FE Team Challenge - discussion

[rh77]

Originally Posted by Brock

But if it is a last 90 day % above total there is pretty much no way a winning team could stay a winning team becasue they would have to beat them selves by maybe 15-20% each month? Or am I reading that wrong. And any new team should have a pretty good advantage as well? So really each team is only competing against themselves from the last month?

It seems like a baseline figure needs to be agreed-upon for new teams.

OK -- so theoretically, 90-day averages improve as the warmer months are introduced.

For the original teams, that original 90-day average will have been lower from the start to current, and (if I'm interpreting this correctly), can give an advantage.

Since points are assigned to the top 3 teams at the end of each Month-Cycle, perhaps a way to give a handicap to new teams would be appropriate.

Thinking out loud: Perhaps each month can earn one extra point to offset the 90-day average increase...

For example:

March

• 1st = 3 points
• 2nd = 2 points
• 3rd = 1 point

April

• 1st = 4 points
• 2nd = 3 points
• 3rd = 2 points

May
First = 5 and so on

Thoughts? Would this extra point weigh too heavily against the baseline?

RH77

[zpiloto]

[QUOTE=rh77;46068]It seems like a baseline figure needs to be agreed-upon for new teams.

OK -- so theoretically, 90-day averages improve as the warmer months are introduced.

I'm still not seeing it. If the reset is every 28 days and the 90 day average is really a rolling number from Jan-Jan. The team that joins late will be at the same disadvantage as the old team.

[rh77]

Originally Posted by zpiloto

I'm still not seeing it. If the reset is every 28 days and the 90 day average is really a rolling number from Jan-Jan. The team that joins late will be at the same disadvantage as the old team.

Yeah, I just got it -- it's reset at beginning of the month for everyone. My bad

[MetroMPG]

Originally Posted by Brock

any new team should have a pretty good advantage as well?

I guess you could say that a new team would have an advantage, since their 90-day average at the start of a competition is one they had "without trying", whereas the teams already competing will theoretically have "higher than usual" averages due to the competition. Yes? And so the existing teams will see smaller gains in subsequent months than a newly arrived one.

---

On another note. Sorry for the monkey wrench, but I was thinking about the weighted averages, and it doesn't work unless you also figure out some way to weight the original 90-day starting figures as well (since "winning" is based on comparisons between these figures).

I'm inclined to leave the weighting out of it altogether. It's getting too complicated. Just my 0.02.

[diamondlarry]

MetroMPG, I've got good news and bad news. The good news, since it was spring break for the school kids in our area, I haven't done near as much driving. The bad news(?), I'm not sure I'm going to use 3 gallons this week. I'm at just under 100 miles and I'm off Friday. I have a few errands to run Friday but I'm not sure it'll be enough. SG is reporting <2 gallons used so far and tank mpg ~50. On my last fill, the SG was dead on for the gallons used. I'll report back Sunday.
PS: I tried to send this to you via PM but your box seems to be full

[MetroMPG]

Just cleaned out my in box.

I think the 3-gal min. rule applies to the entire 28 day period, not weekly.

Worse news is: I don't think I'm going to make the 3-gal minimum for the 28 days. I had expected to be doing more driving this month, but the trips were dependent on good weather, and 2 were planned for this week. Guess what happened to the weather this week?

And I've become enough of a GasSaver at heart that I don't much like taking the car out just to drive around. (I used to.) Also, I'm biking more and further this year for local trips than I did last year.

A perfect storm of trouble for Team Slow Burn!

[Lug_Nut]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

There seems to be some debate in the stats & results thread...

Mea Culpa. I should have posted that opinion over here instead. I'll be more observant in the future to select the proper thread for the relevant post.
It's too late to move it (or delete it) due to replies over there compounding my error, or else I would. All I can do is say "Sorry" and "I'll try to not do that again."

[MetroMPG]

LugNut: no biggie. I can move the posts over here.

[rh77]

Originally Posted by MetroMPG

Just cleaned out my in box.

I think the 3-gal min. rule applies to the entire 28 day period, not weekly.

Worse news is: I don't think I'm going to make the 3-gal minimum for the 28 days. I had expected to be doing more driving this month, but the trips were dependent on good weather, and 2 were planned for this week. Guess what happened to the weather this week?

And I've become enough of a GasSaver at heart that I don't much like taking the car out just to drive around. (I used to.) Also, I'm biking more and further this year for local trips than I did last year.

A perfect storm of trouble for Team Slow Burn!

Well, maybe a solution can be hammered-out here. Instead of being disqualified per the rules, if the contestants agree, the weighted average could be factored.

It would be a simple auto-calculation to weigh the 90-day average in addition to the baseline (perhaps retroactively, designed for users who do not meet the 3-gallon requirement). The weight would remove the margin of error with fewer gallons calculated, and you wouldn't be punished for, well, using less fuel and/or emitting less CO2 -- which is a goal for many GasSavers.

So, I'd like to volunteer to help with calculations and data gathering, in addition to perhaps mediating any concerns if it would help. I'm not participating, so there's no potential bias. Just a thought...

RH77

[MetroMPG]

Well, I'd be open to any changes that avoided a penalty to my team because I didn't drive enough this "month".

PS - do you take PayPal