I agree that we can improve without getting to far into the details of exactly how and why things work. There is more than one way to do things ... not all are equal. That does not mean that there are not benefits to be had from those details if we choose to get into them. For 90+% of people ... I would not recommend getting into the technical side of things ... it just confuses most people ... but that doesn't mean that there is nothing out there to learn from those technical details. Then of course there are just the tiny ~0.1% of people like me ... that just like knowing and learning about those details... I like learning about the details of who and why a solar cell works ... not that I will ever be designing some new type ... but I still like to learn those details... For me and the tiny few others like me ... it isn't enough to just know it makes electricity in sunlight. Excellent ... and I 100% agree.... that is also a great place to start with P&G for most beginners to hone their skills.... then as they begin to see the results ... if they want to they can go out and learn more about the why it works and how it does what it does. Thanks ... that is the kind of thing I had been hoping to see from the beginning :woot: The data set is clearly missing important information... I would also take this further ... what is the elevation changes and such of the route used? would also be another important piece ... not all routes respond equally to P&G... the route used could very well be biased against P&G. Addressing the errors in what is presented... that's what I like to see. Yeah not all engineers or scientists are any where near equal... I'll agree with that as well. I was just trying to use it as an example that just because someone gets 100+MPG ... it does not make what they say correct... there are many many people out there that might get less MPG than me ... but who still know more than me about one ting or another ... and I can learn from them and fix errors I might be making.