Based on a similar thread in the HCH II forum, I'll ask the same question.

What's holding us back?

Can everyone slow down a few MPH and save a bunch of MPG's?

Can someone dump that ridiculous last entry in the database for the Insight, it's killing the average!!

Hopefully this awful heat wave will end soon so we can back off from using the A/C so much.

Regards,

 

1st of all, I have not entered a lot in the database. {blush}

Having said that, two things lately have helped increase my mpg:

• Forced Autostops (FAS) as I approach stops. (you go farther than the gas cutoffs. Of course, you won't want to do it in heavy traffic.
• Drafting big rigs. I've gone from drafting agnostic to believer after going to HybridFest. The first 475 miles I was getting 73.5mpg at 70-75mpg. Without drafting, I probably would not do even 60mpg at that speed. Note: some will not be willing to follow as close as I did....

 

If my math is correct, dumping the last false entry would take our average to 66.6 MPG.

That's more in line with what the Insight is capable of, but we could still improve on that.

Regards,

 

One of you should have PMed a MOD about that silly entry, it WILL be taken care of....

 

You know, IMHO, any of the ones on the bottom, haven't been active at all, no or one tank ... I don't think it should be used for computation.

I would say if there was a way to edit the programming to not use a car in the average if it has less than 3 tanks ... then it will eliminate some of those that could possibly have been a troll entering a low tank, take out someone who signed up a long time ago and never returned ... So there is only 1 tank or less. This way, it doesn't just take out low mileage, but the high ones with one or two tans as well ... so it doesn't mathmatically skew the results higher, but make it a bit more realistic.

I also think the individual car's average should be solely that of the person driving it. That way if they bought an abused car, it doesn't affect that person's mileage, and in the same, a person who drives a little more aggressive doesn't get a bump.

I personally would like to see it top 70 mpg.

I would also like to see what effect something like that would have on all the other cars averages.

 

Weeding out low entries would only be fair if we applied the same standards to the high entries as well. For example X sold LiL Red some time ago and no longer posts mileage for that vehicle. Should we erase LiL Red from the database?

Personally I'd like the database to be as truthful as possible. You don't want to give new buyers unrealistic hopes.

As far as the last thing goes people do have the option to only enter their own driving. In fact there is no way you could enter data from a previous owner unless said owner supplied it with the car. It is perfectly OK to start entering mileage at whatever point you start keeping track of it for yourself.

 

First of all, thank you for taking the Honda hater off. I personally like to see a tank by tank record as it lets anyone studying it know just how you are doing, good and bad. I often wonder if the one entry records just show a very good (or bad) tank. With a tank by tank record there is no guessing. I copy the Insight data a couple times a year and have noticed that some of the one tank records are updated from time to time but still as a one tank record. I wouldn't want to remove the one tank records or the inactive or the sold car records as they are still relevant information. I am going to gas up tomorrow and will update then. Unless something horrible happens it will be two tanks in a row over 100 MPG.....Louis

 

Lakedude,

I understand you cannot eliminate just the low tanks, I know it wouldn't be right, I just meant cars that had virtually NO entries (less than 3 or 5). That would not include Little Red Beauty at 92.8. but it would include Longranger at 81.1 ... until there are more tanks (there isn't even one yet).

a whole year cycle shows a persons true average for their location and conditions. Even at 100 mpg, 10,000 is around 10 tanks. An 'average' person puts 12-15000 a year.

I don't want you to think I want to skew the average up and have a false average, and let people have misconceptions of what the car really does. Some WILL get in the 40s like the elroy jetson car with 25 tanks ... but there are 4 other cars under 50 with 1 or 0 tanks and there are a couple in every group of 10 mpg that are under 3 tanks.

I think it would be fine to keep a car in the overall average even if they got 30 mpg, if they had enough data to present it as a real average over a length of time. There are so many factors that can mess up a first entry, etc.

I would say statistically, it would be more valid, since the way the total average is calculated, that they have a certain amount of tanks before they are counted towards the group average. I would passively agree that it is close to even by eyeballing it, but I think in general, it would give every model a more 'real world' average (or as real world as a hybrid forum can get). otherwise, an average on miles vs gas used of all cars should be used for the number. This way, someone who has driven 200 miles on their first tank to average 20 mpg doesn't drop the whole Insight average far down, nor does someone who had one extremely good first tank driving 1500 miles getting 150 mpg bring the average way up (we all wish).

I think if you did it either way, the Insight 5-spd average would be closer to 70 mpg. If I get the time tomorrow, I might go through all of the databases and do an average as it is done now minus the cars with less than a certain number of tanks. Depends on how much I need to get done.

 

OK, let's review some data....

...with a/c; 37-41mpg
without a/c; 56-61mog.

Can someone turn off the heat, now? Please? Pretty please???

Ricco
in Phoenix, AZ (think 118F in July)

 

Yeah, but it's a "dry" heat right?


I'm ready for this summer to end - the spray bottle to mist my upper body is no help anymore.
I've gone back to using A/C while decelerating, cool the interior down and then shut the A/C off again.