Slashdot Mirror
University of Wisconsin Wins FutureTruck Competition
carambola5 writes "No, this isn't a dupe from a year ago. The University of Wisconsin-Madison team has taken the FutureTruck title for the second year in a row. The overall goals of the competition are to modify an existing Ford Explorer (make and model dependant on year) to improve fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining or exceeding customer expectations. The University of California-Davis team took 2nd, with Michigan Tech, Georgia Tech, and Penn State following close behind. Speaking as a member of the winning team, I am quite sure that all of the students and advisors from the participating teams are well-deserving of appreciation after those many, many hours of preparation." Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work. One thing to note: The FutureTruck website still has to be updated with the winning info.
Did they also do a hybrid gas/electric vehicle, like the Ford Escape has available? Did it run on alternative fuel, like the Ford Ranger has available? What do you mean, Ford doesn't use any of the ideas?
Wouldn't it have been better to start with a slightly more sensible saloon car? One with some basic aerodynamics and weighing under 2 tons?
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work.
Too bad the average American is willing to talk the talk, but will not pay the price that many of those modifications require. Ford, like the other vehicle manufacturers, only sells what the people want. And at present, even those nice wonderful and green hybrid vehicles only make up a very small percentage of vehicle sales.
I want a new quote. One that won't spill. One that don't cost too much. Or come in a pill.
Not to be a troll, but Michael's comment "Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work" is typical Michael. He is a liberal and seems to have an axe to grind with the automakers, oil producers, Christian right-wing organizations, which is fine. But please don't let this disort your judgement.
The fact that Ford sponsors this tournament means they, at least, acknowledge this is a problem. It also takes years to incorporate ideas into production automobiles.
Ford is developing Hydrogen vehicles and do have hybrid cars on the market.
It just seems like no matter what Ford or any other automaker does, they will be viewed by some as pro-pollution and "get all the money they can at all costs to humanity".
in FuturaTruck's website it talked about 13% improvement in fuel efficiency, 25% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions etc etc.. but i couldn't find info about the cost of achieving these results.
will this be another "advancement" that is easy to achieve but difficult to implement? like solar-power car, hybrid cells etc?
CU team ready to truck into SUV hybrid vehicle competition (Ithaca Journal)
I think that instead of really cool but really expensive and impractical solutions, it would be much more useful (at least in the short term) to just make current designs more efficient. Kudos to the teams using biodiesel.
...should be FutureLinux. To improve corporate economy and better code emissions while maintaining or exceeding customer expectations.
Okay.
RANT MODE ON
You can be MUCH more eco-friendly by using alternatives to cars. Public transport, bicycles, walking - why are so many people fixated on lugging around a huge steel box with them whenever they go anywhere?
I think the obsession with your own car is particularly strong among Americans, who see it as a symbol of freedom and wealth, and they associate public transport with poor losers. This is re-inforced by car and oil company marketing.
In a final irony, said marketing makes a token effort toward awareness of the problem, hence the website this story is about.
RANT MODE OFF
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
Real Americans want more fuel, more gasses.
I fart in your general direction.
I'm trying to imagine the original conversation:
"What if there were a form of transport that was really green and didn't damage the air and stuff?"
"You mean, like... some kind of SUV?"
"Yeah! Of course!"
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
Why is it every slashdot article needs to have nearly every word linked? We don't care what the University of Wisconsin's website is.. don't bother linking it.
Having to guess which word takes me to the article is insane. (In this case, it's "team". All the other links are extraneous).
This site has all the relevent information.
Its really quite a shame that Ford isn't using the results of these student's hard work. You'd think some smart VP would realize this is a golden opportunity for free R&D.
In fact, i'm surprised that Ford, GM, Honda, Toyota, and every other major car manufacturer doesn't host their own Future[insert car genre here] Competition. Off the shelf solutions to difficult problems and all you have to do is sponsor the competition! What better reason do you need?
Furthermore, an HR manager with some sort of ambition could use these competitions as recruiting fields for future employees. So skilled development teams get recognized and properly employed. More solutions and everyone seems happy so far. Now someone poke some holes in my arguement!
So in short, Car Companies need to pull their collective heads from their rectums in order to change with the times.
Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
You're actually quite right about Americans. I was born and raised in Central Farmland/prairieland America (missouri) and guess what! Its impractical to get around on public transport (there is none) and Bicycles are impractical because its a LONG freakin' way to civilization man, so walking is out too!
Now i live in the Netherlands in a fairly large city, so guess what! I ride a bicycle nearly everywhere i go and i ride the bus/train when i need to go further abroad! So when its practical i'm all for being "eco-friendly" but sometimes its just not that easy!
In Short, Mister Euro-Metro-Centric Viewpoint, think before you rant. Not all of us live within reach of city transport, and not all of us live nice and cozy close to everything and everyone we need to keep in contact with.
Belief that Perspectives matter more than Facts = Mark of the Truly Ignorant
15 student teams will optimize a conventional Ford Explorer into a lower-emissions vehicle with at least 25% higher fuel economy without sacrificing the performance, utility, safety, and affordability consumers want.
Don't you think it's scary that highly paid, proffessional engineers who design and upgrade this car every year MAKE IT POSSIBLE to upgrade fuel efficiency by 25% without sacrificing affordability? How BROKEN is the design in the first place, if _students_ (which aren't even paid for that work) are able to make it at least 25% better? IMHO Ford should fire all his "designers" (basis: Sabotage-quality work) and employ these students in their place.
45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
Ford's profit margin for the past twelve months is 1%; two of the last 4 quarters they've lost money. I think it's simply unrealistic, given that, to ask them to sell a more difficult to produce product for the same price out of altruism.
;)
I've worked in the auto industry for the last 5 years. While, yes, Ford's overall profit margin for the last 12 months is 1%, that's an average. Each unit doesn't have the same margin.
Car companies make high margins on *some* lines, and *lose* money on other lines. Typically, the small car market is a loss leader for the American auto companies. They sell the car for less than it costs them to produce it. The idea is to have something to sell to younger people just starting out (and hence have lower incomes) -- get them hooked on the brand early.
On mid-sized cars, the profit margins vary, some lines can make good profit, while others just barely break even. But in the luxury car and SUV market segments, the margins are typically much higher and that's where almost all of their profit comes from.
This profit model has existed for quite some time. In the 1970s, the car companies were hit especially hard because people stopped buying the luxury and high-end sport models due to the oil embargo of that period.
So it's a much larger problem than you outline here. Sure, the market has *some* bearing on this, but the car companies have screwed themselves by setting up a profit model that never took into account the idea that the costs to produce some segments may end up larger than they realized.
The only way to make hybrid SUVs viable is for the companies to spread their profit margins across lines a bit better, raising prices a bit on all of their lines, but probably not quite as much on the SUV segment.
Of course then all the liberal class-warfarists will be up in arms saying how Ford, GM and Chrysler cater to the rich and bend the working class over.
My journal has hot
"it works, so it's not broken, errr ... , it's just, err... , not very efficient, err ..." ..." ...
"okay, so we can SELL it?"
"yup, err
-
there was something about "wankel(rotary)-motor"-design in "variable-valve-timing"-design, err... and "let's catch a rabbit with a sling"-design, errr... but, alas, i forgot.
-
how old IS the design of the "otto-motor" really?
i get it! nostalgia?
nope:
the design of the "otto-motor" is sexy, you know:
think about all this valves and pistons moving into and out
the HOT-cyclinder at rapid speeds. and all this ozzying HOT
oil in the crankshaft, woah!
VERY sexy! makes we want to go visit my girlfriend ALOT!
even the word is sexy "COMBUSTION!!!!engine".
destroy! destroy! destroy!
-
freaking fu#king esoterik-designers!
talking of which: why does anybody want
to wear a tie that is constantely point at his dick?
are you trying to tell me to talk to your DICK?
-
NUTS, plain freaking nuts!
Hmm only 100kW from a 2.5 litre CR diesel??? :) but anyway nice developments, now only dump those stupid suv's and start driving normal vehicles.
Come on, 132kW 2.5 litre diesels have been available for years (VW/Audi)
For those who say people are just bashing Ford because they are trollers in general... think again! My 20 year old Accord does 28-32mpg. Now has any technology changed in 20 years? We have 3Ghz computers now.... I find it hard to believe that a 8mpg Suburban is the peak of technological advancement.
The United States of America is the only country on earth that actually increased the amount of fuel it uses per capita.
This is directly attributed to the adoption of the SUVs (Sports Utility Vehicles) which are [incorrectly] perceived to be safer to the occupants than sedans.
SUVs use tyres designed for dual purposes, therefore are not optimised for grip on bitumen and with their increase weight do not handle as well as sedans creating a hazard for people in other SUVs, sedans and pedestrians, especially children.
This project only serves to increase the uptake of what was once deemed only necessary for people requiring access to rural properties. Without a significant change in government policy, the use of SUVs will dramatically impact the injury and death statistics of people living in urban areas over the next few years.
These types of vehicle attract people who are not confident of their driving ability, the type who once preferred Volvo sedans. While Volvos handle, turn corners and brake significantly better than regular sedans, SUVs are the exact opposite. SUVs don't do anything well on the road. Their primary purpose was to be used on roads unsuitable for sedans, at very moderate speeds, not on bitumen at very high speeds. Add, rain, ice and/or an oil spill, a turn and you have a recipe for disaster.
How about a project on safer sedans, that would be more useful!
http://www.greenpeace.org/~climate/smile/ The "Twingo SmILE" was presented on august 13, 1996 in Luzern (Switzerland). After some little modifications, its fuel consumption falls at 3,3 liters / 100 km, half as a normal Twingo ! That's 83 miles / gallon. Greenpeace replaced its engine (358 cm3, with maximal power of 55 bhp at 5.500 rpm), made its aerodynamic better (30 %), and reduced its weight of 195 kg (20 %). Here you can see the car before (blue) and after (yellow): http://www.twingo.net/nicolas/greenpeace.htm I also found this on the first link: Rhetoric Versus Reality Since the 1970's the car industry regularly launches prototypes which have an outstanding fuel efficiency. These prototypes appear and then rapidly disappear; they have never been assembled in serial production. Repeatedly the car industry has announced that in principle and technologically such vehicles could be constructed, but that the consumers are not interested in buying them. Another argument says that fuel efficient cars are not safe enough because of lighter construction materials. Both arguments easily can be refuted: In 1991, the Coalition for Vehicle Choice was at the centre of controversy when it was alleged that it had "rigged" safety tests showing a head-on crash between two cars, one weighing 1,450 kilos, the other only 870 kilos. The entire front of the small car collapsed under the impact while the large car remained relatively intact. The filmed crash was a test carried out by the US Department of Transportation. The television advertisement showed worried parents waiting for their daughter to return home at night through a rainstorm. "Why didn't she take the big car?" one parent asks. The point of the advertisement was to make the standard industry argument that increased fuel efficiency means smaller cars which are more vulnerable in crashes. It was later alleged that the Department of Transportation had specifically designed the test to show that small cars were not as safe as big cars. According to documents obtained by the environmental group Public Citizen, other tests produced much less dramatic results but were not presented [35]. The Horlacher for example, a light electric vehicle, considerably damaged an Audi 100 of nearly twice its weight in a crash test and stayed itself almost intact. [36] The second argument that consumers do not wish to buy fuel efficient cars, also appeared not to be true: A representative opinion poll carried out in Germany, Switzerland and the Netherlands in June 1996 has given evidence that more than 50% of the respondents (Germany; 66%, Switzerland: 57%, the Netherlands: 82%) would buy a fuel efficient car. [37] In spite of such consumer opinions, car manufacturers are persistently producing cars with little emphasis on efficiency but more on power, image and engine size. This trend, according to a study of the Dutch Ministry for Environment, has led to an increase of the average weight of cars since the beginning of the 1990's from 850 kilograms to 1.045 kilograms. The average car weight thus increased about 20%. [38] Ford's rhetoric: "Ford has adopted a policy which dictates that environmental consequences are to be an integral factor in all of our business decisions ... Because C02 emission rates are directly proportional to fuel efficiency, we believe that our existing product improvement plans and technological actions are responsive to the issue." [39]
- Ford Motor Company, USA
The reality:
According to the Cars & Environment List 19965 of the German Traffic Club (VCD) the Ford Fiesta Classic 1.1i reaches the third place with a fuel consumption of 6.1 l/km (urban consumption 6.9 l/100km) measured under the unrealistic 1/3 Mix6 . But this model, according to the Ford Main Office in Cologne, only will be sold until the end of 1996 as a special offer. The new Ford Fiesta 1.3i though is 100kgs heavier and consumes about 10% more fuel than his predecessor. Is this to be regarded as "responsive technological actions to the issue"? [40]
Chrysler's rhetori
Yea UW!!!
Mad City.
They probably did all their work at amateur night at the Dangle Inn. Talk about your inspiration...
The fact that what people "want" is often determined by direct and indirect "marketing" practices. I.E. ads, "product placements", paying off writers, sponsoring entertaiment productions that showcase their desired attitudes...etc.
I thought the same thing till I stumbeled across the the US DOE's Fueld Economy website. Even among small pickups there isn't a model that gets better than 30MPG. If it weren't for the Toyota RAV4 it would be even worse for SUVs. Crazy.
After looking at the options out there today for fuel efficient vehicles that still maintain their responsiveness, Turbo Diesels come out on top. 45MPG + and still decent performance. Unfortunatly VW is the only company producing any for export to the US. Supposedly Jeep will offer a Diesel Liberty in two years.
"God fights on the side with the best artillery." - Napoleon, Marshal of France - speaking truth to power
Ford does not necessarily implement all the ideas found in the designs of the students for mostly economic reasons. Some parts and solutions still simply cost to much to implement in anything more than a prototype vehicle.
/truck and few spare parts, Ford gets engineers fresh out of college who already have a few years (give or take) experience frankenstineing together their parts to build new and better cars.
What Ford is really after from these competitions are the students. I was a member of the UW-team in the mid to late nineties when we worked on the futurcar project. Our team took first place for a two-year running back then as well. And I would say about 7 out of the 10 core members were hired and now work in the R&D area for Ford.
Ford is not sponsoring the competition for new tech, they are using it as a cheap (relatively) job training program, and for the cost of a car
Who do you think is designing and building the hybrid-Escape? The engineers who were leading the future car teams during the competitions back in 96-98.
Welcome to another exciting game of "Where's the most releveant fscking link!!?".
Move your mouse over any of the fifty different single-word semi-ambiguous hyperlinks and see if you can spot the one small word that links to an obscure URL that is actually the most relevant to the story at hand.
You too could win big.
NOT
It is all about balance. If ford put all of the latest technology into its cars no one would be able to afford them. Other innovation increases the complexity of the vehicles decreasing reliability.
I do not know all the motivations of Ford. I can only speculate however I think we should try to give them a fair shake. Ford, like all companies, are out to make money. They are not and should not be out to support your ideologies or political leanings. Ideologies forced on businesses tend to screw up the economy. Disagree or agree it is all about finding a balance.
I'm going to make a general statement, but it can't be too far off. Ford just needs to offer a 6 cylinder turbodiesel in all of their products, not just heavy duty trucks. The 4 cylinder turbodiesel VW Jetta and Golf get an average of 55mpg, while my 5 cylinder turbodiesel Mercedes gets about 31mpg (much heavier and automatic transmission). Look at your european vehicles and it doesn't take much to get economy up there. The new Mercedes CDI engine (well, new to the US in 2004) has amazingly low emissions and outstanding power, doesn't "smell" and sounds like a gas car. Diesel is available at more gas stations then it's not and very available on the freeway for long trips.
4 J: www.womanmotorist.com/technology/ford-focus-ulevii -diesel-01.shtml+ford+focus+diesel&hl=en&ie=UT F-8
Why don't US car companies adopt a highly-efficient, low-emmission, and still high-performance diesel engine? Well, there's definately a mental image people associate with diesels (from the 80's gas shortage experience). I think our younger generation doesn't have this negative image and the timing is getting better everyday to release a mainstream diesel car. I'd think the Ford Focus (to stay with Ford for the example) would be an outstanding car to release a diesel model of. There's no reason other models of cars big or small can't have a comparably-sized diesel engine for them.
I did a little Google search and Ford does have a Turbodiesel Focus planned for 2007 that even meets California emissions!!!
http://216.239.51.100/search?q=cache:9C_1zNFnwZ
See, you talk long enough and someone listens!
-m
http://www.invisik.com
So we're modifying a Ford explorer to be even more expensive? It's not like Ford cares about feul efficency - the fact that they keep making bigger and less efficent vehicles is proof of that.
For 90% of the population, a Subaru outback would be more than sufficent. Also considering that:
1) the subaru is more reliable and better constructed
2) better feul economy
3) equal or better interior space
4) standard ALL WHEEL DRIVE
The Union of Concerned Scientists did some great work in the area of light truck / SUV efficiency - they even worked up a cost-effective mod to the Ford Explorer that improves efficiency *and* performance without increasing Total Cost of Ownership - cool. Info here
So what is the point of the competition? IMHO, after 4 years of participation, the intent of the FutureTruck competition is to provide college students with a real-world engineering competition. It is also a way to evaluate next-generation technologies like biodiesel, ethanol, and hydrogen fuel cells. It certainly is not a way to give schools the means to one-up GM and Ford by producing a SUV that beats the stock vehicle in fuel economy, performance, and emissions.
Now that I've said that, it's time to plug Georgia Tech.
GT won the Best Acceleration, Best Consumer Acceptability, Best Emissions, and 4th place awards. Our dynamic scores were top-notch; we ran in our hybrid mode in every event. Yet when it came to the static side of things, we got destroyed (as usual.) Why? If you re-read the aforementioned reason this competition exists, you'll understand. GT's methodology has always been KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) and manufacturability. But the organizers don't want that; they want cutting edge, more-likely-than-not poorly functioning technologies. Because that can't be implemented in the near future.
OK, time to get off my rant horse. If you're still with me, here's the wrap. This was a fun competition, and I strongly encourage schools to participate. Real world experience in the automotive industry while still in college is hard to beat. But if you do join up, keep your eyes and mind open. The most feasible design won't necessarily be the winner.
OK, I know there are many cynics out there about the competition itself... as well as the number of links in my post. So here are some explanations:
Links: So I put a few too many links in there. Jeez, sorry. But don't the mods think it's a bit overkill to mod up more than one post that mentions this?
"Why an Explorer?": The goal of the competition is not to make the most fuel efficient car/truck (it used to be a FutureCar contest in the '90s) possible. The goal is to make the most fuel efficient car/truck given a certain make and model. There are very good reasons for this. As most of you know, the number of SUVs sold in the US is around 50% of all vehicles sold. Seriously, what would be the point of the teams developing a one-seat solar car that requires the driver to lay down? The competition is in place to attempt to ease the general public into a more fuel- and environment-friendly vehicle. You can't simply stop people from driving SUVs. But you can get them to drive better SUVs.
"Ford sucks/doesn't care/etc": First of all, the competition switches between GM and Ford vehicles every two years. Because of that, Ford and GM donate one car to each of 15 teams every other year. In addition to that, Ford sent each team 15 advisors from their own engineering pool to visit the teams. Ford also held the 9-day competition at their proving grounds. And yes, they are trying to incorporate these modifications. Unfortunately, it takes time and money to introduce a new technology which is vital the operation of the vehicle. We, as a university team, may do some optimizations, but Ford would take them to a level we couldn't achieve.
"Ford should use students": They do. Many of the graduates from our team go on to work for Ford or GM. And the posts about firing engineers and using free student labor are stupid. We do this for the recognition of our school... and for our resumes. We won't work for free for our whole lives.
"How much would it cost?": Well, our (UW-Madison) truck, IIRC weighed in at over $500.000 since it was a prototype (probably a lot more). But our analysis shows that putting all of our modifications into a stock vehicle would increase the cost only about $5000-6000. Oh, and I use the term "weighed in" loosely. The actual weight, including electric motor, batteries and other mods was below stock weight.... For UW at least.
IWARS.
People, in general, disappoint me. Politicians even more so.
The overall goals of the competition are to modify an existing Ford Explorer (make and model dependant on year) to improve fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions while maintaining or exceeding customer expectations
Not hard to do, just make it a Chevy instead! Of course all SUV's are gas hogs.
---- "Excuse me. Where's the children's gun section?"
Sorry to burst your balloon, but this story about the inefficiency of the classical conrod/crankshaft system is nonsense from a kinematical point of view. If there are any independent tests that can confirm the results claimed by the team you refer to for their modified linkage I'd love to hear of it. Of one thing you can be sure though: complicated linkages severely limit engine revs so using them will automatically obviate the need for solenoid powered poppet valves.
Nevertheless I agree with the gist of your closing remark about expense, complexity and reliability. You are obviously interested in vehicle design but perhaps not aware of the fact that everything you (or I) can think of has already been thought of, proposed and patented. For example work on the so-called adiabatic diesel engine has been going on for nearly a century. Although purely adiabatic operation (i.e. without heat exchange) is practically impossible, German engineer Ludwig Elsbett for example has modified the injection and combustion of standard automobile engines to the point that he could dispense with the whole cooling water circuit. In order to achieve this he perfected the technique of stratified charging.
There is however one design of hybrid engine that is such a radical departure from known designs that only very few folks are aware of its existence. This is the Innas free piston hydraulic generator, prototypes of which have achieved over 35% overall energy efficiency. This not the place for a detailed analysis. The important part is the fact that its efficiency at light load (as in urban traffic) is only slightly lower than optimum whereas in conventional engines it drops dramatically under those conditions. Unfortunately I do not have any quick links but if anyone is really interested I might be able to dig something out of my archives.
OK, I want to premise this with, I do not work for Ford or any of the other Detroit boys. However, I noticed many people bashing Ford for not implementing this tech or that tech that could produce a fuel-efficient car. Or all the pissing and moaning about not building smaller non-SUV vehicles. Well, unlike the software industry, there is no monopoly in the auto-industry. If a manufacture wants to survive they must make what the public is buying. So if Ford wants to stay competitive and a profitable company, they have to make what people will buy. Every one shouts about how horrible the SUVâ(TM)s are for the environment, yet I see one parked in almost every driveway. I donâ(TM)t blame Ford for building the vehicles; I blame the general populace for buying them. If everyone were to go nuts about Metroâ(TM)s you can bet your bottom dollar that every car company would be scrambling to put out the best compact car with all the toys. But as it is, the demand by those seeking compensa⦠status, skyrockes, it forces even traditionally sports car companies (Porsche) to release an SUV model just to stay competitive. You donâ(TM)t want SUVâ(TM)s, then donâ(TM)t buy one, not even to take the kids to soccer, not even for that once, maybe twice a year when there is more than an inch of snow on the roads.
I always have to cheer when my home team does something good. Despite what my buddies from UW-Milwaukee and MSOE (er, Mosey) say, UW-Madison's engineering crew kicks much ass. keep it up!
I believe they previously "hybridized" a Ford Escape, giving it ~40 mpg. That's pretty good, especially in light of the Excursion's 8-10 mpg and the original Model T's 25 mpg. That a car built almost a century ago gets better mileage than either of Ford's flagship behemoths is saying something rather sad.
-- haaz.
-- haaz.
I'm in indy, too. I rode my bike the 11 miles (35 minutes) to work for a number of years, before my company moved to the other end of town. The solution? I let my lease run out, and I'm moving closer so I can start riding my bike to work again.
I'll agree that PT in indy is nearly useless-- it just doesn't pick up much in the outlying residential areas. Still, you ought to be able to find a house or apartment close enough to your job to let you ride your bike. Don't let "I live too far away" be an excuse, when moving fixes that nicely.
Of course, if you've got kids in school, that adds a whole new dimension, and moving no longer makes sense. Not to mention that riding your bike in indy is something the drivers don't expect-- you have to ride like you expect to be hit. But don't let anybody tell you it can't be done!
I talked weith one of the students who put it together at the ford 100 celebration and it was by far the coolest looking one...had a cow on top :-)
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
That's an example of what I mean by you thinking only losers ride public transport.
There is a bit of difference between not wanting to ride public transportation because you think people on it are "losers" and not wanting to ride public transportation because you are concerned about your personal safety.
When I first moved to Chicago, I was a little concerned about the public transportation, mainly about my safety. The fact that someone sitting next to me on the bus may be a loser never entered my mind. It didn't take me long to get over the safety concerns, because a car just isn't practical. The chore of walking to my car (probably parked 4 or 5 blocks away from my apartment), sitting in bumper to bumper traffic, driving down streets that are too narrow and always have people double parked, fighting with cabs and/or buses, then arriving at my destination only to begin the never-ending search for parking is very overwhelming compared to paying your $1.50 and taking the L to where you need to get to. My decision to do so has nothing to do with how I perceive my fellow passengers, just as most people I know who don't like to take public transportation do not base that decision on how cool they may seem if they are seen on a bus.
I use public transportation every single day. I also use my car pretty frequently too. It doesn't have to be one or the other. There are times when public transportation is not feasible, due to my destination or the safety concerns of taking it at certain hours. But I seriously doubt that there are that many people out there refusing to take a public transportation system that is available to them because they may be perceived as a loser.
But maybe we have to start looking at how cities are designed, so people can live closer to work.
Most American cities never had this issue when they were designed and built 100-150 years ago. Suburbia simply did not exist until the GIs came back from WWII and the following baby boom necessitated more housing options. You can design practical cities all you want, but there will always be someone who finds they like living in once community while working in a different one. The only way to correct the transportation issues between the two is to force people to work within the community where they live or to live within the community where they work. Neither one is an attractive solution to most Americans.
On the surface, it looks like the "improved" truck still doesn't come close in safety, fuel economy or handling to a large car. For instance the safest SUV (Chevy Suburban) is still more dangerous than a Honda Accord or Toyota Camry.
-- "At Microsoft, quality is job 1.1" -- PC Magazine, Nov. 1994
money (in the U.S.) has no intrinsic value. If Bush runs the country like the companies he has run, your money may be worthless. What happens if the gov't goes bankrupt? Can I get insurance insurance?? you know, in case my insurance company goes bankrupt.
The longer we have oil available, the longer this discussion will go on. Therefore, the faster we use up ALL the oil, the sooner we'll be forced to find new ways to get around and power our toys and create our plastics. For this reason, SUV's especially those in the Hummer class are our route to energy independence.
The safety thing - we have too many people in the world. We have waaaayyy too many stupid people. If we give (not sell, GIVE) the dumbest of the dumb a huge, clunky, bad handling SUV along with a cell phone and a nice cup-holder then increase the legal speed limit we may be able to drop our population a bit in the bargain.
SUVs solve all the problems.
Dogu
Michael is certainly entitled to his opinion, as I am entitled to mine.
/. rule that moderators and megamoderators are supposed to be "fair and balanced" and not moderate to promote their own agenda.
/. is to not abuse your power to promote your controversial, which the "Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work" comment is.
/. readers promote your agenda.
I just remember a
It seems like the culture of
But Michael is plainly promoting his own agenda in this case. This has to stop. Just post the article news item as is. You dont need to promote your agenda. Let the other
Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work.
3 /
Too bad is right. Some fun facts to know and tell:
* Ford currently gets LESS gas milage now on it's 25th aniversary than it did with the original Model-T. Model-T got 25 mpg. New Explorer gets 16. You don't even WANT to know what the Excursion and Expedition get.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/news/112_news1
* According to the 2002 Highway Safety Insurance reports: You are significantly MORE likely to get into an accident (i.e. unable to detect or avoid an impending accident) if you drive an SUV. You are significantly MORE likely to DIE in an accident if you are in an SUV. The fatality rate per 1000 vehicle accidents was much higher for SUV occupants than it was for car occupants. The main reason for this is that the rigid ladder frame of most domestic SUV's will not absorb any of the impact (i.e. crumple up), thereby transfering all of the impact force to the occupants, which equals massive internal organ damage for you.
Have fun in your Ford SUV's everyone!
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
One of the contestants was George W Bush. His proposal was to make petrol cheaper, thus improving fuel economy. His entry was to invade Iraq. Nevertheless, we should all be _happy, this is a liberation! Now where are those WMDs?
Dammit, what is it with you whiny liberals? It takes time for us to secretly manufacture WMDs, import them to Iraq, hide them, then find them, then convince everyone in the international community (the local sheep are a lock) that we didn't do the aforementioned acts. Cripes, give the CIA some time!
We wouldn't be in this predicament if that damnable S. Hussein didn't use 99% of the WMDs that Reagan gave him against the Iranians and Kurds.
No need. I googled for it and found this.
I like Robert Fulghams comment in his book, "what I really wanted was a Porsche pickup that ran on tissue paper"
I see diesels in top 10 gas sippers list-- with the numbers not adjusted. Guess most people, if they know this little fact about diesel, don't remember it. 44 MPG on diesel is about the same as 37 MPG on unleaded.
Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
We have the Honda Civic Hybrid. It gets ~41mpg in the city/highway driving we do.
Guess what? It's a regular car. People ask about it. They're very frightened of new technology. It's pretty much just a Honda Civic (but a little nicer).
It doesn't have the usual starter motor, it turns off at stop lights (if you go over 10mph), it has automatic climate control, it has a Constantly Variable Transmission so more of that 93hp gets to the ground, it has electric power steering, and the rear seats don't fold down (because of the batteries).
Were I live, you can't throw a stone and not set a hybrid vehicle's alarm off. I see at least 30 a day (many varieties).
The big news on hybrids are that there is no big news. It's just a car.
If car companies would use some of these innovations (some are), they might be able to recoup some of the research costs. The CVT transmission has only been used in a few vehicles. However, I have 2 vehicles with similar HP ratings. The Honda Civic Hybrid's "power" feels greater because of this transmission. My other vehicle can never pick the right gear to get up the hills we have.
These vehicles are for research as well as transportation. Hopefully we'll see technology from these roving "labs" put into production. Formula 1 car racing is also another form of research. The fact that other car companies aren't participating in both spectrums of research is lame.
Gas costs over $1.80 here. Reducing my cost to operate a 4 passenger vehicle from $0.12/mile to $0.04/mile is significant. We put over 24k on a car per year, so this is an important factor. In addition, this car gives us side impact air bags, better anti-lock brakes, a HEPA allergy filter, a better turning radius, and a warm fuzzy feeling as we drive over 450 miles per tank.
TTFN
Yes, but doesn't starting out with a brand new $50,000 vehicle limit you to a lot fewer entrants than could afford to experiment with, say, a $14,000 Escort? Or in other words, doesn't saving $36,000 on the base vehicle more than make up for any increased cost of modification?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
something like this: http://homepage2.nifty.com/ztath/starthp/subpage11 .html
As a citizen of Wisconsin...
...la la la la la!
On Wisconsin, On Wisconsin
And so on.
Wow. A whole 55MPG on a bike.
You're bike STILL isn't getting better mileage than readily available conventional gasoline/diesel powered cars, and definately no better than some of the hybrids available.
55mpg on a bike is pathetic. I think it's sad that the AVERAGE fuel economy for today's street bikes isn't well over 80MPG.
--Friend, if I were you I'd go out and buy another blazer! ;-)
Here's a link if it helps. No idea if it really works, but it got a lot of press coverage in the UK.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
My roommate this year was on the winning team, so I've picked up a couple of things from him:
/. and he said the soy farmers here in WI give them just about all the grease they want for free.
I know they use something along the lines of the greasel. I mentioned it to him when it was on
They also have an electric motor in there. Also, I know they had someone programming one of its computers (don't know if it was added, or the standard one, though if it were the standard one, it would surprise me, since its "secrets" are apparently well protected).
I know Ford does occasionally buy some of the university's patents from them as well, so some of the things will get used.
Also, they work their @$$es off. My roommate went 3 days without sleep right before exams working on that truck.
Now if only they'd put some real emissions requirements on lawn equipment and other small engines, and ban two-strokes.
What would be the point of banning two-strokes built to satisfy "real emission requirements"? Apparently you are not aware of the enormous diversity of power plants operating on the two-stroke principle. I presume you are alluding to the ultra-simple variety with which low priced vehicles and appliances are equipped. There are already engineering solutions available, such as direct fuel injection, for controlling their emissions to any reasonable degree. Put emission requirements in place and the two-stroke manufacturers will be ready for them.
Legislators should not, and AFAIK do not, regulate the operating principles of vehicles, only put upper or lower limits on weight, size, performance, emissions etc. Banning two-strokes per se would be a stupid way to stifle innovation in IC engine design.
I hear you, man. Use the right tool for the job. I just wish I had enough dough to have all the right tools.
I live in a suburban sprawl (San Jose, CA). I commute 17 miles to work, and I do that on a motorcycle (36MPG -- not the greatest, but not terrible). The same motorcycle is what I use for recreational touring -- going camping for the weekend involves some bungee cords, and then I'm off.
But, I've also got a pair of girls, one of whom is too small to ride on the back of a motorcycle. Moreover, we are constantly having to haul large amounts of stuff from place to place -- furniture, building materials, huge shopping, etc. So, we have a truck which gets lousy mileage (16MPG) but can move four people and a lot of stuff -- which works out to 64 passenger miles per gallon, and that's better than my motorcyle or my wife's!
Now, what I really want is a swell little hybrid for running little around-town errands like taking the baby to day care and picking up the dry cleaning. It'd be like having many different blades for a rotary saw for ripping, cross-cutting, cutting plywood, cutting particle board...
Oh, go on, check out my job.