards not "penalizing" those who travel less (since I'm one of them), but I thought that was part of the reason for the 3 gallon minimum fill.

If we're going to go by weighted distance, perhaps we can remove the volume requirement, and I can quit worrying about whether I'm going to use 3 gallons or not.

A vote?

Sure. I was simply planning to take each driver's total distance/total fuel used during the 28 days to calculate their % over their "starting % over EPA". Then average that figure for the team result.

There seems to be some debate in the stats & results thread about whether each driver's results should be weighted based on their proportion of the team's total distance driven...