Well, here's the best I could do in rush hour traffic going to work. Not bad considering it is mostly level with some up and down...
Ok here is sort of the same trip. There are so many curves in the road that it's hard to judge of I am doing better or not. 48.26ft. per mile drop. My gas cost is entered as $3.93/ga and I used $0.54 worth of fuel to go 14.4miles. iPad ? HD
You scored a 128.3 compared to a 128.9 of last time. Give me your honest opinion. Should I change the formula a bit? I have a feeling no one is telling me what they truly feel. You guys won't hurt my feelings, honest.
Another hike today in Mt. Rainier National Park, this time parked at 4200 feet. On the way home, the MPG dropped below 99.9 at 66.8 miles, for a slope of about 62 feet/mile, about the same slope as last year's 80.1 mile run. No picture this time. I figured those who criticized it would be punished by getting the monkey to come up with something better, and I certainly don't want that. It seems that a good scoring system should match actual miles if the road is flat, and be lower than actual miles for those using a downslope. But the schemes I have thought of so far drop my score to a ho-hum level.
I can think of some places where my formula would produce negative scores, but that seems only fair for roads where even my high drag Subaru can achieve high triple digit MPGs. How about this: Score = (actual miles) - (elevation change / 10,000 feet) * (CAFE MPG). The 10,000 feet comes from my rule of thumb that in the Prius, this elevation change is equivalent to about 1 gallon of fuel, extra for a climb or saved for a descent. Other's computations of elevation fuel cost seem to be within +/- 10% of this figure. The CAFE MPG term should be self explanatory, valued at 70.7 MPG for the 2012 Liftback and 'c'. Some advantages of this formula (besides keeping me in the lead for the moment) are that it is simple, produces a rational and easily understood penalty for slopes, and allows the Prius 'v' and Gen2 owners to compete on a reasonably fair basis with their somewhat lower CAFE scores. And for really steep slopes, it produces a score that is still a real (though negative) number, not blowing up into the complex domain. My 80.1 mile run would fall to a score of 43.3 adjusted miles. For real experts such as Uncle Wayne and the Japanese tank distance commuters, who can beat 100 mpg on flat circuits, scores would match their actual distance. (Do they need a bonus for exceeding 100 MPG?). People who coast their car down from Dante's View to Furnace Creek in Death Valley, a descent of about 5600 feet in 25 miles, would get about -15, a negative score reflecting the great ease that most cars have coasting down that hill.
Not bad. But honestly I think we need something a little bit in between. It seems like my formula favors elevation change a bit too much but I think yours favors actual miles a bit too much. Maybe we should average them for our new score, haha, jk.
So with either formula how would someone score if they posted 99.9mpg over say 13miles with zero elevation change? I ask because I did this for 5.5 miles yesterday but didn't feel like stopping to take a picture. If it means I can beat fuzzy then I'll go pulse and glide once around the airport just to get my 99.9mpg for 13mies and zero elevation change.
With his you would get a score of 13. With mine you'd get a score of 264. Please do it! I haven't seen a zero elevation 99.9 trip yet on here!
LOL ok. I will have to do it tomorrow or Tuesday. My girlfriend got rearended in her Rav4 on Friday so we've been using my car since then and she has it at work today. The next two tanks are going to be horrid. FWIW, getting over 99.9mpg is pretty simple with pulse & glide only. Just find a spot with a long straight road or one you can do a circle on. Then pulse & glide until you can't stand it.
Because you have a 2012 you can figure out your actual mpg with the trip summary screen as long as you have set you cost for gas in the settings screen.
Just tried doing it for a round trip...and failed. Late at night with very little traffic. But the traffic that was there affected me quite a bit. I tried for almost 2 hours to get my numbers over 99.9 but couldn't do it. So frustrating. This leads me to believe that elevation change is far more important than distance traveled. IMO a 20 mile trip with no elevation change is more impressive than a 200 mile one with a 2000 foot drop (regarding 99.9+ trips). This excursion has also made me like my formula even more. But honestly, I'm wondering if we shouldn't change the exponent to 1.3 instead of 1.2. Justin, I will be looking forward to hearing your results.
How about taking all of the math and elevation changes out and just say that you have to start and end at the same spot? Basically, how far can you go for a round trip at 99.9 mpg! This way you can't game the formula!!!
That would be ideal but realistically there probably aren't too many people on here that A. have the time to do that B. would want to do it C. have the skills to do it
