Legality of FAS’ing and NICE-On’s…

Discussion in 'Legislation' started by xcel, Jun 29, 2008.

  1. donee

    donee Well-Known Member

    Hi All,

    The issue with downhill coasting, which is not hypermiling coasting, is that transmissions may not reingage into a gear if the road gear gets going much faster than the engine driven gear in the car. This is apparent in manual transmission cars, in that if one revs the engine, the gear drops back in at a lower force. With typical hypermiler skill this is not an issue. But, down a steep hill, an inexperienced person may not know that he/she has to rev the engine to get the gear to drop in. Not being able to get the gear to drop, then denies the operator engine braking, which on a steep long hill is required to avoid brake overheating. An inexperienced operator may panic and force the gear in, which can damage the synchros, and make the gear hard to engage accellerating as well.

    Many older trucks do not have synchros. So, it takes a whole bunch more skill to get the gear to drop in on a down hill. And the weight of the vehicle can fry a clutch, if the operator does not match engine to road speed and just lets the clutch out quickly. A fried clutch denies the vehicle engine braking. Which is a great big problem in a fully loaded truck on long downslopes.

    It seems to me that CT Highway patrol is overreaching as they have forgot the spirit of the law (see above) and are only left with the letter of the law. The term "downgrade" in the spirit of the law implies a long hill. But, to the letter of the law, it can mean any low slope, which may not even result in a terminal speed greater than the speed limit. These are the more common hypermiling fair.

    I saw a thing on You Tube, where the driver was engine off gliding ( I call it this, as this is the common Prius terminology) with an automatic transimission, in-gear. Apparently, as the engine died, he went full throttle, and the engine was back driven by the transmission. This is kinda like a Prius above 40 mph, but not quite. The open throttle allowed the car to pump air through the engine, and the braking effect was less. I believe it was a fuel injected car, hopefully with fuel cut mode. This would not save gas in a carboraetor car. In the Prius the engine does not turn faster than 1100 rpm, limiting the airflow through the engine. Seems a DOHC engine would work very good for this, there is much less engine braking with DOHC engines. So, to restart he only had to put the car in run. No starter needed. This might be a legal way around the letter of the coasting laws, albeit not as efficient. One problem I can think of is that the air will cool down the Catylitic converter. This was an mid 80's car that it was being done on. The other problem was the electronic speedometer would go off when he was gliding.

    So, it seems like the CT Highway Patrol might be called the SMOG-MAKERS Patrol. By enforcing the letter of the law, people will be forcing to generate lots of extra HC emissions, to save gas, to deal with the expense of driving.
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2008
  2. donee

    donee Well-Known Member

    Oops,

    Wait a second. That gliding this You-Tube guy is doing is very very dangerous. Because he cant put the car back into run, as that would allow the engine back on. SO, now he is going down the road, with his steering wheel in the ready-to-be-locked position, and no power to ABS or TC. Any kind of emergency steer, and the wheel is locked. No ABS action, either, so, he would slide into stuff. But this old of a car probably did not have ABS.

    Seems, one would have to heavily modify a vehicle to make this practical.
     
  3. kwj

    kwj I hypermiled this

    Hi Tracker, a quote like that was originally credited to Disraeli (sp?). I always liked that.

    Imagine this situation: you are on a steep downhill, and you pull it into neutral and then key-off. As speed increases, you continue the FAS. At about 80, you put it into 3rd, thinking you have put it into 5th (my Aveo has a notoriously mushy shifter).

    Oh yes, it is also raining. Then this "less experienced hypermiler" (maybe 30% of our current members) pops the clutch to restart the engine. Since this is a frontwheel drive car, is there any possiblity of a skid and loss of control?

    I'm just trying to think like someone from the AAA.

    Putting on my sea-lawyer's hat, I notice the laws don't seem to specifically speak to the situation of simply pushing in the clutch, but leaving the shifter in 5th. Also, they only speak to downgrades.

    It may be a good exercise to begin a dialog with the AAA as to exactly why this law was written, when it was first instituted, and what prompted its codification. Or, perhaps we just ask this question of our own state police. Comments?
     
  4. lightfoot

    lightfoot Reformed speeder

    Whoa, we don't know what the law is in CT. I couldn't find any mention of coasting in the driver's manual but maybe there is something in the statutes? [also they're the CT State Police, there is no CT Highway Patrol - the CT State Police cover all sorts of stuff beyond vehicular issues]
     
  5. warthog1984

    warthog1984 Well-Known Member

    These laws were also written when asbestos brake pads were common. Asbestos pads suffered from "brake fade" where as they heated up, they became less and less effective in a truly vicious cycle.

    Modern ceramic brakes do not suffer from brake fade in all but the most extreme conditions- like racing in the rain.
     
  6. kwj

    kwj I hypermiled this

    Besides, Warthog, back then they didn't have front disc brakes, just drum brakes on all four wheels. Try those puppies after driving through a puddle - thrilling. Also, transmission synchros were not that good if present at all. Once you attained a good clip, it was difficult to get it into one of the three gears you had.

    But, many of these states seem to have enacted this statute within the past 20 years, which tells me they have different concerns. I'd really like to know where they are coming from. Then perhaps we could show them what we've learned, and get the law revised. The proof is in the pudding.
     
  7. laurieaw

    laurieaw Sorceress of the North

    well, seeing how well all the laws concerning speeding are enforced, it seems to me that if the highway patrol is looking for someone to stop, they would have a much larger field to choose from if they started there. i can hardly see them searching out people who "might" be doing some obscure maneuver downhill, when the speeding is so obvious and flagrant.
     
  8. kwj

    kwj I hypermiled this

    Laurieaw, since the police have done such a dismal job of enforcing the speed limits, perhaps they see this as some low hanging fruit and hence some good PR. You know, disregard the elephant in the room.

    Here in Maryland, they recently made headlines by giving a warning to an Insight driver who was clocked at 50 in a 65 zone. It wasn't an issue of traffic (there was none). It wasn't an issue of blocking cars (they all had 2-3 extra lanes). Actually it was more of an alcohol stop because of the low speed. But since the guy hadn't been drinking, for some reason the cop's manhood was at issue, so he couldn't let the guy go with nothing authoritative being done - hence, the warning.

    This made all the news locally. Of course while this guy is stopped, no doubt 50 speeders and 30 drunks drove by. Isn't it interesting? They pull a guy over for going slow and it makes news (read that as "good PR") but if they pull over a speeder - silence. It makes sense for them to show the great unwashed that they are doing something.
     
  9. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Kent:

    ___Ad he was perfectly legal to be driving a 50 mph in a 45 mph min - 65 mph max zone too ;)

    ___Good Luck

    ___Wayne
     
  10. 97PROTEGE

    97PROTEGE Well-Known Member

    Hello CT
    I will quote from the article in saturdays' paper.
    'Shutting off your engine and coasting won't get you a fine but it could make handling your vehicle much more difficult,'
    I can't make out if this is the author or the safety officer quoted.
    I should probably scan this article into a pdf, not sure if I can attach to the blog thou.
     
  11. nissynis

    nissynis NC Attorney

    This message is not intended to provide nor shall be construed to provide legal advice:

    A cursory search of North Carolina statutes did not reveal any laws specifically addressing NICE-On Coasting or FAS. It might be that such techniques could fall under the statute punishing reckless driving:

    § 20‑140. Reckless driving.
    (a) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway or any public vehicular area carelessly and heedlessly in willful or wanton disregard of the rights or safety of others shall be guilty of reckless driving.
    (b) Any person who drives any vehicle upon a highway or any public vehicular area without due caution and circumspection and at a speed or in a manner so as to endanger or be likely to endanger any person or property shall be guilty of reckless driving.

    For subpart (a), lawyers might recognize that "in willful or wanton disregard" is a high standard, however, and would be difficult to prove. I think they'd have an easier time nailing you on subpart (b). Still, I think you could argue, quite persuasively, that your vehicle would not "be likely to endanger any person or property" by virtue of either technique. Of course, I'm not talking about coasting down a big mountain -- I'm talking about coasting to a stop sign or whatever.
     
  12. WriConsult

    WriConsult Super Moderator

    Most states have Careless Driving as well as Reckless Driving laws. The Reckless has a much higher standard, and is generally applied to over-the-the-top speeding and running red lights in blatant disregard for everyone around you. That would be a pretty tough standard to apply to coasting unless you were going way over the speed limit, swerving around slower traffic down a hill and blowing through stop signs. A cop might well cite you for Careless, however, and then it would be entirely the judge's discretion.
     
  13. kwj

    kwj I hypermiled this

    Virginia law:
    § 46.2-811. Coasting prohibited.

    The driver of any motor vehicle traveling on a downgrade on any highway shall not coast with the gears of the vehicle in neutral.

    (Code 1950, § 46-218; 1958, c. 541, § 46.1-200; 1989, c. 727.)
     
  14. kwj

    kwj I hypermiled this

    I've not seen anything limiting engine off at traffic signals, or being on the highway with the engine off. Has anyone seen such a statute?
     
  15. nissynis

    nissynis NC Attorney

    Couldn't find any such statute in N.C. Presumably NICE-On falls under the (other state) statutes that would capture NICE-Off, though of course there is the "not a downgrade" defense discussed above.

    With the statutes ill-fitted to Hypermiling and our toolbox of techniques untested by the law, perhaps time will tell whether law enforcement chooses to attempt to cite Hypermilers beyond the anecdotes we've read about recently, and then, whether existing law can be extended to Hypermiling anyway. As many have said before, I stress the police a lot less now than when I was flying down the highway and changing lanes like I was in an action movie.
     
  16. Shrek

    Shrek Kaizen Driver

    Don't coast in a way that leads to brakes overheating and subsequent crashing. That is the intention of those rules, even though all kinds of journalists and officials will try to bash us in the head with them.
     
  17. Shrek

    Shrek Kaizen Driver


    No, no!!!

    Most ignitions have the positions LOCK-ACC-IGN-START. He was obviously in ACC instead of IGN while doing this.

    Also, to get to LOCK you would have to push an extra button, and
    finally, the acutal locking takes place when you pull the key.
     
  18. trackermpg

    trackermpg Well-Known Member

    I haven't seen one for Ohio or any of the other of the several states I have researched. Also, good point Ken about using "slower and appropriate speed" when cresting a hill or a curve. Not so sure (well maybe I am) how it would be viewed when there is way too much temptation to carry more energy through a curve when gliding compared to "normal" driving. It's certainly been described somewhat "proudly" as a FE technique by the interviewee(s) in an article or two that I can remember reading...

    Something that should also be considered is the fact that cumulative use of some of the techniques being evaluated with respect to legality (such as FAS) is so incredibly miniscule when compared to the rest of the driving population, and is also of relatively recent "popularity," however small. These issues may have not yet at all been given due consideration by law enforcement and legislation. When the US drives some 8.2 Billllllion (wheres the Dr. Evil smiley face when you need it?) miles each day and there may be a few hundred(?), or even thousand(?) people FASing duting the course of maybe several thousand miles total(?) each day, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the appropriate authorities didn't consider that people would be shutting down their engines regularly while driving. I tend to agree with the "time will tell" statement above.

    FASing may be be subject to judicial or law enforcement discretion with respect to "careless" or "reckless" or "full" or "reasonable" control of the vehicle" type statutes. When you consider that the driver has intentionally (even if only briefly, but in many cases repeatedly) disabled and/or degraded the design system status that would in most cases improve safety or performance compared to the same vehicle and conditions with them in a normal fully functioning state) one of the above words or phrases could possibly be applied.

    "But your honor, even though I turned of my airbags, my ABS, my traction and stability control systems, and my power steering, and I gave myself limited power brake backup capability, some of those systems were only off for a few seconds while they ran the POST tests designed to be run and warn me of potential problems before I started driving my vehicle, and I certainly never expected something out of my control that I hadn't expected to happen would actually happen...":eek:

    Speaking of airbags, I'll throw another one out there ...

    The biggy that in my readings here that I have not seen is the issue of "making inoperative" an airbag system. IIRC is a federal law that prohibits such an act unless written approval is given by the NHTSA under very limited circumstances. Since I don't think I'll be around here much longer, I'll just throw in a few "counter-points" up front.

    1. There is no written distinction that I am aware of between making the systems inoperative permanently or for several seconds at a time while driving. Making inoperative is making inoperative.

    2. What (in writing) do the specific manufacturer(s) of the vehicle, industry recognized safety organizations, and applicable judicial and law enforcement agencies say about the technique in question? I bring up the manufacturer and industry safety organizations input because a judicial review may very well defer to or seriously consider their knowledge and judgment about the technique when determining legality of a unique situation.

    3. I was under the impression that this thread is intended to promote discussion of the legality of the issues raised, and I have appreciated reading the thoughtful efforts of most to attempt to sincerely determine compliance. I realize that I went on a tangent with #3, but I hoped that maybe the perspective of an industry where the importance of safety is so commonly recognized may help give perspective on how risk/safety is really evaluated. If it didn't, I'm truly sorry.

    4. See #2 and 3 above and my previous post concerning character.


    Since I feel like I have likely exceeded the yearly number of post/words allowed with this one, I promise I will limit any future posts to mileage logs and detailing my vehicle aerodynamic modifications. I may occasionally beg for a 4WD and "non-FAS" handicap in the Summer Challenge. :DI do sincerely thank and appreciate the site's intentions, passion (when it's presented respectfully, which is unfortunately not always the case) and certainly the personal comments and advice from everyone who has been gracious enough to offer it to my benefit, regardless of what our personal differences may be in regards to backgrounds or professional expertise. To the people I have had the pleasure of communicating with over the last few months, feel free to send a PM to say hi.

    Caution: for those not interested in how safety and risk are professionally evaluated in another transportation industry (aviation) or for those who aren't up for reading a bit of a (hopefully) respectfully offered monologue please skip straight to the next post. I'll get it out of my system then I'll be (mostly) gone :eek:

    If you are continuing, please understand that there are quite a few tenets of the site that I respect and appreciate considerably. It would be wrong to appear to overlook them, but since safety practices such as slowing down and not tailgating are fairly universally appreciated, I'll simply say thanks to those who both teach those concepts and practice them with integrity.

    Be thankful that when you get on an airliner each pilot doesn't exercise his "personal choice or beliefs" to determine which regulations to follow or not, and that they don't normally utilize "better" non-normal procedures that are not evaluated, tested, developed or quantified by either the manufacturer who designed the vehicle or by professionals who specialize in procedural modification and evaluation. Sometimes they do, and there is a specific name for the behavior. It's been identified as one of the 5 hazardous personality traits, in the case of intentional regulatory non-compliance case it's called "anti-authority" behavior and moves them into a high risk group because this very type of behavior is by far the leading major contributing cause of accidents. When two regulations may appear to be at odds with each other, a sincere effort is expected and required to choose the most conservative solution in the interest of safety - not fuel or time efficiency and safety. The increased risk is also independent of the person's intentions, beliefs, or "comfort level" with the particular behavior. While it is possible that the increase in risk may be mitigated somewhat by "exercising" more caution, it never eliminated therefore remaining an increased risk) and is usually exacerbated by the failure to identify the behavior as such. Failure to realize this last point is called "denial," also one of the 5 hazardous personality traits. There isn't (an aviation specific, anyway) word to describe someone who believes that simply a demonstration of a technique without immediate negative consequence is validation of the safety of the same. We see this misconception in aviation daily. An operator believes that they are safe because they have flown for the last 40 years/50,000 hours without an accident. While it does offer an indication about the potential level of safety, it's not as "absolute" as that operator would want to believe. Considering that the accident rate for commercial operations is in the ballpark of 1 fatal accident in 100,000 hours, they would have to fly for another 50 years/50,000 hours to equal the statistical rate. One or two accidents at the 99,000 hour mark (with no change in behavior or procedures from the first 98,9999) would make their rate double the average. Since statistical analysis is difficult on an individual as opposed to an industry wide basis, safety must be more immediately evaluated by evaluating the behaviors themselves with respect to industry best practices. A lack of accidents (especially in a minute sample) is not anything approaching an absolute indicator of safety. Automobile accident rates are determined and calculated by the #/billion miles. If I never met or heard of someone getting in a serious accident due to a technique I used, it doesn't mean I am "safe" because those techniques didn't lead me to have an accident. It could have been me, but the odds are it won't be. It also didn't/doesn't matter how "safe" I thought I was or how comfortable I was with those techniques. It is apparent that in part some of the distress caused by many of the responses to statements from organizations that do have expertise in safety is due to a lack of professional understanding of how wide scale safety is truly achieved and evaluated.


    Also be thankful that when a matter of compliance (or procedural viability) is in question, those professional responsible for developing and implementing a procedure usually go straight to the responsible regulatory authorities for their opinion. Sure we hypothesize and complain and make judgements up front, but the big difference is that we don't take our opinions seriously until we have followed and carefully considered all industry best practices concerning safety, and we never believe our opinion is a definitive answer until after we have completed those procedures and evaluations. When in doubt, taking a conservative, known route is a behavior that can appropriately be described as "putting safety first." When a secondary goal (such as saving fuel) is the motivation for the procedure, a red flag automatically goes up because it is all too easy to unknowingly compromise safety in the pursuit of that goal no matter how noble or "profitable" it may be. It happens more than anyone would like to admit or know.

    Believe it or not, a form of "engine off P&G" is doable and has been "tested" in jets. In many ways its less risky than in a car because you don't have to degrade your safety systems status while 5 feet from the ditch or another car! It would save millions in fuel. Ever wondered why they choose to burn the extra fuel and keep all systems normal?

    For what it's worth, safety in aviation and in automobiles has improved in no small part from automated safety systems and the elimination of manual control tasks during an emergency. Quite a bit of what I see here is in direct conflict with that concept, It's not uncommon - you simply can't expect an individual or group of individuals to understand what an industry has collectively learned form education, research, and experience, and dedicated themselves to for decades.

    And I humbly offer to those who would tend to dismiss any analogy between how safety and risk and evaluated, addressed, and maintained in aviation and driving (especially if it rains on their mpg parade), it is true that driving is statistically far more dangerous than flying. Based on the site's general attitude and words towards anything or anyone that does rain on their mpg parade, I expect I will be dismissed by several as an idiot as many others frequently have been before me, especially since I don't get as good of mpg numbers as many others, therefore I don't know what I am talking about (even though I would be much closer to their numbers if I chose use the techniques). I certainly expect that. I don't mean disrespect, and I do appreciate the innovation and dedication it requires, but it does amaze me at (too many it seems) times that pure FE numbers are often automatically taken to mean expertise in many other areas, as opposed to being taken exactly for what they are. Incredible FE numbers. I smiled when someone recently referred to Wayne as a "rockstar" of hypermiling..." Because I agree that he is. I also marvel at his understanding and depth of knowledge of the industry and admire his passion and dedication. But I would offer a word of caution and remind folks that Pete Townshend who was arguably one of the greatest rock stars ever went deaf from his playing his own music too loud. It was good, but the excesses had some negative consequences.

    I was saddened by recently watching a new member who obviously had a very mature and wise perspective on the trade-offs between safety and improving FE be chased away fairly rapidly. He understood the intangible value of practices such as wearing shoes, etc. and was willing to forgo potential fuel savings. If you want a huge lesson in understanding what it really looks like to "put safety first" look at his thoughts. If you or your family was ever in a terrible accident on the highway, he is absolutely the guy you would want to stop to help you first. How many of you had thought how he really seemed like the kind of guy you would want to be first to your family's vehicle after a crash, yet never got that it was mostly due to his contrasting (from your) opinion on safety issues that made him that guy? While he got kind of testy at some sarcastic remarks, I also felt when I read it that the subsequent commenter was making fun of him in a sarcastic manner more than he was joking around with him. Not an entirely uncommon occurrence here I might add. I also am fairly bewildered at how a group seems to so consistently demand respect from others (the press, AAA, etc.) by talking about them so disrespectfully? Sure, sometimes they are wrong about certain things, or generalize their comments more than is appropriately negative to the organization, but damn, how much respect or consideration could you ever possibly hope to earn (key word, earn) when so much disrespect is shown to those with whom you disagree? I can honestly say that this last observation is truly what has turned me off to the site. It is also becoming way too hard to sift through all of "homemade rocket science" and the apparent anger and resentment of the government, the automakers, and the industry groups just to find a morsel of helpful information that helps improve my FE without compromising safety in any way.

    According to Princeton, a fanatic is "a person motivated by irrational enthusiasm (as for a cause); and to Winston Churchill "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject" I do apologize if I offended any of those who actually do put safety first, because I know your here - having seen comments that warranted true "Safety rock-stardom" combined with "roadie" numbers. You can't have both in equal proportions, and thats a fact. To improve one you often have to compromise the other. Not always, of course as in the case for reducing speed, but when a procedure deviates from what the rest of the professional world is recommending or thsy caution against, at least consider you may not be as educated, experienced, or wise as them when it comes to evaluating safety when you have such a personal stake in the size of the numbers.


    It's interesting when you consider how mind-boggling large of a positive effect you all are truly capable of having and would likely have IMHO on the entire world if you chose to simply influence an entire army simply to slow down to the speed limit, properly maintain their vehicles, regularly check their tires for proper inflation, and manage energy even a little energy better versus a tiny fraction of people who "push" for a few more, and stop ridiculing and pushing away those who don't buy into as much as you so passionately feel they should. If you wish others to respectfully disagree with you (although it seems mostly you seriously prefer no one ever disagree) then you should consider respectfully disagreeing with them them and by all means encourage the safety experts to evaluate and weigh in on your procedures. Sit back and if the industry recognized experts and manufacturers happen to find whatever viable and safe valuable techniques or concepts there may be for incorporation into the mainstream, and do this through an appropriate and professional process, then you will have earned much more respect and a bigger place in history than some seem to demand right this second. And please remember that the "techniques" that are the easiest for everyone to accomplish safely and legally without question and have the by far the biggest impact on FE are ones that have been known and used by (not enough sadly) others long before you started pushing the world for more. It does seem that at times that fact is forgotten in all of the passion. As an fairly "objective observer" it is all too say to see repeated instances where you inadvertently create or exacerbate real or perceived negative images IMHO. For many reasons I would say that your passion is both your greatest strength and your greatest weakness at various times.

    Bye.
     
  19. laurieaw

    laurieaw Sorceress of the North

    mike, i personally appreciate what you have said and that you took the time to say it. i agree with a lot of what you pointed out, and i think have mentioned it in other threads.

    i think there is a time to strive for as high a number as possible, as we did in the fuel economy championships. there is also a time to show people we are responsible and safety minded, and can settle for a little less FE.

    i have done both, i can FAS with the best of 'em (at least i think i can), but i am not comfortable with a lot of the more extreme techniques on a daily basis. yet i can still pull into the lot at work with close to 70MPG.

    if we are going to influence more and more drivers, and i sincerely hope we can, since things out there are so totally out of control that i hate going anywhere any more, we have to make it "the norm".

    since we have stated many times, if everyone just slowed to the speed limit, we would reduce our dependence on foreign oil substantially. but we can't expect everyone to be as dedicated to it as we are, we must present it in the safest way possible. we know what we personally can do ourselves, but like in anything, we can't expect everyone to do the same amount.

    and you make a very good point about respect. i agree. but i also agree that we seem, in many cases, to not get respect right from the get go in many of the interviews we have done, particularly in the comments that we see. however, you are right, and we must not sink to their level.

    thank you for your thoughtful input.

    and for anyone else.......this response is just my humble opinion, if sorceresses can ever be humble :eek:...get the pumpkin
     
  20. xcel

    xcel PZEV, there's nothing like it :) Staff Member

    Hi Mike:

    ___An excellent response and one many of us should heed including myself. You should write articles for a living because that one was a doozey!

    ___I did want to question you on safety features being disabled. You know that happens when you FAS for the time it takes to boot up but afterwards your safety systems are up and running, right? We all need to install FAS switches to alleviate the POST I guess.

    ___WRT airline safety, can you comment on airlines being partially fueled. I can understand the fuel costs of lifting excess fuel up to 37,000 feet but BINGO fuel in an airline is moving towards that same edge that we are balancing each and every day.

    ___100% above the EPA is available just using the basics as was achieved in the MDX yesterday while taking the family to O’Hare and the Accord while taking Chuck to the same last week. All it entailed was following the speed limits, DWL and DWB with the proper setup in the Chicagoland area. I could have thrown the book at the MDX and possibly pulled 40 mpg but 37 was not bad while being one of the few if not the only one on the road “following every rule” and being 100% legal.

    ___About two months ago, I changed my Hypermiling Clinics outline in that I use a “show everything including FAS’ing” on the mostly desolate country roadway while leaving the area and using the basics including DWL, DWB, Rabbit Timing, shutting down a light and fuel cut decel’s on the way back. Students know the difference in both the thought process and procedure involved as well as what the two allow in terms of real world FE increases vs. just driving it. The Basics usually allow 50 to 100% over the EPA while the Advanced usually allow 75 - 125% over.

    CBS News - Bianaca Solorzano did not go from 43.x to 79.z mpg in that Prius while breaking any law but she was above the speed limit as most are when she achieved the lowly 43.x in the Prius. Only because she did not know any better. You have to love the Prius for all it does and why I also encourage everyone to place it on or near the top of their A-list when shopping for a new vehicle.

    ___Finally, what is CleanMPG’s goal. Saving fuel for the benefit of all let alone ourselves. The legalities or “illegalities” of various techniques is why I started this thread and from the replies so far, the bases are being covered albeit with a lot of gray. As hybridization becomes commonplace, this threads purpose will disappear and personally, I cannot wait!

    ___Good Luck

    ___Wayne
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2008

Share This Page