True story. Actual Data.

Saturday night, I took route 'A' home from work.
I had a warm day, warm engine, warm battery. Great conditions.
Route 'A' home was 10.8 miles, and I had 60.8 MPG on my ScanGauge.

Sunday night, I took route 'B' home from work.
Again, great weather conditions in an already warmed up car.
Route 'B' home was 12.8 miles, and I had 72.3 MPG on my ScanGauge.

Which route is "better"???
Which route is more "hypermiler" style???

0.178 gal = 10.8 / 60.8 (Route A)
0.177 gal = 12.8 / 72.3 (Route B)

Route B is so slightly better but they are functionally identical. I would use the route that takes less time or the route that is easier to drive. It really depends upon how you value your time.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Yes. I did the math also.

But is the 0.001 gallon savings ( even if added up for 200 days a year ) worth the extra wear on the car?

You didn't answer my second question!

Can you give us the "Actual Data" from the current trip on the SG in each situation? How about the SOC both begining and ending? What about the up hill down hill data? What techniques did you use? More details please!

If your going to claim this kind of mileage, you need to back it up with facts. If your doing a technique we have not heard of, please explain.

GaryG

My answer remains, "I would use the route that takes less time or the route that is easier to drive. It really depends upon how you value your time." If maintenance is important, take the route that reduces your maintenance cost. From a fuel consumption standpoint, either route works.

I could not find a question in the second collection of words ending with "???". A "route", a series of streets and turns, is not a "hypermiler," a person who gets better than EPA numbers.

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

Bob... my point was.... 72.3 MPG "sounds" better... but was it really better, since a longer distance was involved?

This was a good example of how short trips are a dis-advantage to MPG.
But shorter trips may be the advantage to the driver, if it reduced maintenance costs, time, etc.

I'm just wondering what the bulk of most people would choose.
Bob-sounds like you would choose the shortest TIME route,
Sounds like time is important to you. Is that your vote?

Both routes would average about 30 miles per hour so the shorter distance is for sure the shorter time route.

I'm going out on a limb to say GaryG would choose the 72.3 MPG route, but I invite him to vote himself. Gary, would you verify your vote in case I'm wrong?

Both routes start at work, end at home, so there was the same net elevation change. A few gentle hills are involved, more at the home end.
Work is "upriver" but it is a gentle slope. Work is maybe 4750 ft, Home is about 4700 ft. above sea level.

I mostly use P&G between 42 miles per hour and about 28 MPH on back roads.
Go with gas from 28 to 42. EV from 40 to 28.
My average speed was 30.
My max. speed was 43.
My top water temp was 177.
My max, RPM was 3011.

The battery was near empty ( thin sliver of green ) when I started.
The battery was near empty at home.
The water, engine, battery, etc. was at an ambient 80 degrees at the start.

Posted speed limit on work end is 45.
Posted speed limit near home is 35.
Posted speed limit in home neighborhood is 30.
The shorter route has 4 stopsigns,where I would EV down to zero miles per hour.
The longer route has 5 stopsigns, where I would EV down to zero miles per hour.
Leaving the stopsign I will EV to 20 or 25, then use gas up to 42 miles per hour.

Note: I tend to P&G up to 42 miles per hour even in a 35 zone, so I'm not going that slow.... and I had only two cars come behind me the whole trip Sunday night. It is a mostly rural area. Those cars were able to pass easily, and are used to seeing slow tractors on the roads, etc.

Is that too much information?

Given the same fuel consumption, time would be in a head-to-head competition with ease of driving. I'll take a few extra minutes to avoid having to deal with traffic hassles. Mostly I want to arrive in a calm state of mind and that often means 'a road less traveled.'

Bob Wilson

Operation Iraqi Oil Freedom:

Automatic, stock, project car.

My other 1500 cc car:

Automatic, stock, backup car.
Free speech, dialog and knowledge thrives without the poison of SPAM.

John

The routes you discribe are similar to two routes I travel on a daily basis, except for elevation changes and the amount of stops. In most all cases, I start with a minimal SoC and at the end may very with the same or a little higher SoC. Given the amount of a ~20% longer distance with one more stop, I would go with the shorter route.

However, there is no way I could get those results accelerating (the pulse) up to 42mph and having to stop 4 times, and I always glide in neutral down to 25mph if traffic permits. My best mileage with P&G is a 25mph target low speed and a 35mph target high speed. Of course when I have to drive faster, I do take my FEH to 42-43mph for P&G, but my mileage drops off considerably accelerating to that target speed. With the thin air and hills, I still can't see how you got those numbers stopping 4 or 5 times, even if they were rolling stops. Don't know how dropping 50 feet in elevation would add to my numbers though.

My FEH gets bad mileage with the small generator charging a low SoC from a restart after an EV glide and run. I use a fake shift in "L" at 30mph (not always though) and again at my target speed (35-43mph) to go EV and glide switching to neutral as the tach bounces.

Most of the other hybrid model hypermilers can't use P&G effectively like we can with the FEH with a drained battery. It would be interesting to compare how there Hondas and Toyotas would compare on your routes.

Comparing my best 20.3 mile round trip to your best 20.2 round trip, I got 70.3mpg and you put 68.3mpg on your sig page. It would seem I would do a little better than your numbers here also. I don't know where your SoC was when you started your 20 RT, but mine was on its last leg when I started and finished.

GaryG

In the cold, L is nearly useless for me.
Now that I'm having 70-80 degree days, I use L to trigger EV with a "fake shift" at about 42 miles per hour. I used L to trigger EV in all cases below.

I use a lot of "deadband" coasting for my glide, and will in fact leave it in L for the whole trip once everything is hot and ready for EV. If you are beating me ( and probably are ) it certainly is not by 38%.

Thinner air probably means I get the same at 40 miles per hour you get at 35. Just a rough guess. P&G 35 to 25 seems just too slow for me!

Never said I was beating you by 38%, I would have to be near some of better Insight drivers MPG for that. Your using the confusion card with that statement. The 38% number came from my coasting test down from 40mph in "D" (drive) and coasting down in neutral to a stop. The distance was 38% further in "N" after many test on a flat road. I never compared dandband coasting to Neutral coasting at all if that is what you are referring too. The axles are disconnected from the output shaft in neutral with no regen possible. With deadband coasting, the axles remain connected and small amounts of regen is possible that may not show up on the energy screen. In my steady state speed test, I found a big reduction in MPG at speeds below 50mph when I used "L" for the test over "D". The increase in regen in "L" was the reason for the decrease in MPG. It's no big deal during acceleration, but I would have concerns myself during a deadband glide in "L".

As far as the difference between 35mph and 42mph, it has more to do with the length of time the ICE is on. From 25mph to 35mph compared to 28mph to 42 miles per hour, I'm only decreasing the time it takes me to accelerate 10mph, while we both do by increasing the time to accelerate 14mph if I take it to 42mph like your P&G. That, and wind resistance (higher speeds kill MPG) in our FEH (brick) play a big roll IMO and numbers.

Also, I find your SG average speed reading of 30mph very high with 4 or 5 stops.

GaryG