from Fain's CEO update....
Greater MPG during rapid acceleration — A considerable portion of typical city and suburban driving involves “rapid” acceleration, that is, acceleration from zero to 30 mph at a rate exceeding 6 mph per second. In side-by-side testing of the hydraulic transmission against the Tahoe’s automatic transmission in the zero to 30 mph acceleration range, the automatic transmission used 100% more fuel than our transmission.
While this percentage demonstrates the enormous fuel savings potential of our transmission, it is not the kind of information that can be obtained readily from various EPA-sanctioned tests. This is because EPA tests require the driver to accelerate at prescribed, significantly lower acceleration rates. (See more about the controversy surrounding EPA sanctioned tests in “Q&A 7” below).
Greater MPG for NYC EPA Test — We were asked by auto company representatives to compare our transmission side-by-side under exclusive city driving scenarios, such as those found in New York City, Chicago, Los Angeles, Rio de Janeiro and Beijing. We then ran an entire series of side-by-side comparisons utilizing the EPA-sanctioned New York City cycle test. Over the course of all of these tests, our transmission consistently achieved an average of 4.33% improvement in fuel efficiency over the automatic.
7. How do you reconcile a 100% improvement in the zero to 30 mph acceleration range and “only” a 4.33% improvement in the overall New York City test?
First of all, it is important for you to understand the nature of the EPA New York City test and the opportunities for fuel improvement it allows.
The New York City cycle test runs for 9 minutes, 58 seconds and covers a distance of 1.18 miles. Of the time spent on the test, the vehicle is idling for 211 seconds (approximately 35%), accelerating for 208 seconds (approximately 35%) and decelerating in coast mode for 179 seconds (approximately 30%). The average speed that must be maintained by the driver is 7.1 mph. The top speed permitted is 27.6 mph, and this speed must be attained starting from zero at an average acceleration rate of 1.4 mph per second (which translates into almost 18 seconds to attain a speed of 25 mph!).
Accordingly, the area for fuel efficiency improvement is confined to a band of approximately 3.5 minutes covering only 35% of the entire test, since we cannot improve fuel efficiency in the idle and coast modes. Of that 3.5 minutes of acceleration, none of the time is conducted at an acceleration rate of at least 6 mph per second where our transmission truly shines.
As can be seen, the New York City cycle test (like all of the other EPA-sanctioned tests developed in the mid-1970’s) is extremely unrealistic and directly contributes to the “MPG sticker shock” syndrome consistently experienced by American drivers. Consumer complaints are met with the auto industry’s stock response that American drivers are “lead-footed” when in fact, the sticker fuel mpg is a result of a driving test that allows the vehicle to operate in a narrow zone of high efficiency for an automatic transmission.
Lead-footed or not, Americans simply do not drive the way the EPA says we do and, like it or not, the way we drive has a direct and significant impact on gas mileage. And, reputable organizations, such as the American Automobile Association and even the EPA itself, are beginning to understand that only comparable, side-by-side testing under real-world driving scenarios will provide the public and industry with any truly meaningful information regarding fuel efficiency. In fact, the Senate passed a highway funding bill in May that contains a provision requiring the EPA to make its fuel economy tests more realistic. The AAA says its own tests show the stickers could be off by as much as 30 percent on some models. Further confirming this point, OEM’s with whom we are having discussions have stated that they would be extremely pleased with as much as a 5% improvement on these tests.
To me, it seems like there isn't going to be anything I could say that would help your thought process....you have already formed your opinion ....why have you not sold your position and cut your losses if you don't think Torvec has the goods..?
