Prius plug-in promotion (videos, webpages, handouts)

you're a STAR!!!!!!!!! can I have your autograph?

 

i saw a pip promo on t.v. tonite. factory clearance, $2000. off. money talks and you know what walks. no reflection on you john, you did a fine job and looked the part too!

 

Excellent ! You were great. I can easily see it catching on, too!

 

Actually, you are averaging 85.1 MPG.

Ofcourse with the kWh disclosed in your signature.

 

Nice video. Did I read the charging station correctly that they are charging $0.49/kwh to charge??

 

John, I can't right click from my iPhone so I guess I won't read it. I don't see a technical reason to force people to right click. Not everyone wants to save the doc, sometimes people just want to look at it and then click back. I guess what I'm saying is I think your site has some usability issues.

 

Agreed 100%
Though on an iPhone you should be able to tap and hold and then open in a new tab

 

Whether I left click and open or right click and save, it uses the same amount of bandwidth...??

By usability I mean it's "normal" to left click on links on the 'net, yours is the only site I can recall offhand that requires the right click save process.

 

This is excellent. Thanks for all the effort you put into doing this. Your detailed log data, charts, and analysis are a unique resource.

I noticed the downward spikes in the graph on page 8 titled "2012 PHV Year 1". It might be good to add a brief description of what those represent and the impact that it has on the red lifetime running average.

 

The lifetime line takes a noticeable turn downward right at the segment where you couldn't charge (the downward spike to 0 kWh / 100 miles) although if you weren't charging at all I would think the lifetime trend would stay flat (no new data input). I wondered if the lifetime calculation was trending down right there for other reasons or if it was trending down because it was incorrectly treating that segment as infinitely efficient on EV. Someone else might wonder too, hence the suggestion to somehow clarify that in a footnote or some other way.

 

Sure, it generally looks good and captures the right idea of immediate data variation vs. long term trend. It just looks slightly odd for "no charging" to be graphed as 0 kWh / 100. I see what is really happening from the detailed tank numbers and I understand why you graphed it that way. It's just a question of initial perception by someone looking only at the graph. I don't have a brilliant suggestion for how to make it better.

 

Yes, I've been using a more general variant:
(total miles) x (gas energy per gal) / (total energy all fuels)
You then convert all energy to the same units, such as BTUs, like this:
miles x 115,000 / (kwh x 3412 + gal x 115,000)
where:
1 gal = 115,000 BTU
1 kwh = 3412 BTU

Also, I would force the graph to range from 0 to 80 or 120 mpg, not to go from 45 mpg and up...because 45 mpg appears to be low. Maybe put in a line for the fleet average around 25 mpg for perspective.

Mike