"Garbage in, garbage out” may describe a typical day for a waste hauler, but it means something entirely different to an analyst doing computer-based fuel economy simulations on the effects of a new technology.
When you hear or read technology claims of a 10% improvement in fuel economy, your first reaction may be “wow” or “no way” depending on whether you are a venture capitalist or a technology user.
The reality is likely somewhere in between these two.
Being overly optimistic or overly pessimistic is frankly human nature. We form opinions based on our own experiences and based on the advice of others who we trust (or those we knowingly distrust). While there are truth-in-advertising regulations, they can get a bit murky.
Aerodynamic devices on trailers are an example where claims can be confusing. A manufacturer may claim a device has a 10% improvement in fuel economy. Government entities may validate the device more conservatively at 7%. A fleet manager who you respect has the device installed and says he is only seeing a 3% improvement on the fleet’s annual numbers. Another contrarian fleet manager, one you rarely believe, may say the device doesn’t do anything for fuel economy. Given all that conflicting information, you have to form your own opinion.
It may be that none of these estimates are wrong. Each may be firmly grounded in factual data or analysis. What you are likely missing is that each estimate requires context. In a world of short attention spans – one where in-depth reporting is defined by short headlines, news bites, elevator pitches and social media posts – the critical context very often is not discussed.
So how can these estimates all be right? Over the years I’ve resisted the easy temptation to just outright disbelieve fuel economy claims. Rather, I’ve given them the benefit of the doubt that I’m not being lied to. It’s more of a game for me to figure out the context under which the claims are potentially accurate. Don’t get me wrong, I’ve run into a few outright lies, but generally there is some viable route to explain the claims.
