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.
Popularity of 'em. It shows what could be done to improve something big, ugly and gas guzzling.
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.
Every one of these modifications involved replacing the bigass oil burner with a smaller oil burner, then tacking on an electric APU and a bunch of composite body replacements to make up for the added weight. IOW the new propulsion systems are heavier AND generally lower power than those they replace, and the bodies considerably more expensive because of all the carbon fiber, kevlar, whatever.
It seems like a fun competition, but really more about teaching students than teaching auto engineers. None of this stuff is new (none I saw - if anyone came up with something unique and problem solving I'd love to see a link to it) and, with a new explorer already running more than $30,000 I doubt you'll see many people lining up for one made out of carbon fiber and hauling around a 300V battery pack.
The other major improvement would be fully variable valve timing and lift using solenoids, which allows massive valve overlap (for power) at high revs but very slow idling in traffic. Mechanical variable-valve timing is more limited and is still based around physical cam profiles. The trouble is, both of these ideas, while not especially expensive, add a lot of complexity and increase the number of moving parts. No manufacturer wants to be at the bottom of the reliability surveys.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
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
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.
Yeah, my Toyota has it too. It's still based on mechanical camshafts though, and the Honda system in particular is very "on-off" in nature. A series of pins engages at certain rpm and locks in an alternative cam profile. The Toyota system is continously variable but only works on the inlet valve and, on my car, can't adjust the lift. Formula 1 cars have had pneumatic valve actuators for ages, which (along with amazing attention to airflow) is part of the key to getting 800bhp from a 3 litre engine, but they're not exactly reliable.
When I am king, you will be first against the wall.
Variable valve timing is one of the major reasons for the push to get 48V batteries in cars. You could eliminate the whole camshaft, timing (chain | belt), and the (lifters & rockers) | (pushrods). Quite a savings in moving, lubricated parts, and adds the ability to control that last variable in the computer-controlled combustion equation.
Of course the savings in copper would be significant, too. Remember that:
- voltage drop across a conductor is proportional to the current, not the voltage (V=IR)
- the power delivered to the load is the product of voltage and current (P=IV)
- the _power_ carrying capacity of a wire is limited by the current, not the voltage
The lowest loss way to deliver power is with high voltage and low current thru a small wire, not high current/low voltage thru a huge wire as is done now.Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
Because they already built an 80MPG Taurus sedan: tied for first place in the 1999 competition and won first place hands down in the 2000 competition.
Mmm, donuts.
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.