Skip to comments.Duke professors challenge term "miles per gallon"
Posted on 06/19/2008 11:50:26 AM PDT by MaestroLC
Some Duke professors are challenging the conventional "miles per gallon" terminology employed by the automobile industry.
Researchers with Duke's Fuqua School of Business say that posting a vehicle's fuel efficiency in "gallons per mile" rather than "miles per gallon" would help motorists make better decisions when buying a new car.
The study will appear in the June 20 issue of Science magazine. It was inspired by a debate professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll had while carpooling in a hybrid car, according to a Duke press release.
The two management professors ran experiments showing current "miles per gallon" terminology led consumers to think fuel consumption goes down at an even rate as efficiency improves.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsobserver.com ...
How about “furlongs per quid” instead?............
“It was inspired by a debate professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll had while carpooling in a hybrid car.”
The all-Steisand station on XM must have been on the fritz that day
“It was inspired by a debate professors Richard Larrick and Jack Soll had while carpooling in a hybrid car,...”
Well, that guarantees the idea is good. While they are at it, they should say the fuel use should be expressed in metric system format too. We all know how conversant Americans are with that. How about expressing horsepower in kilograms or joules too.
Management profs, eh? Figures. Same type of clowns who have destroyed Detroit, sent all of our electronics production overseas, and still can’t pass an elementary math course.
Wouldn’t you have to convince people that smaller numbers are better? I’d guess people have a natural tendency to prefer bigger numbers.
Hmmm, so two college professors want to turn a well-known number upside down. That will confuse people quite nicely, though all it will do is turn a number like 25 into 4%. Nothing else changed.
Quite the liberal solution: do nothing except confuse every ordinary person.
So my car uses .026 gallons per mile on the highway.
If I could only get that down to .020.
They must be tenured professors.
I suppose this is at least a little better than falsely accusing lacrosse players of rape.
You know, I like the sound of Teeter-Harris better than Harris-Teeter.
Perhaps I should ask these two professors?
Because saying 0.03333 gallons per mile is just sooooo much easier to say!
Do these people have a brain extraction done at their tenure hearing?
Who teaches math these days?
There’s no time between teaching Secular Humanism and putting condoms on cucumbers.
The obviously weren’t math professors, the thought of inverting the ratio so that it would be clearer wouldn’t even have occurred to someone with a logically trained brain.
Leave it to a bunch of liberals, when things get tough, to rearrange the deck chairs.
“30 mpg” sure sounds better then “.033 gpm”
I prefer hours of operation per pound of fuel.
Or, 3.33E-2 gal/mile. That's easy to remember!
How else can we keep the unwashed yokels dazzled by out *Bullshit?
How else can we keep the unwashed yokels dazzled by out *Bullshit?
I think they prefer “kilometers per liter”. ;)
I remember participating in those debates:
Joe: “How about we don’t think about miles per gallon anymore and start thinking about gallons per mile so that people really have to stop and think about it.”
Bill: “Wow, man that is like really deep. I see where you are coming from!.....You gonna hog that doobie all night?”
FYI, Mark. :)
The best place would be your own kitchen table, IMHO.
And measure speed in “furlongs per fortnight”.
Some of us would prefer horsepower to be listed.
These guy would have a coronary if the new the gallons per mile a dragster or funny car got.
While the inverse would be so confusing as to prevent the consumer from making any assumptions...
I guess they could use that when figuring the mileage of the M1A2 main battle tank.
0.6 miles per gallon
Which is why "new math" was invented...
Stupid lib professors as they may well be, this is an overdue idea.
How many people know that the real difference between 14 and 18 mpg is the same as the difference between 30 mpg and 70?
The rest of the world uses fuel per distance for a reason.
I think some Duke professors have too much time on their hands!
Duke evidently employs Dorks.
Did you read the article?
How can you say that the inverse is more confusing? The inverse allowed people to make better judgements.
In the first place, anybody who doesn't realize that an increase from 18 mpg to 28 mpg is a better improvement in efficiency than 36 mpg to 50 mpg is a dope, and changing to the reciprocal isn't going to help him.
In the second place, nobody comparison shopping cars is looking at vehicles with 18-28 mpg range and vehicles with 36-50 mpg range.
Third, The comparison is invariably between several cars, with one car being the clear winner: Car A gets 16 mpg, Car B gets 18 mpg and Car C gets 19 mpg. "Wait! I know you think I ought to buy Car C on the basis of gas mileage, but I won't, because based on an idiotic conversation between two Duke Professors in a carpool, B is actually a much bigger improvement on A than C is on B. So B is really better."
"Most amps only go up to ten. Most blokes' plays only ten, but these go up to eleven. It's more, see? It's higher. It's eleven."
Blonde is as blonde does. Conclusion: Congress will almost certainly mandate that all new cars have the newer, "better" gpm * 100 rating. So it goes...
For example, most people said an increase from 34 to 50 mpg saved more gas over 10,000 miles than an increase from 18 to 28 mpg, even though the latter saves twice as much gas, according to the Duke press release. (Going from 34 to 50 mpg saves 94 gallons; but going from 18 to 28 mpg saves 198 gallons).
These mistaken impressions were corrected, however, when participants were presented with fuel efficiency expressed in gallons used per 100 miles. Viewed this way, 18 mpg becomes 5.5 gallons per 100 miles, and 28 mpg is 3.6 gallons per 100 miles -- an $8 difference today.
This actually makes some sense...but only because people are stupid about math. Going from 34mpg to 50mpg is an increase of 47.06% while 18mpg to 28mpg is an increase of 55.6%. It should be obvious but people don't do the math. Gallons per 100 miles does eliminate the need to do the math and would certainly appeal to Democrats who can't do it anyway...
The inverse is confusing?
Quick, how much gas do you need to drive 10,000 annual miles in a car that gets 17, 27, or 37 miles per gallon? At $4 per gallon how much more expensive is 27 mpg against 37 mpg?
Most people would need a piece of paper and a minute. An alarming number of people couldn’t tell you with a piece of paper and five minutes.
How about the same question using the same cars rated at 59, 37 and 27 gallons / 1000 miles respectively?
You can answer that in a few seconds without a pencil.
You owe my employer a keyboard, Ben!
Thanks for the outloud, belly-shaking GUFFAW this afternoon!
What’s this all about? When you’re buying a car you know that the very best get something like 35-45 MPG (highway) and the worst get 10-15 MPG (highway) and if you’re getting 20 you’re doing OK and if you’re getting 30 you’re doing reasonably well....
See. This is why conservatives are so reviled by today's more-educated youth.
You ridicule two educated people that tested their "crazy" idea, and found experimental support for their position. Yet your comment reveals that don't even know the difference between power, mass, and energy.
That may be what's obvious to many people, but it's also wrong and that's exactly the point.
Improving from 18 to 28 mpg saves 111% more fuel - and money to pay for same - than improving from 34 to 50.
Not 8.6% better (55.6 - 47.06). Not 18% better (55.6 / 47.06). 111% better (1/18-1/28)/(1/34-1/50).
And yet, in experiments with real people, it actually does help.
How do you explain your thoughtless, off-the-cuff remark in light of the experimental evidence?