This is a purpose-built calibration test, not a distance leg: two loops driven back-to-back over closely matched course and elevation near Broomfield, CO, each isolating one system. Run 1 held ProPower on with TrekDrive off for the full loop (State B); Run 2 held TrekDrive on with ProPower off for the full loop (State A). Both loops start and end within ~0.03 mi of the same point and cover nearly identical elevation range (5,015–5,365 ft), so — per your instruction — no wind correction was applied; the controlled loop design substitutes for it far better than a wind model would on a course this short. Ambient conditions were hot both runs (OAT 93–102°F).
| Metric | Run 1 — State B (ProPower) | Run 2 — State A (TrekDrive) |
|---|---|---|
| Window (MDT) | 13:47:31 – 14:35:55 | 14:45:13 – 15:46:55 |
| Distance | 36.67 mi | 34.43 mi |
| Elapsed duration | 0.807 hr (48.4 min) | 1.028 hr (61.7 min) |
| Avg moving speed | 45.0 mph | 43.6 mph |
| Total fuel | 2.765 gal | 1.486 gal |
| Fuel economy | 13.26 mpg | 23.18 mpg |
| Fuel rate (elapsed basis) | 3.428 gal/hr | 1.445 gal/hr |
| ProPower AC delivered | 4.670 kWh (95.7% of moving time on, mean 6.03 kW when on) | 0.060 kWh (effectively off) |
| Mean engine power | 47.23 hp | 24.86 hp |
| Mean engine load | 61.9% | 31.7% |
| Idle rows filtered (gear 70/128/130) | 17 rows (~34 s) | 460 rows (~15.2 min, 4 blocks — see §08) |
Run 2's elapsed duration includes two extended stops late in the loop (5.4 min and 9.2 min, both with engine off / near-zero fuel burn — see §08). These stops don't materially affect the mpg or gal figures above since idle fuel burn during them was negligible (mean 0.22 gal/hr, mostly zero), but they inflate the "elapsed-basis" gal/hr figure relative to a pure-driving rate. A moving-time-only rate is given in §04.
ProPower ran continuously for 95.7% of Run 1's moving time — the same underdetermined-regression situation flagged on prior legs (e.g. Prescott→Salida): with essentially no ON/OFF pairing at matched speed and grade, this run cannot independently re-derive the 7.70 kWh AC/gal baseline. It's used below only as a consistency check against that baseline, and as an input to backing ProPower's share out of Run 1's total fuel for the Run 1 vs. Run 2 comparison in §04.
| Quantity | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| ProPower AC delivered | 4.670 kWh | measured (DC/AC converter output × Δt) |
| Implied ProPower fuel share | 0.606 gal | 4.670 ÷ 7.70 kWh/gal — KB baseline, modeled |
| Implied propulsion-only fuel, Run 1 | 2.159 gal | 2.765 − 0.606, modeled |
| Implied propulsion-only mpg, Run 1 | 16.99 mpg | 36.67 ÷ 2.159, modeled |
| Implied propulsion-only rate, Run 1 | 2.675 gal/hr | 2.159 ÷ 0.807 hr, modeled |
| Term | Value |
|---|---|
| ProPower coefficient (b) | 0.178 gal/hr per kW |
| Implied rate at 5.8 kW | 1.03 gal/hr |
| R² | 0.27 |
| Mass basis | measured — 6,949 kg (CAT-scale tare + independently weighed cargo, per instruction set) |
R² = 0.27 is below the ~0.4 reliability threshold, and the implied 1.03 gal/hr at 5.8 kW sits above the 0.4–1.0 gal/hr physically plausible band. Root cause: with ProPower on 95.7% of the time, the regression has almost no ON/OFF contrast to separate ProPower's effect from grade and speed — exactly the underdetermined case the protocol warns about. Not presented as a corroboration of anything; the measured round-trip baseline (0.64–0.65 gal/hr, range 0.55–0.75) remains the reference figure.
Run 2 held TrekDrive on with ProPower fully off for the entire loop, over a course and elevation profile matched closely to Run 1. This is the calibration's core deliverable: a direct, controlled comparison of total drivetrain fuel burn with vs. without TrekDrive assist, on a loop distinct from (and slower/more stop-and-go than) the highway-cruise conditions the KB model and 62-mph baseline are built on.
| Metric | Run 1 propulsion-only (no TrekDrive) | Run 2 (TrekDrive) | Δ |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fuel rate | 2.675 gal/hr | 1.445 gal/hr | −1.230 gal/hr (−46%) |
| Fuel economy (propulsion) | 16.99 mpg | 23.18 mpg | +6.19 mpg (+36%) |
| Fuel per mile | 0.0589 gal/mi | 0.0432 gal/mi | −0.0157 gal/mi (−27%) |
| Mean engine power | 47.23 hp (Run 1 total, both propulsion+ProPower) | 24.86 hp | −47% |
| Mean engine load | 61.9% (Run 1 total) | 31.7% | −49% |
Gross only. The protocol calls for gross fuel saved paired against the trailer battery cost TrekDrive drew to achieve it, expressed as a fuel-equivalent net. This OBD dataset has no LightShip/trailer SOC or TrekDrive draw-kW channel — that telemetry lives on the trailer's own CAN bus, not the truck's. Net savings cannot be computed from this data. Recommend capturing LightShip Atlas SOC (start/end, or ideally a screen-record) on future calibration runs so a battery-kWh-spent figure can be paired against the gross fuel gal saved.
The KB TurboAssist model (highway 62 mph basis) gives State A 1.73 gal/hr and State B 4.28 gal/hr (ProPower-inclusive). This loop ran ~44 mph with two long stops, not sustained highway cruise, so it is a different operating regime, not a re-confirmation of those figures — Run 2's 1.445 gal/hr and Run 1's 2.675 gal/hr backed-out propulsion rate are both lower than the highway-basis numbers, consistent with lower average road load at lower average speed. The directional finding — TrekDrive substantially cuts engine load and fuel rate relative to unassisted towing — holds and is, if anything, cleaner here than in the highway model, since this is a genuine two-run A/B rather than a single-leg estimate.
| Metric | Run 2, elapsed basis | Run 2, moving-time only |
|---|---|---|
| Duration | 1.028 hr | 0.775 hr (61.7 − 15.2 min idle) |
| Fuel rate | 1.445 gal/hr | ≈1.92 gal/hr |
Idle-period fuel burn during the two stops was negligible (near-zero, engine off), so total gal consumed is essentially unaffected — only the rate denominator changes. The moving-time rate (≈1.92 gal/hr) is the more representative one for comparing driving effort; the elapsed-basis rate (1.445 gal/hr) is what a trip-level mpg/gph figure would show. Still well below Run 1's backed-out 2.675 gal/hr either way.
Filtered to sustained rich λ (commanded λ < 0.98, load > 50%) to exclude transient tip-out/restart excursions. Both runs show small, comparable enrichment penalties — this test wasn't run in the sustained high-load, high-IAT conditions (e.g. mountain grades, hot plains at speed) where the effect is largest.
| Run | Rows λ<0.98 (sustained) | Peak IAT2 during episodes | Mean enrichment | Est. penalty |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Run 1 — State B | 66 rows / 132 s | 143.6°F | 3.7% | ≈0.005 gal |
| Run 2 — State A | 76 rows / 152 s | 145.4°F | 5.5% | ≈0.006 gal |
Run 2 additionally shows a much higher rate of brief (transient, load < 50%) rich-λ excursions overall — 50.9% of rows vs. 18.0% in Run 1 — consistent with the frequent auto start-stop engine restarts during Run 2's idle blocks (each restart briefly commands rich, cold-start-like enrichment). These are excluded from the sustained-penalty figures above by the load filter and are not a TrekDrive thermal effect; they're a start-stop-cycling artifact of this run's stop pattern.