Just curious the basis for the standard AWC values that Rachio is using given that the ones shown in the core article below, are different from the ones shown in the Colorado “Irrigation Scheduling: The Water Balance Approach” article that it also points to. One Rachio value matches the average, a couple are slightly below, and the rest are above the averages?
Rachio: http://support.rachio.com/article/385-flex-schedule-tips
CSU: http://extension.colostate.edu/topic-areas/agriculture/irrigation-scheduling-the-water-balance-approach-4-707/
Also, Efficiency is not mentioned or defined in the Rachio article #385?
Hey @arkley68-
We use the same numbers provided by the Irrigation Association for the AWC values. Also, efficiency is not included in that article, because we typically lean towards asking users to tune in other settings. Efficiency is covered in this article. Probably would be helpful to consolidate Flex articles a bit!
1 Like
Thanks - is there a link to there info for background reading too?
Yes, think the sheer volume of detail could be a barrier for many new users - particularly with Flex Schedules - yet that is really why I think most people buy Rachio. So think several things could be done to help simplify the learning curve, pulling articles together, etc. Several ideas how to help this - think would go a long way to more adoption.
Just by its absence, not seeing Efficiency mentioned just leaves questions - yet your explanation cleared it right up plus the link to it if still needed - which I think I do now for two zones.
Thanks @mckynzee
1 Like
