"Gas Pods"

40X40 said:

Underline mine.

http://www.gaspods.com/test-team/

You have an 'offer' on your website to join your 'test team' and receive a whopping 10% discount to 'test' your product. In return for that generous discount we are to agree to track our mileage for 2,000 miles without your product and then 2,000 miles with your product. (Do I have that correct?)

Sorry, I have to decline parting with a single penny of my money towards your product, nor can you have my address or phone number.

Would you be amenable to donating (yes, free) enough of your product to equip say 20 TDIs +/-, not to any member, but to the TDIclub Forum itself who would then distribute them to members willing to test them?

I am sure there are several members who would like to try your product FOR FREE, providing they can remain anonymous to you and the general public.

They could even be given away as prizes at the next TDIfest... if they have not already been requested by interested members.

If you would like to do so, contact any moderator.. VeeDubTDI would be a good and impartial person to deal with.

Thanks,

Bill

Click to expand...

I like this idea, heck even 6 sets could be enough considering some of the high mileage members we have on board. It would be interesting to keep it somewhat of a "blind" test, where participants would agree to track 5+ tanks of fuel and record the results. Participants would also agree to pay to ship the Pods off to the next participant for their testing session. Of course ADMIN choses the "testers' based on their expertise!

Susanne?

Last year I took a cross-country trip from DC to Bellingham, WA and back... tanks are on my fuelly page.

I am making another cross-country trip from DC to Bellingham, WA and back, starting in three weeks. I would be willing to put a set of these on the car to test. The route will be very similar, although not identical, the trip timing is a month later this year, and the car will have different tires (although those have not affected mileage in the last 10,000 miles). Nonetheless, I would expect some trend to be visible across 6,500 miles (13,000 miles of data).

From west to east last year:
59 7/31/13 708.80 15.68 45.19 3.859
58 7/30/13 703.90 16.17 43.54 3.739
57 7/29/13 636.80 15.66 40.68 3.859 Massive rain storm
56 7/28/13 741.90 16.72 44.37 3.959
55 7/27/13 727.30 16.44 44.23 3.899

Susanne said:

You are welcome to pursue 50 tanks of tracking with, as I'm sure you've already tracked without.... And the sites you are quoting include only posts by individuals who discounted the product out of attitude, and have not tried the product.

Click to expand...

Sure. Provide the pods and I will post a 50 tank, unbiased review. I am in no hurry to drop $130 on something unproven.

zoominMS3 said:

Sure. Provide the pods and I will post a 50 tank, unbiased review. I am in no hurry to drop $130 on something unproven.

Click to expand...

Let's see, you want to ignore or discount the 5 years of testing that has gone into the GasPod project, and you want us to give you GasPods custom painted to match your car for free! It is the a kit with an up-charge of $75 for custom painting to match the color code of your car price you are quoting. Black matte to match the trim on most vehicles are only $39.95 (adhesive) - $59.95 (magnetic) for a kit of 9.

You sure could use some lessons on how to schmooze a deal

Your 50 tanks would only mean something to you. What makes proof is having 100's or 1000's or more of similar type vehicles with different drivers having similar results. That is what the Test Team protocol is about.

So from your website, all "testing" is computer generated with NO and I mean ZERO independent lab testing. Yeh, right........

Is this the gas pod max?

I think they are paying a lab to run simulations for them. I do understand their argument that systematics are easier to control in the computer simulations, but I think a wind tunnel test at a constant speed should be able to show a five percent effect. Of course I have no idea what the cost of a wind tunnel test is; maybe it's just prohibitive for a small company like theirs. I'd try to hook up with a university engineering program that has a wind tunnel, and finagle some free or at cost time out of them.

Another idea: maybe they could qualify for an SBIR with the Department of Energy, with the goal to improve their devices by wind tunnel testing?

Anyways, that's my 2 cents.

Susanne said:

Let's see, you want to ignore or discount the 5 years of testing that has gone into the GasPod project, and you want us to give you GasPods custom painted to match your car for free! It is the a kit with an up-charge of $75 for custom painting to match the color code of your car price you are quoting. Black matte to match the trim on most vehicles are only $39.95 (adhesive) - $59.95 (magnetic) for a kit of 9.

You sure could use some lessons on how to schmooze a deal

Your 50 tanks would only mean something to you. What makes proof is having 100's or 1000's or more of similar type vehicles with different drivers having similar results. That is what the Test Team protocol is about.

Click to expand...

Your 2,000 mile tests aren't impressing anyone here.. And your simulated testing doesn't mean anything.

Numerous members have asked for specific tests which seem quite easy to perform. All you need is a camera and lobster pods. BUT you have dodged those requests at every turn, sketchy.

If you really stood by your claims it seems that a few simple tests isn't too much to ask.

Good luck peddling your lobster pods..

You should really take up the offers for real world testing. All I keep thinking in this thread is "a fool and his money"

FWIW I don't feel like arguing with you.. You're not the first and you won't be the last trying to sell people on fuel saving devices that don't work.

https://www.consumer.ftc.gov/articles/0057-gas-saving-products

2,000 miles is meaningless in a TDI. For me that would be 3 tanks. Any variation caused by your product over that sample size would be lost in the statistical noise.

Taking my own car for example, which is driven over 2K miles per month, in the last year I have changes in the average mileage per month from a low of 45.6mpg to high 51.8 mpg... a month to month variation from 0.1 mpg to 3 mpg.

The statistical noise level is much lower than any rational error fact that to get a statistically meaningful result would require taking the mileage for virtually the entire life of the vehicle 300K-400K. So how exactly do you do a real world comparison that is statistically significant?

Heck, I bet simply moderating how I use my right foot I can exceed ANY claim of improvement your product claims over 2,000 miles.

Heck, I've already produced numbers of 61.3 mpg over 1000 miles...I bet I could do it for another 1000 miles if the money was right. Yet, my overall average is 48.2 mpg... My right foot can produce a 27% improvement in fuel mileage....can your product top that?

As above, she dodges all requests for unbiased data.

If the product works, why dodge the questions?

Scoutx nailed it - statistical noise.

My MK4 would give 60mpg if I drafted trucks and drove like a granny.

It would also give 38 mpg in City driving.

The lack of any other corroborating info on any of her sites testers are not winning any hearts here. If members are up for buying a test set to be passed around, I'm game to chip in $20, even if they don't make it up to Canada (knowing that the border can be a PITA). I'd just like some unbiased info to see if they work. I for one would love to test them on my B5 wagon - gets between 5.8 and 6.2 L/100 pretty consistently, but I would have to start testing either soon or in the spring, otherwise (gasp) my Mileage might go down due to winter fuel and warmup times.

What about two identical rigs with a long history of fuel usage and miles, each running a fixed highway route? Put them on one rig and don't tell the driver so Placebo is eliminated. Run them basically side by side and after a couple of months compare data?

She would be better off peddling the lobster pods on a ford truck forum or the such. The tdi club is rampant with real engineers, professional pilots, and in general above average intelligence. I may not be in those groups but I am smart enough to smell a con. If these pods actually worked the. Ford, GM, Honda, BMW..... Would pay for the Patent and use them in new production vehicles. Those company's spend millions to gain fractions of a mpg.

To be fair, that argument isn't exactly right either, because a lot of aerodynamic improvements have been left on the table for styling reasons.

Otherwise, everything would look like a Prius and not be ashamed of it. (The attempts to make a kammback look like a sedan or a wagon actually hurt aerodynamics some.)

NOT defending this snake oil, just pointing out your fallacy. Let's use more effective arguments against this crap.

whitedog said:

What about two identical rigs with a long history of fuel usage and miles, each running a fixed highway route? Put them on one rig and don't tell the driver so Placebo is eliminated. Run them basically side by side and after a couple of months compare data?

Click to expand...

Actually we're doing something similar with a University Van Fleet and a medical courier fleet.... 4 vans running with GasPods... driver blind... and 8 vans running without...... 6 months now..... medical fleet is running with 8 Vans, drivers blind, with GasPods.... 6 without.

Lots of data there. I'm not sure but it sounds like they may be running city routes? If so, highway would be better.

whitedog said:

Lots of data there. I'm not sure but it sounds like they may be running city routes? If so, highway would be better.

Click to expand...

Yes. We would see a higher differential between baseline, control and with GasPods running exclusively highway route, but like our Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Analysis. The questions asked are not to prepare marketing materials for GasPods, but to answer specific questions.

In the case of the CFD, what are GasPods effect on the drag coefficient of the vehicle. Do they produce more drag than they reduce? The answer was a 5.2%-6.7% reduction in drag.

In the case of the fleet tests, its to see how the GasPods work operationally for these fleets. So, they/we want to see their operational driving results.

OK, I think that means no.

waltzconmigo said:

I think the suggestion would be for "known" members to do the testing, someone who is new and has only posted in this thread and no others will not be trusted. Whatever ends up happening here, I for one have at least been entertained. I know some of the guys over at ecomodder asked for the same thing and as far as I can tell this never happened.

Click to expand...

I would throw my hat in the ring as a volunteer. No different than tracking the 5000 miles of data before and after buying my LLR tires for the JSW to see if their claim was true. Found that the new tires saved about 2% fuel. I am also able to test two different cars with different routes and drivers, since my wife has the Golf.

whitedog said:

What about two identical rigs with a long history of fuel usage and miles, each running a fixed highway route? Put them on one rig and don't tell the driver so Placebo is eliminated. Run them basically side by side and after a couple of months compare data?

Click to expand...

Problem is no two rigs are absolutely identical. Simple manufacturing variations would see to that. While you're on the right track, two rigs wouldn't be enough.

Susanne said:

Actually we're doing something similar with a University Van Fleet and a medical courier fleet.... 4 vans running with GasPods... driver blind... and 8 vans running without...... 6 months now..... medical fleet is running with 8 Vans, drivers blind, with GasPods.... 6 without.

Click to expand...

Much better, but again are you doing everything possible to control other variables? Are all tires checked for proper inflation on a regular basis, are drivers rotated between all vehicles on a consistent basis. Do all vehicles regularly drive identical routes, etc.

While what you got it better since it increases the statistical population, I'm not sure even this is enough of a population to show results beyond that of the statistical noise particularly since you are adding conditions which will add to that noise. However, in the end the more data the more we can search for a signal in the noise.

Oh, and one last thought, I would assume that your van fleet is primarily short haul and city driving. As such I'm not sure the conditions are such that the pods would make any real difference, assuming they make any at all. From my understanding, it's more of an issue for high speed driving over extended distances.

Assuming that for the majority of the time, each van has a dedicated driver, than I would run each van for six months with the pods on and six months with the pods off. Switch the pods to the other vans during the "off" cycle. That would reduce driver and van difference.

Problem is no two rigs are absolutely identical. Simple manufacturing variations would see to that. While you're on the right track, two rigs wouldn't be enough.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Rig one with driver A gets 10.25 MPG over the past 20,000 miles.

Rig two with driver B gets 10.30 MPG over the past 20,000 miles.

With the fuel pods, rig one gets 10.45 MPG over the next 20,000 miles.

Without fuel pods, rig two gets 10.25 MPG over the next 20,000 miles.

This would show a .25 MPG increase with the fuel pods.

As long as we are comparing before and after on both rigs, it is a valid test, though with a small sample size.

whitedog said:

Rig one with driver A gets 10.25 MPG over the past 20,000 miles.

Rig two with driver B gets 10.30 MPG over the past 20,000 miles.

With the fuel pods, rig one gets 10.45 MPG over the next 20,000 miles.

Without fuel pods, rig two gets 10.25 MPG over the next 20,000 miles.

This would show a .25 MPG increase with the fuel pods.

As long as we are comparing before and after on both rigs, it is a valid test, though with a small sample size.

Click to expand...

The driver of rig two travels at higher speeds? Heavier foot? Under inflated tires?

whitedog said:

Rig one with driver A gets 10.25 MPG over the past 20,000 miles.

Rig two with driver B gets 10.30 MPG over the past 20,000 miles.

With the fuel pods, rig one gets 10.45 MPG over the next 20,000 miles.

Without fuel pods, rig two gets 10.25 MPG over the next 20,000 miles.

This would show a .25 MPG increase with the fuel pods.

Click to expand...

What???
Rig 1: 10.45 - 10.25 = 0.2 mpg difference
Rig 2: 10.30 - 10.25 = 0.05 mpg difference

I don't think adding these numbers is the complete procedure to get the average MPG effect.

zoominMS3 said:

The driver of rig two travels at higher speeds? Heavier foot? Under inflated tires?

Click to expand...

It doesn't matter as long as everything stays the same. If one driver drives faster and has under inflated tires before and drives faster with under inflated tires after, then the data is valid.

Diesl said:

What???
Rig 1: 10.45 - 10.25 = 0.2 mpg difference
Rig 2: 10.30 - 10.25 = 0.05 mpg difference

I don't think adding these numbers is the complete procedure to get the average MPG effect.

Click to expand...

If the drivers driving habits stay the same, everything with the rig stays the same, but the fuel economy drops .05 MPG, we can figure that there is an outside factor such as colder weather or different fuel blend or some such and that would effect both rigs equally.

I was posting a reply to Gary, but this sparked an idea, so I will simply propose it here.

I suggest an decisive test. If the manufacturer is willing to make 10-12 kits (magnetic) available to us for 1-2 years, then what I propose is this.

We pick one member to handle the administrative tasks. Who then selects a number of members who are evenly distributed between strong support for, strong opposition against, and largely undecided as testers.

The testers, who should by preference be those who tend to run up higher mileage figures for a larger population of results and who have and established history on fuelly by which we can set a baseline.
1) Top up tanks to lip and install pods
2) Track mileage and fuel use for 2-3 full tanks
3) When final tank is done and topped up, remove pods
4) Track mileage and fuel use for 2-3 full tanks
5) Return to #1

This would provide a series of tanks with and without the pods which, in theory, would tend to cancel out other variables over time. If the pods have the impact as advertised then over time we should see a strong correlation arise between the mileage records and the presence and absence of the pods. Preferably this would be an on-going test of at least 1-2 years in length.

The idea is if the pods increase mileage, then removal of the pods should decrease mileage. Do enough cycles and you should be able to establish a meaningful correlation. With enough people and enough cycles, you should be able to establish some sort of statistically meaningful result since this process would tend to cancel out most other ordinary variables. I do suppose a process would have to exist to be able to cancel out a tank in which non-typical actions are performed so that it doesn't influence the test in either direction. If this were undertaken and in the course of a year or two with 30-40K miles per tester put on and a strong correlation was established, or not, then I think we could scientifically resolve this question once and for all.

So how about it Susan. Willing to sit down and hammer out the details, conditions, etc necessary to set this up and really put your product to the test?

my best uneducated guess is that this will never happen, but what do i know, maybe gaspods has changed their policy since the people at ecomodder asked the same questions years ago.

http://ecomodder.com/forum/showthread.php/gas-pods-anyone-try-them-24057.html

if nobody responded to this thread, it would die. gaspods are a 5th graders science project. it's not even WWII tech else the ****s would have used it

Susanne said:

AeroHance is registered as a vendor.

Click to expand...

There is no member with the user name 'AeroHance' in the TDIClub member database.

Here is the list of TDIClub recognized vendors.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=214572

There is no one listed in that thread selling anything resembling a gas pod.

BKmetz said:

There is no member with the user name 'AeroHance' in the TDIClub member database.
Here is the list of TDIClub recognized vendors.
http://forums.tdiclub.com/showthread.php?t=214572
There is no one listed in that thread selling anything resembling a gas pod.

Click to expand...

Yeah. I guess there is a misunderstanding.

Forum administrators sent me the forms at the beginning of the year. They were submitted on March 30, and again on April 3. Can't remember why I sent them twice, but I did.

When VeeDubTDI subsequently invited us back in, I assumed our Vendor Registration was instrumental. When I posted that we were registered, I received a PM to resubmit the forms. I was told that they are in your hands, that of the Adminstrators' now, and I would be contacted if anything else was required.... If you need anything else from me, please feel free to ask. - susanne