Measure and monitor its car consumption

Tips, advice and tips to lower your consumption, processes or inventions as unconventional engines: the Stirling engine, for example. Patents improving combustion: water injection plasma treatment, ionization of the fuel or oxidizer.
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 10/10/06, 10:47

Christophe,

Interesting how the consos on 5000km vary sawtooth: surely the impact of the outside temperature and the winter months ...

It's not just that. As I indicated the load of the car was changed during the months (from 1 to 3 people) but it is certain that the seasonal variations have played but more because of the state of the roads and the caps than on the outside temperature. That's just my opinion.

It is also interesting to see that the average consumption tends to decrease and not increase with the km: better fuel?

I do not think since we were driving with supermarket fuel.

Less friction?

Possible.

This is usually typical of diesel vehicles (unlike gasoline vehicles ...).

However if we look at the curve between 15 000 and 50 000 terminals we can see that the conso remains the same. By cons, later, there will be more than 2 passengers in the car and it will therefore lighten 70 kg. I think that can play on this decline in consumption.

Woodcutter,
I have not followed the post since the beginning and therefore not taken the original XL file, but cons I know at least one thing: 19 liters / 100 (if I understand correctly) in Saxomazoutte, it is TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE so nothing that should make you think about how to organize the data ...

Absolutely! It is for this reason that calculating its consumption on full 1 (more or less well done because between the triggering of the gun and the actually full filling of the car there is a pack of liters) is completely and archi false (read the explanations I gave a few weeks ago).
The consumption of a car must be measured on a sliding average and not on 1 full of 500 kms (as it is unfortunately often the case). For example, with the case of the consumption of the AX, it is seen that consumption measurements on 5000 kilometers (7 or 8 full) give good results and no doubt make it easier to interpret improvements (Pantone, aero, weight...). We must not confine ourselves to raw data (consumption on full 1 which was only a full complement for example) but on a global consumption. For that everyone can take the raw data of this table to make its own experiments (as Christophe for example with its black curve)


EDIT: Well, apparently these are erratic data, but it would be better to compute only on full numbers.

In my opinion no. It is necessary to calculate on a sum of full after that which will completely erase the small differences due to an incomplete full example.

Elephant,

Well no, let's see: the driver gets older and the number of speed cameras and speed increases!

At the time (beginning 90) we did not have these concerns. The driver did not have a light foot ... : Cheesy:
0 x
Marty
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 10/10/06, 11:01

nialabert wrote:Hello,
the file works well under office mac.

Otherwise bravo for the record.

On the other hand: the 23.9.1999 you have 1.32 l / 100 and the following full one, 17.87 l / 100

Would not there be a small mistake


No mistake but these are raw data.
So I made a full complement (on the highway for example) by putting a few liters to arrive safely (too expensive to make full 1 full). Then, later, I filled up full (pump cheaper).
Obviously, while remaining Cartesian, I noted at the time the values ​​that were written on the pump (liters) and on the totalizer (kilometers). We must therefore take these full totals (add the 2 mileage and the 2 full): there we will obtain a "normal" figure.
For this case we do 821 + 205 kms = 1026 kms
and 10.8 + 36.64 = 47.44 liter
47.44 / 10,26 (conso to the 100 kms) = 4.62 liters / 100
Here ! So the cons is normal even if looking at only raw value it seems that I wrote that bullshit : Lol: ...
It is for this reason that this spreadsheet (this is the last time I write it promised) is a basis of work for those who would like to measure their consumption in this way.
The graph and / or consumption smoothing on 5000, 10 000 is an example of the interpretations that can be made with these raw data.
0 x
Marty
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 10/10/06, 11:16

Disagree...
I calculate my cons on all my complete full and I have almost no difference between individual and average values!

[EDIT: I just calculated, I have a difference between 0,00 and 0,06 l / 100 on 37 measures in 13 months.]

By cons, if I add on the way without going to the full, I do not calculate anything because AC DOES NOTHING TO SAY.

For me, putting a mileage that does not correspond to a real quantity is a mistake, but hey, the subject is not there.
Last edited by Woodcutter the 10 / 10 / 06, 11: 35, 1 edited once.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
Christophe
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 79111
Registration: 10/02/03, 14:06
Location: Greenhouse planet
x 10972




by Christophe » 10/10/06, 11:22

Woodcutter wrote:By cons, if I add on the way without going to the full, I do not calculate anything because AC DOES NOTHING TO SAY.


+ 1 (of course ....)
0 x
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 10/10/06, 15:31

I think it means something if and only if we count this consumption in a general context because taken alone, indeed, it does not mean anything.
Technically, no one will calculate the improvement of its consumption on 1 full. So why would you want to take as absolutely and only the tanks completely full by saying that it is right and not 10 or 15 full not integers over several thousand kilometers?
As such, whether we have made a supplement tank or not, it will affect the final consumption?
It seems to me no.
Now I do not see what prevents to process the numbers as I showed above (simply adding)?
Frankly, it is beyond me to refute a full tank because I put a "gross" consumption calculation at the end of the line. If this is all that annoying or if it seems crazy I will remove it on the next version :frown: ...

Let me know where is the difference between:
a / 10 full of 10 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
b: 2 full of 50 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
If I understand correctly, for you Christophe and Bucheron, the a / not should appear anywhere and only the b / is something correct?
0 x
Marty
nialabert
Éconologue good!
Éconologue good!
posts: 258
Registration: 02/06/05, 22:32
Location: Geneva




by nialabert » 10/10/06, 16:30

vttdechaine wrote:I think it means something if and only if we count this consumption in a general context because taken alone, indeed, it does not mean anything.
Technically, no one will calculate the improvement of its consumption on 1 full. So why would you want to take as absolutely and only the tanks completely full by saying that it is right and not 10 or 15 full not integers over several thousand kilometers?
As such, whether we have made a supplement tank or not, it will affect the final consumption?
It seems to me no.
Now I do not see what prevents to process the numbers as I showed above (simply adding)?
Frankly, it is beyond me to refute a full tank because I put a "gross" consumption calculation at the end of the line. If this is all that annoying or if it seems crazy I will remove it on the next version :frown: ...

Let me know where is the difference between:
a / 10 full of 10 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
b: 2 full of 50 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
If I understand correctly, for you Christophe and Bucheron, the a / not should appear anywhere and only the b / is something correct?


I better 8)
0 x
User avatar
Woodcutter
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 4731
Registration: 07/11/05, 10:45
Location: Mountain ... (Trièves)
x 2




by Woodcutter » 10/10/06, 20:35

vttdechaine wrote:[...] Technically, no one will calculate the improvement of its consumption on 1 full.
Yes...
When I change fuel

vttdechaine wrote:As such, whether we have made a supplement tank or not, it will affect the final consumption?
It seems to me no.
No.
But to calculate a consumption on an erroneous value is conceptually inconvenient for my psychorigidity ...


vttdechaine wrote:Frankly, it is beyond me to refute a full tank because I put a "gross" consumption calculation at the end of the line. If this is all that annoying or if it seems crazy I will remove it on the next version :frown: ...
Who refutes what? : Shock:
If in a "consumption" column, I see outliers, I say so. That's all.

vttdechaine wrote:Let me know where is the difference between:
a / 10 full of 10 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
b: 2 full of 50 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
If I understand correctly, for you Christophe and Bucheron, the a / not should appear anywhere and only the b / is something correct?
No difference.
You did not understand or you misinterpret my words.

That's what I say:
a) It is quite possible to calculate a full consumption per full with a good precision, even if the error diminishes with the sum of the full ones.
b) Displaying a value that is known to be wrong is not good, so do not display it.

It stops there.
0 x
"I am a big brute, but I rarely mistaken ..."
User avatar
gegyx
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6930
Registration: 21/01/05, 11:59
x 2870




by gegyx » 10/10/06, 23:13

Yes, that's what I was challenging on the front page ...
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post26010.html#26010
-----------
On the one hand vttdechaine says that it does not matter since we have a summation on a long term, which makes it possible to refine the average, on the other we make an Excel table with false columns, which we fill every day ... In what interest ?
Fill his box with each full full, with the km counter, the date, the pump, the type of trip, and extra, the weather, the load, ... Make the calculations for each full every 6 months, and that's good enough. One can know the average over a full, and refine it over a year, by taking the total figures.

Ps: to make 10 full of 10l, or 2 full of 50l, it is not the same one, one multiplies the uncertainties with each full one. That's why, as far as possible, it's better to make a full tank, only when the tank is almost empty.
Edit / I corrected.
Last edited by gegyx the 11 / 10 / 06, 11: 12, 1 edited once.
0 x
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 11/10/06, 10:10

Woodcutter wrote:
vttdechaine wrote:[...] Technically, no one will calculate the improvement of its consumption on 1 full.
Yes...
When I change fuel
I did not understand

vttdechaine wrote:As such, whether we have made a supplement tank or not, it will affect the final consumption?
It seems to me no.
No.
But to calculate a consumption on an erroneous value is conceptually inconvenient for my psychorigidity ...
A wrong value? I think it's the reality that's written on the board. Then, it is true and that is what seems to shock you, I did not delete the lines where there were supplements that also resume copy / paste formulas (I admit I did not want to type me still a few more hours on Excel). By the way, 10 years after doing the full, and knowing that sometimes it was not the same person who was at the gun, I think I will have a lot of trouble remembering who filled a lot, who stopped at second trigger or the first ... As such, I believe that the entirety of my table is wrong and all the values ​​are wrong because no full was also made at the same pump by the same person . The repetitiveness of the fills is therefore null. For information between the first trigger of the pistol on the Saxo and the full filling of the tank there is 3 5 liters of difference (sometimes more). If we add to all this that we never know in this table the use that has been made of the car between each full (80% work / dodo trip but 20% remaining ???) that we do not know not always driving (exceptional loan of the car but when you never know) I think we can put this spreadsheet simply in the trash (it is to respond to your psychorigidity).
For me, the interest was precisely to find with a real case the best way to measure consumption (with a formula and / or a minimum number of test kilometers to achieve). For my part, at the edge of the blackout, I will not have fun refueling in a station 1.25 € / liter of oil while, to measure my consumption on 5000 terminals, this full complement or complement will return exactly the same.



vttdechaine wrote:Frankly, it is beyond me to refute a full tank because I put a "gross" consumption calculation at the end of the line. If this is all that annoying or if it seems crazy I will remove it on the next version :frown: ...
Who refutes what? : Shock:
If in a "consumption" column, I see outliers, I say so. That's all.
If it is an excel table with a filling kilometer and copies of formula on a few hundred lines, I said the data is raw and I say it from the first post.

vttdechaine wrote:Let me know where is the difference between:
a / 10 full of 10 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
b: 2 full of 50 liters on 2000 kilometers and a conso of 5 liters / 100
If I understand correctly, for you Christophe and Bucheron, the a / not should appear anywhere and only the b / is something correct?
No difference.
You did not understand or you misinterpret my words.
No, frankly I did not understand knowing that all the interpretations for the moment were made on values ​​grouping at least 5000 kilometers I do not see the interest to delete lines that will never be interpreted alone but always with other values. There is no malice in my words, believe me.

That's what I say:
a) It is quite possible to calculate a full consumption per full with a good precision, even if the error diminishes with the sum of the full ones.
We agree. Hence the interest I had in calculating consumption on 5000 or 10 000 terminals to smooth out the differences due to filling defects in the tank. I will not have tried statistics based on raw consumptions on one and only one full.
b) Displaying a value that is known to be wrong is not good, so do not display it.
It is necessary to sort out the table from which the details on "raw data", moreover, removing these lines amounts to removing kilometers and therefore also distorting the data by season or by section of several thousand kilometers (less kilometers on certain periods).


One thing is sure is that the measurement of a consumption is not as simple as it seems.
0 x
Marty
User avatar
vttdechaine
I understand econologic
I understand econologic
posts: 162
Registration: 23/03/06, 16:01
Location: Eastern France near Switzerland




by vttdechaine » 11/10/06, 10:43

gegyx wrote:Yes, that's what I was challenging on the front page ...
https://www.econologie.com/forums/post26010.html#26010
-----------
On the one hand vttdechaine says that it does not matter since we have a summation on a long term, which makes it possible to refine the average, on the other we make an Excel table with false columns, which we fill every day ... In what interest ?
Ben is easier and faster than trying to interpret the consumption for each line each time. For consumption of 15 liters, the interpretation is easy and fast: it is certain that the full that was done was a complement. On the other hand for the consumptions of 6 or 7 liters? What is it? Was it a cork on the road, snow, a badly done (too hurried that day ...)? At what level of consumption should the line be deleted? There we enter directly into a personal interpretation. Keeping all the lines we take into account ALL the liters of fuel that were burned and ALL the kilometers that the car made. For my part, I do not judge the consumption of a car on a portion of his life. The car it consumes as soon as the engine runs, even if that day I remained stuck in the plugs for two hours, it appears in the table because it remains representative of a normal and current use of a car, ecologically modified or not.

Fill his box with each complete full, with the km counter, the date, the pump, the type of trip, and in extra, the weather, the load, ...
It would be ideal but in 1990, I was very doubtful to use this data on a spreadsheet on the Internet (unknown to me at that time) and so we noted the data "for us" "in case". In addition, recording data such as the weather is good when you do 1 full / week. Me today I barely make 1 full / month. Difficult to remember the use and the weather for such long periods.

Do the calculations for each full every 6 months, and that's good enough. One can know the average over a full, and refine it over a year, by taking the total figures.
Yes.

Ps: to make 10 full of 20l, or 2 full of 50l, it is not the same one, one multiplies the uncertainties with each full one. That's why, as far as possible, it's better to make a full tank, only when the tank is almost empty.
Uhhh ... : Arrow: 10 x 20> 2 x 50 so it's not the same.
If you put 100 liters of fuel in a car (10 x 10 or 50 x 2) you make the same number of kilometers. Uncertainty decreases largely by multiplying the number of test kilometers and in the end the result of consumption is identical. I will find it very surprising to do more or fewer kilometers by bringing the same amount of fuel into the tank in two different ways. What you have not put in the tank with the 1er full for example, you will be obliged to put it in 2ième or 3ième to reach finally the same volume of fuel for the method of filling. Same volume = same km. I do not think I'm wrong in saying that.

0 x
Marty

Back to "Special motors, patents, fuel consumption reduction"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 205 guests