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.

Comments

Why an Explorer?

[Zog The Undeniable]

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?

Re:Why an Explorer?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'd imagine the main reason is that your average "car" doesn't guzzle gas like the >2 Ton SUVs do. Immediate improvement in fuel efficiency of these hugely popular penis proxies will do more to help reduce pollution now than it would be to introduce yet another emissions-reducing technology for small cars.

Re:Why an Explorer?

[ocelotbob]

Because different people need different vehicles. Yes, you may do just fine in a sedan, but the person down the street may need an SUV. Thus, it only makes sense to provide an efficient vehicle that can still provide a good amount of performance in an intelligent manner. If you just focus on small cars, you ignore those who live in rural areas and need a vehicle that has a large towing and hauling capacity. Trust me, when you are 30 miles from the nearest decent sized town, you want a vehicle that can provide power and towing capacity, so you don't have to make that trip any more than you really need to.

Re:Why an Explorer?

[Slack3r78]

But how many people actually need an SUV? The average high school girl certainly doesn't, and at the school I graduated from, there were as many girls who never had any passengers driving them as anyone. Sure, large families might need an SUV for seating, but do they actually NEED something the size of an Expedition or a Suburban? Part of the problem is that people perceive greater safety in a larger vehicle, when the reality is that all they are doing is transferring the danger from themselves to someone who actually picked a vehicle of the size that they needed.

Re:Why an Explorer?

[mark2003]

Absolutely - very few people have any need for one of these. Most cities are full of them driven by mother's taking their kids to school because they perceive them to be safer, whereas statistics show that you are much more likely to have a serious crash in an SUV due to the relative instability.

To those of you that claim you need an SUV for the interior space - Explorer's waste internal space like there is no tomorrow - if you want internal space for your kids buy an MPV - they are safer (as they are based on a more stable car chassis) and generally have far better fuel economy and lower emmissions.

To those of you that you need it for towing - do you need to tow at crazy speeds? Why do you need a "performance" vehicle that can tow?

SUVs fill a "lifesyle" need - they are generally not great off road, handle like a pig on the road and are not very comfortable. It's a cheap way for American car companies to dress up trucks built on 1970s technology as "desirable" vehicles and sell them at a premium and vast profit. If you want a decent SUV buy a BMW, Volvo or Porsche - these are based on chassis designed only for the SUV and use "high tech" features such as independant rear suspensions (most American SUVs don't) and handle as well as cars in all safety tests.

Re:Why an Explorer?

[Muad'Dave]

I would like to see SUV's treated as passenger vehicles and not trucks. They would then have to abide by the same safety criteria small cars do. Currently, they do not.

As far as banning SUV's, state and federal governments already decide what you can and cannot drive (state inspections, etc). I don't _personally_ want to decide what you drive, but if your huge SUV is a hazard to others on the road (which it is), then the appropriate governing body needs to review whether or not that risk is offset by your desire to drive such a behemoth.

I think every road should be an HOV lane based on vehicle weight/passenger weight - you should be allowed about 3000 lb of vehicle for the first passenger and 750 for each passenger thereafter.

I'm no greenie, but if people are serious about cleaning up the environment and lessening our reliance on fossil and/or foreign energy sources, things like this will be the norm, not the exception.

PS: Mini's weigh about 2570lbs dry, and are as tall and wide as my wife's 2000 Mitsu Galant. It's two feet shorter, though ;-)

Too bad...

[davmoo]

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.

Re:Too bad...

[Drakin]

Unfortantly nobody's designing the hybrid vehicles with any style... most of them look awful. If they were redesigned to be more apealing to the eye, sales would probably take off.

Re:Too bad...

[The Original Yama]

Too bad the fossil fuel industry receives billions of dollars in subsidies and preferential treatment from backward and corrupt governments (particularly in the US, but also in other countries). There is no incentive for manufacturers or consumers to switch to alternate energy sources (for everything, not just cars) or even to curb consumption because prices are kept artificially low. if the fossil fuel industry was forced to compete on a level playing field, they would be far less competitive in the market than they are today.

Re:Too bad...

[Bistronaut]

Car "style" is constantly changing. Most of the car designs today would have "looked awful" in the 1980s. The designers of current hybrids are just pushing the style envelope in the direction that aerodynamics tells them. Eventually the covered rear-wheel design will become the norm (unless we get 4-wheel steering before then).

That being said, Honda does have a hybrid Civic now that looks just like any other Civic ('cept for the logos).

Re:Too bad...

[silentbozo]

Ford, like the other vehicle manufacturers, only sells what the people want.

Wrong. Ford, like other vehicle manufacturers, sell what is most profitable. SUVs were comparatively cheap to make, and sold for a nice premium. That they were in vogue only helped to make that market segment the most profitable for them. However, if you ask the average American, buying an unsafe, gas-guzzling automobile is probably not what they want. However, that is what they get when they buy conventional SUVs.

To sell hybrid vehicles to the American public at a competitive price, Ford would have to cut some of that nice profit and make less per vehicle. Ford and its dealerships/repair shops would probably also make less over the life of the vehicle, since a well-designed hybrid with an integrated electric motor (not those gas engines that GM proposed with the oversized 42 volt alternator) will likely have a longer service life - meaning less wear and less maintainence. After all, you are burning less fuel.

Why then did Ford and other automakers suddenly announce fuel-cell cars, and hybrids? Because someone actually started selling hybrids to the American public - cars that weren't styled too strangely or overpriced (due to low production volume.) Can you say fear of the Japanese again? Kudos to Toyota and Honda for actually putting THEIR money where the market is. Boo on Ford for announcing a hybrid Escape well over a year ago, and (evidently) pushing the release date back by another year... AGAIN.

SUVs retail for 20k to 40k. Your typical hybrid retails for around 20k to 40k. A hybrid Ford Escape that gets 40mpg for between 20k and 40k is definitely doable... and there's definitely a market for them. Standardizing hybrid-electric drives would go a long way to lowering the cost per unit. People want these kinds of cars. But they can't buy what isn't on the market, and no American auto maker is willing to upset a good deal and cannabalize their existing sales of pure gas autos. It's much cheaper for them to spend money on PR and lawyers than it is for them to implement a conversion and face competition in a new market

Michael's Agenda

[btakita]

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".

Obligatory rant

[thelandp]

So, they are proud of a slight decrease in fuel consumption and pollution.

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

too many links these days

[prockcore]

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.

It's scary.

[SharpFang]

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.

It's that time again!!!!!!!!!

[CKW]

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

Turbodiesel

[invisik]

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.

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_1zNFnwZ4 J: www.womanmotorist.com/technology/ford-focus-ulevii -diesel-01.shtml+ford+focus+diesel&hl=en&ie=UT F-8

See, you talk long enough and someone listens!

-m

What this competition REALLY is about.

[HBK-4G]

I am (was) the team leader for Georgia Tech in this year's FutureTruck competition. Since I am now an alum of GT, and of the FutureTruck program (which I have participated in since its inception in 1999-2000) let me share some thoughts.

1. GM sponsored the first two years of the competition, Ford these last two. GM has AFAIK not used any of the redesigns that we 15 universities made to their Suburban. Ford cancelled their hybrid Explorer but are continuing forward with their hybrid Escape. All research done for either company during the competitions became theirs.
   
   
2. Of the 1000 points that encompass the competition, 525 depend on the actual performance of the vehicle. 475 depend on the reports, oral presentations, and judges' determinations.
   
   
3. Last year, University of Wisconsin attained approximately 30mpg. Some doubt this, but that's not my point. Greenpeace or some environmental organization got wind of this and printed an article to the effect of "If these kids can get 30mpg, why can't Ford?" Embarrassment for Ford, Department of Energy, Argonne National Laboratories (the organizers), etc...
   
   
4. Perhaps as a result of #3, the Acceleration and On-Road Fuel Economy events were combined this year as opposed to previous years. Combining the two events has one result: Reduced fuel economy due to the need to do 8 full-out accelerations. Some might argue that the combination is more 'real-world', but I doubt that everyone jackrabbits their SUV off the line every time they sit at a light or stop sign.
   
   

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.

Let's clear a few things up

[carambola5]

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.

How's it compare to a car?

[shking]

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.