|
2006 Urban Transportation Contest Results
by Paul Pancella
This year’s Waterford weekend featured the fifth running of our Urban Transportation Contest (UTC). Regular readers know that the UTC is aimed at people who actually use their human powered vehicles to go from place to place in the real world. Through a series of measurements and tasks on Saturday afternoon, I tried to rate vehicles on their ability to get around on city streets efficiently and safely, day and night, with a modest cargo capacity.
Vehicles are judged against several parameters, with quantitative comparisons made possible by spreadsheet software on my portable computer. I factor in the results of the coast down (not the hill climb) to rate the aerodynamic efficiency of the vehicles. I measure weight to compare how difficult it will be to get up to speed or climb a hill. I measure the dimensions and check the lights. I measure turning radius to see how maneuverable the vehicle is. I try to judge safety and comfort (including weather protection) in several ways. The centerpiece of the contest is a simulated grocery run on a twisty parking lot course. This measures a lot of things simultaneously, including efficiency, handling, ease of loading, boarding, and starting. At the end of that course, we measure how much distance is required to brake to a controlled stop. After the measurements are done I combine all the scores with appropriate weights to calculate a composite score. Here are those final scores for the nine entries, in rank order:
|
Entry #
|
Name of operator/owner
|
Vehicle description
|
Composite score
|
|
140
|
Wally Kiehler
|
Lightning F-40
|
63.7
|
|
905
|
Paul Bruneau
|
Unbranded Unicycle
|
59.6
|
|
110
|
Bob Krzewinski
|
Lightning F-40 (from 1995 P-38)
|
59.0
|
|
710
|
Dan Thorne, Julie Pitko
|
2006 TerraTrike tandem
|
58.7
|
|
164
|
Bill Frey
|
2004 Easy Racers Fold Rush w/Zzipper
|
57.8
|
|
153
|
Becky Aulenbach
|
Catrike and trailer, w/Balfour foam fairing
|
57.6
|
|
191
|
Bruce S. Gordon
|
Zox 2020 low racer, unfaired
|
51.6
|
|
580
|
Nick Myers
|
1983 Trek 1500 upright bike
|
49.9
|
|
200
|
Maria Castrejon
|
Tony Levand homebuilt LWB
|
44.2
|
|
|
As you may notice, second place was taken by a rather unusual vehicle, a standard unicycle. This is not the sort of vehicle I envisioned when I developed the scoring for this contest. However, my good friend Paul Bruneau has an imaginative, analytical mind. In prior contests and publications, he must have noted that I reward small vehicles based on length times width, (because ease of storage and the ability to maneuver in tight spaces are good qualities) but that taller vehicles got points because they were easier to see and better for the operator to view traffic. He realized that he owned a tall vehicle with a very small "footprint", that with a skilled operator would also turn sharply and stop in a rather short distance.
Anyway, before I had a chance to reflect or think of an excuse to bar him from competing, he had entered. Sure enough, the advantages in size and maneuverability overcame the relatively slow speed and lack of coasting ability to give him a very good score. Next time, I plan to more strictly enforce the required HPRa Tech inspection!
The detailed scores appear in the following table. These are all numerical scores, not actual weights, times or sizes. Preloaded formulas in the spreadsheet converted the raw measurements to points. (The details of this are too involved for the general newsletter, but I will gladly share them with anyone who is interested.) The highest scores in most columns are indicated in bold. Along the bottom, the maximum possible score is an indication of the relative weight given to each category.
|
|
2006 Urban Transportation Contest Scoresheet
|
|
#
|
coast
|
Wt.
|
driver
|
Visibility
|
size
|
turn
|
Grocery
|
braking
|
weather
|
comfort
|
tools,
lock,
|
gear
|
pass-
enger
|
|
|
|
down
|
|
vision
|
day
|
night
|
|
rad.
|
run
|
dist.
|
protect'n
|
factor
|
spares
|
range
|
bonus
|
Total
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
140
|
10
|
7.5
|
3.5
|
4.0
|
0.0
|
4.3
|
6.8
|
12.6
|
3.1
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
2
|
1.8
|
|
63.7
|
|
905
|
0
|
9.0
|
7.0
|
5.6
|
0.0
|
6.0
|
9.0
|
9.8
|
10.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
1
|
2.2
|
|
59.6
|
|
110
|
9
|
5.5
|
3.7
|
4.0
|
0.0
|
4.3
|
8.2
|
9.1
|
2.4
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
5
|
0.0
|
|
59.0
|
|
710
|
7
|
6.7
|
2.5
|
3.5
|
3.0
|
0.0
|
0.0
|
18.0
|
3.0
|
0.0
|
4.0
|
0
|
4.0
|
7
|
58.7
|
|
164
|
5
|
6.1
|
2.8
|
4.1
|
1.0
|
3.3
|
7.3
|
12.1
|
3.8
|
2.0
|
4.0
|
5
|
1.8
|
|
57.8
|
|
153
|
6
|
0.0
|
0.5
|
1.8
|
5.0
|
0.0
|
4.8
|
17.1
|
9.0
|
4.0
|
4.0
|
4
|
1.4
|
|
57.6
|
|
191
|
8
|
7.6
|
1.1
|
1.8
|
0.0
|
4.7
|
5.6
|
10.5
|
5.4
|
0.0
|
4.0
|
1
|
2.0
|
|
51.6
|
|
580
|
3
|
6.1
|
4.8
|
3.5
|
0.0
|
5.1
|
7.4
|
11.0
|
8.0
|
0.0
|
1.0
|
0
|
0.0
|
|
49.9
|
|
200
|
4
|
5.9
|
2.1
|
2.9
|
0.0
|
4.1
|
3.7
|
8.0
|
8.6
|
0.0
|
4.0
|
0
|
0.8
|
|
44.2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
max:
|
10
|
9
|
7
|
6
|
6
|
6
|
9
|
18
|
10
|
5
|
5
|
5
|
4
|
|
100
|
Most of the columns have obvious interpretations, and have been explained elsewhere. Many competitors left points on the table because they didn’t have lights or tools, patch kit, etc. The column labeled “grocery run” comes from the overall elapsed time adjusted for the amount of cargo and possible penalties. The “gear range” score mainly rewards the low end of the available gear ratios. The passenger bonus is 7 points for the ability to carry an extra adult who can also contribute drive power.
I was again pleased that competitors came from many different HPRa classes, including three women and a ‘junior’ competitor. (Bruce Gordon reused his PopCycle number, but his vehicle as entered would have qualified in “Stock” class.) It was also nice that Bill Frey, longtime MiHPVA officer and practical vehicle promoter, finally had enough time to participate.
Once again, Wally Kiehler came out on top. He has now won the UTC with three different vehicles! (Rans Velocity2 in 2002, Bacchetta Strada in 2003, and now his F40.) I am not surprised that both Lightnings did well, since they have always seemed very practical to me, and I’m the one who devised the scoring for this contest. The tandem trike duo used their extra power to log the fastest time on the grocery run (the stoker eliminating the need for time to pack cargo) but that and the passenger bonus were not quite enough to compensate for their overall size and an impressive turning radius. Still, places 2-6 were very close, and this contest probably isn’t precise enough to differentiate reliably at this level.
Fortunately, except for a few cases of begging and moaning, all the competitors took the UTC in the intended spirit and had fun with it. I am especially grateful to Paul Bruneau and Jane Hunn, who helped with the observing and scoring, allowing the UTC to proceed efficiently and safely for all. Hope to see you next year.
(Those who were present may recall that third place was awarded to the Thorne/Pitko tandem team instead of Bob Krzewinski at the ceremonies on June 10. In previous years, I have taken the raw data and digested it after dinner, and made the awards on day 2 of Waterford only after carefully checking that all the calculations made sense. This year, with the change in format, awards for all Saturday events were made on Saturday evening, and I did not have time to do the careful checking until I prepared this article. I found some errors that were made in the haste of tabulating the results that Saturday which had the effect of interchanging 3rd and 4th places. I apologize for these errors.)
|
|
