by DaveinOlyWA (Posted Sat, 15 Jun 2013 09:32:32 GMT)
ya, i wouldnt make any conclusions unless you can see something at least 3-4 times in a row. same with GIDs. mine is pretty static but still get outliers ALWAYS on the high end that are as much as 10-11 higher than the average. but will say i was shocked to see 18 GIDs. that is a lot but still should see at least 4 miles...
in the past 2 weeks, i have had 10 readings that were either 260 or 261 so taking that is true capacity (for lack of a better way!) but still popped up with a 269 on Wed. now is that something?
probably not. every time i get something like that, i track the mileage for the first 20 GIDs or so since for me they are relatively static (i have a tendency to be on the road well before 5 AM which makes traffic variations minimal) and the first 20 were used about the rate that 15 would have been used so thinking my "269" was probably more like 264
TomT wrote:
I drove the route yesterday and the results were inconclusive. I went about 1 to 2 miles further than where I typically hit LBW, whereas I was expecting closer to 4 if the range increase was real... I'm going to drive it again Sunday and see what I get. I've driven this route many dozens of times in the past so I have a very good feel for it...
ya, i wouldnt make any conclusions unless you can see something at least 3-4 times in a row. same with GIDs. mine is pretty static but still get outliers ALWAYS on the high end that are as much as 10-11 higher than the average. but will say i was shocked to see 18 GIDs. that is a lot but still should see at least 4 miles...
in the past 2 weeks, i have had 10 readings that were either 260 or 261 so taking that is true capacity (for lack of a better way!) but still popped up with a 269 on Wed. now is that something?
probably not. every time i get something like that, i track the mileage for the first 20 GIDs or so since for me they are relatively static (i have a tendency to be on the road well before 5 AM which makes traffic variations minimal) and the first 20 were used about the rate that 15 would have been used so thinking my "269" was probably more like 264