Isn't this what Waze does for free or could this be a threat

[airport757]

A new navigation program that will charge for the shortest, "greenest" route. Thought Waze already did this for free?

http://goo.gl/mag/7GsRo

[airport757]

Here is another link because I think that people might think that last link is spam or something (it is actually from google currents).

http://www.good.is/post/an-app-that-see ... ffic-jams/

[daknife]

Not that much of a threat when Waze does this for free, with a much larger userbase. Though it's not really competing with Waze since while there are old versions of the app for the Windows phones, Waze doesn't support the devices. So the Windows phones users are welcome to spend up to 30 cents per trip. The iOS and Android realm will remain happy with our free app.

[Karrows]

Eh, I couldn't get past the tree hugging, co2 preaching in the video.

But anyhow if it actually works for reducing gas usage, it could make progress. I'm not a save the planet guy, I'm just cheap. Save me a few bucks in gas every day and it adds up, I'd use it. It would be a great option for Waze to implement. Look for the route with a constant speed, fewest stops, least stop & go traffic, and shortest distance. Have some options for car profiles for different cars, hybrid/gas/electric/diesel. Then plug all that thru some calculations to find the cheapest route (or the greenest route for the tree huggers).

For their time savings claims, it sounds like BS. I heard/read something about simulations with all drivers using their software and the software literally reserving them a spot on the road in traffic. Sounds like a nice fantasy for calculating optimal driving habits on a global scale, but it may have little to no use without 100% compliance.

[jasonh300]

Eh, I couldn't get past the tree hugging, co2 preaching in the video.

+1

I really think that their gas saving routing isn't going to be much different from Waze's fastest routing technique.

Avoid sitting in traffic. Take the fastest route. Save gas.

[WeeeZer14]

Well most fuel efficient is not always the quickest. Sticking to a minor/major highway where you don't exceed 50 or 60 mph will be slower but more fuel efficient than blowing down the interstate at 70 mph. Then you have situations where you could go a bit out of your way to avoid climbing a big hill.

[bgodette]

Then you have situations where you could go a bit out of your way to avoid climbing a big hill.

For round trips using the same path to and from, elevation changes effectively don't exist. For the most part the extra energy used to go up is stored as potential energy and released on the way down.

[dmcconachie]

Then you have situations where you could go a bit out of your way to avoid climbing a big hill.

For round trips using the same path to and from, elevation changes effectively don't exist. For the most part the extra energy used to go up is stored as potential energy and released on the way down.

In a perfect system maybe but braking could ruin that.

via Tapatalk

[bgodette]

Then you have situations where you could go a bit out of your way to avoid climbing a big hill.

For round trips using the same path to and from, elevation changes effectively don't exist. For the most part the extra energy used to go up is stored as potential energy and released on the way down.

In a perfect system maybe but braking could ruin that.

Braking doesn't matter. If the hill didn't exist you'd expend only the energy needed to accelerate, the extra needed to climb is being converted to potential energy which is recovered on the way back down. Of course this is ignoring any changes in mass, and weather, which of course there will be.

[xteejx]

Coast on the way down lol

Sent from my GT-I9100P using Tapatalk 2