Mileage competition May 13-14 2005

[chrs]

Hey all you hypermileagers, there's a competition May 13-14 for the best mileage en route to Saratoga Springs NY, from your choice of starting points around the country. $5k for the best MPG over 100 mpg. It's part of NESEA's "Tour de Sol" event. Better sign up soon!

http://www.nesea.org/transportation/tou ... event.html

Charlie

[Rick Reece]

I like the picture of the 4 insights. I don't think anyone is going to break the 100 mpg barrier however as they have a lot of restrictions but it does look like fun. The extra weight of the navigator is the one I don't like. If you took rual highways that have speeds of 55 it would help but they also tend to have poor road surfaces with a lot of dips and turns as well. It also looks like the sites have changed since I last looked in April. I seam to recall sites in Oregon and DC at that time. Have fun, Rick

[Electric CO]

Thanks for the info! That's a very tempting activity. I'm no high mileage specialist, but going to Saratoga Springs at a leasurely pace with the tires at 50 psi in a friendly competition sounds like fun. Anybody from Quebec going? I've sent an inquiry to know if it's still possible to register.

[b1shmu63]

One rule is no tires over 45 PSI.

[Insightful Trekker]

does the rule define the "type" of gas in the tire

Just the right % of helium-air would increase the pressures when driving to an optimal 50-60 psi and return to the "legal" pressure when cool after the drive.

:twisted:

[chrs]

This isn't going to be official and complete, but here's some of what happened at the Tour de Sol competition:

The best modified Insight performance was with the "MIMA" (manual IMA) system, a project that is discussed extensively on this thread:
http://www.insightcentral.net/forum/vie ... &start=165
Congratulations to everyone involved in that project--which I was very excited to learn about.

The official number for that was 107 mpg. The best unmodified Insight mpg was officially 79 mpg. And of course the Insights were well ahead of the Priuses (which had official numbers in the 60s) and the Ford SUV hybrid which won awards with 42 mpg ("most fuel consumed?" no, "best Ford", and "Best SUV". That's like getting an award for being the "smartest idiot".)

But the official numbers don't mean much: there was no consistent standard for how much the gas tank was "topped off."

As discussed in this thread:
http://www.insightcentral.net/forum/vie ... p&start=15
it's possible to cram up to a few gallons extra into the evaporation canistor. They were doing a lot of extra pumping at the finish line, and what happened at the start lines apparently varied all over the place.

My personal experience was a computer reading of 99.8 mpg, and an official number of 75 mpg. Quite likely there were other unmodified Insights that got over 100 mpg, but got their official numbers dinged because they didn't fill the evap canistor at the start.

I'm not sure it matters who went home with trophys or not, but what I think is sad about this is that there will be (I hope) a bunch of mainstream press articles, and it would misrepresent our collective experience if they said that the best one can do with a stock Insight is 80 mpg, when if fact one can do much better.

Obviously a better method is needed for the next competition. One good thing they did was a distance calibration run at the end: 10 miles actual was compared with the odometer reading, plus a little trick of finding exactly where the tenth digit rolls over, in order to get a little more precision. Mine was 2.5% high, which is surprising with high pressure in the tires--should be the opposite.

I wish I had done more to collect better information on others' performance to post here, but I had gotten up at 5 AM to get on the road before 6 (so as to take slow back roads and be on them before there was much traffic) and was exhausted and not thinking clearly by them time everyone was gathered. So perhaps we can do that information gathering here?

For that purpose, here are my results in full:
Start point: Greenfield, MA
Miles traveled: 193
Computer reading: 99.8 mpg
Correction: 2.5%
My best estimate: 97.4 mpg

By the way, for those who were there: I put a sign on my (blue) car claiming a LMPG (since I reset it after I bought it used in February) of 96. That was wrong. I must have read "trip B" or something. Since this is by far that longest trip I'd taken, in my hazy state that afternoon, I thought it was plausible that I pulled my previous high-seventies number up to 96, but that can't be right, even though I'd only driven some hundred of miles before this trip. My LPG was probably more like 80, and is now down to 78, after I drove home directly over the Green Mountains in pouring rain, getting 76 mpg on that segment.

Charlie

[Rick Reece]

Great job. I have never filled the evap canister and am a little troubled that the event topped off the tanks in this maner. I don't think one fill is going to really hurt anything but I seam to remember someone saying long term it was not a good thing. In regards to the odometer 1.5 - 2% is what mine reads with the tires at 50 psi. I have done a few long distance comparisons. Have fun, Rick

[nemystic]

Hi Charlie,

It was great to meet you and the others at the auto show in Saratoga yesterday. The disappointment about hearing that your LMPG is not really 96 has let the wind our of our sails, but your indicated rally numbers are truly amazing!

It was interesting to see the topic about the 13+ gallon tank capacity on the Insight. I had missed that one, but it's now helping me to explain some, but not all of the confusing mysteries about the mileage results from the Tour de Sol rally.

Similar to your results, we had a 2.3% correction factor as determined by the calibration run. I wonder what "standard" reference was used for the 10 mile path?

Our indicated trip fuel consumption rate for 158 miles travel in the rally was 93.5 mpg, which exceeded our expectations for that route.

Like you, we started in Greenfield, MA. Considering that your total distance mileage was different, I assume you may not have followed the same itinerary as ours, which went over the Berkshires on I-90. Following the suggestions of the Greenfield starter, our tank was filled without rocking the vehicle and without any overflow. In the refill at the finish line, the rally organizers rocked the car (to remove any air pockets) and overfilled the tank, with lots of gasoline spilling onto the ground. (Sputnik has never before been this full!)

Now, after a return trip to the home base of 215 miles, plus another 7 today, the fuel gauge indicator still shows at 100%. Before reading about the cannister capacity, I couldn't understand how this could be possible. Our return route from Saratoga was over the scenic but relentless Berkshire switchbacks in northwestern MA (where no car should have to go) with looong grades of > 10% (a bicycle tourist's nightmare). On those segments, in the interest of avoiding overheating and battery stress conditions, the MIMA modificaion adds little or no value, and consequently was not used for those climbs. The downhill segments provide more than enough kinetic energy to overcharge the battery pack, so it was necessary to use the brakes at times. With little or no use of the MIMA mode and exhausting hyper-miling driving techniques, our indicated return trip fuel economy was consequently only in the 80s, seemingly confirming additional tank/cannister capacity in the Insight.

In the spirit of the Tour de Sol event, our attitude entering the rally was not about competition with other entrants, vehicles or technologies, but instead it was against unnecessary fuel consumption and inefficiency in general. Our feeling was that in the rally, we represented the best interest of the MIMA project initiators, developers, collaborators, and enthusiasts, as well as the conscientious Insight and hybrid vehicle owner community, who are proving to the world that is it's possible to have a smaller "ecological footprint" without sacrificing a safe and exhilarating driving experience.

While I'll admit to anxiety about the warranty on my Insight IMA system, my interests in the MIMA project are not commercial. My available project time in the near future will be dedicated to an electric motor assist commuter bicycle. This will hopefully reduce the weekly commuting mileage on the Insight when the weather is favorable. However, I hope to continue to participate in this exciting collaborative project, occasionally posting results about commuting fuel economy with conservative and discretionary use of the MIMA feature. I fully expect a 10 to 15% improvement in fuel economy.

Next year, the Tour de Sol organizers will no doubt "raise the bar" with the big challenge being > 100 mpg.

[james]

"relentless Berkshire switchbacks in northwestern MA (where no car should have to go) with looong grades of > 10% (a bicycle tourist's nightmare)."

Funny you should mention bike touring & grades. Just did a little tour yesterday, Lausanne to Gruyere, on a route described by the Swiss bike site (http://www.suisse-a-velo.ch) as "Level of difficulty: low to medium, for young people, adults...." Right. So I get to the top of one long climb, not even the steepest, and look back to see a sign "Warning: 18% Grade".

Sadists, I tell you.

[chrs]

Originally Posted by nemystic

Like you, we started in Greenfield, MA. Considering that your total distance mileage was different, I assume you may not have followed the same itinerary as ours, which went over the Berkshires on I-90.

That's right--we went through the Berkshires too, and ultimately through the same pass at the NY border, but we followed smaller roads for lower speed limits and (sometimes) lower grades, and ended up with a longer, windier route. It was necessary to resort to more primitive means, without having MIMA installed (yet).

Originally Posted by nemystic

Now, after a return trip to the home base of 215 miles, plus another 7 today, the fuel gauge indicator still shows at 100%.

Yup, after 200+ miles back, our gauge also still shows 100%.

Originally Posted by nemystic

proving to the world that is it's possible to have a smaller "ecological footprint" without sacrificing a safe and exhilarating driving experience.

Yup, and you made a fantastic contribution to that. I'm hoping to see some news media reports about about 107 mpg Insights soon...

Charlie