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?
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?
Being from Europe I have to comment that the average European is also not interested in paying twice the price 'just' for saving our natural resources. Quite a shame, but we live in a consuming world where people do not even bother to buy good food if they can get it half as good for half the price or less.
City planning is a major factor. Many cities (the USA is a good example here) have been developed without any consideration for public transport. There are roads everywhere, but few trains, trams or buses. Highways only encourage urban sprawl, and this only increases the need to own a car to get anywhere. Mass transit works best in denser cities, like those seen in Europe and Japan.
OLPC Australia
Yes, I did read the article.
My point is Ford endorsed FutureTruck 2003.
They are focusing, as many manufacturers, on having more fuel efficient vehicles. You cant take that away from auto makers.
"It seems like a fun competition, but really more about teaching students than teaching auto engineers."
Ok...how about teaching students about being an auto engineer? How about getting them excited about relavant problems? Wouldn't participation in this competition look good to an automaker hiring engineers?
"None of this stuff is new"
But it is new. These are prototyped vehicles that get good gas mileage. Just because there are not any "earth shattering" technologies coming out of this doesn't mean this competition has no merit. Besides, it takes a while for most programs for great things come forth.
"I doubt you'll see many people lining up for one made out of carbon fiber and hauling around a 300V battery pack."
The purpose of R&D is to research (learn about) alternatives. Marketability is not the goal of this competition.
I know that Slashdot is all about "free speech", but swearing at people (rtfa) is still considered rude.
I can see several sensible reasons why the teams were given an SUV to modify (and thats not counting their apperant popularity in the US).
Space: If you outfit a vehicle with what is basicly a prototype propulsionsystem, it'll take more room than a productionsystem will do at some point in the future. Thus, the system they can shoehorn into a SUV today will fit a saloon in two years time, and your motorbike in a decade.
Weight/power ratio: If you can develop an engine powerfull enought to push a two ton box at a sensible speed, it is certainly powerfull enought to move a lighter and more aerodynamical vehicle too. The opposit is not always true. If the teams had been tasked in modefying a Ferrari or something, it would have been way cool, but for a system to achive production status it must be applicable "across the board".
Ease / cost of modification: A large car gives you plenty of space to fool around, letting you use equipment off the shelf instead of having to get everthing made espesially for the prototype. The enginecompartment in my Rover 200 is packed thight while the one in my fathers Opel Astra has plenty more room, and a SUV would be a ballroom compared to thatg again.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
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?
Public Transportation- Not Available, I live in a suburb of Indianapolis. Indianapolis has a decent PT system, but I haven't yet been in a position to take advantage of it. Given the types to ride the bus, I don't think I would even if I could.
Bicycle- I ride for pleasure, but cmon. I live 30 miles away from work, at 12 miles an hour, thats over 2 hours to get there, 2 hours to get back, and without reinventing the wheel, 90% of that on the highway.
Walking- At 2.5 miles an hour, I wouldn't be able to get home before I had to leave again.
I don't associate having a car with being wealthy, I am an hourly worker, definately not wealthy by far, but pretty much everyone with a job in america can afford some type of car. I don't lug around a steel box, I use it as a tool to make my life more efficient. Its called industrialization- a car is a tool that makes citizens more productive, just as a cotton gin was a tool that made farmers more productive.
Do what I do. Ride a nice motorcycle. (no, not a hardly ableson, I said motorcycle, not hog)
My motorcycle is 23 years old, and still has the power to out-accelerate anything with four wheels on the street, and it does it at no WORSE than 35 MPG. and that's after I tacked on saddle box's, a luggage rack, and a nice backrest for the ocasional passenger.
No, it doesn't solve every problem. Yes, I am more affected by inclement weather, but you wont see Me yammering away on a cell phone, or eating while I'm driving.
I get to use the carpool/HOV lane, and here in california, it's legal for Me to white-line/split lanes. My insurance rates are lower ($180 year, full coverage) My registration is cheaper($42) and My maintainance costs are lower. I also get prefered parking at the college that I attend, as well as many local shopping centers.
The down side is exposure to the weather, dumb-ass's in cars that dont pay attention, reduced protection in the event of an accident, dumb asses in cars that dont fscking pay attention, being harder to see for other drivers, and the dumb jackasses that yammer on their cell phones instead of paying atention to the road.
(yes, this is a pet peeve of mine)
That's an example of what I mean by you thinking only losers ride public transport.
If you live 30 miles from work, then granted you as an individual don't have much choice about cars. But maybe we have to start looking at how cities are designed, so people can live closer to work.
-- the only thing we have to fear is really scary things
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
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'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.
If the product is more expensive to produce for the same capabilities, it's going to have to cost consumers more for those capabilities. Either that, or there's got to be a compelling argument made that hybrid cars are going to be cheaper in TCO, which I don't think has been demonstrated yet. Overall, there are more complex systems in hybrid cars and the designs are newer, so I would assume they would be less robust. Time will tell.
Let's face it-- the current hybrids on the market are not moneymakers, but they are a good way to hedge the auto industry's bets and build new technology that may be viable in the future.
It's my understanding that the Escape will be entering the fleet dealer network within the next quarter. And a lot of the technologies that make hybridization easy and cost effective today simply weren't practical for mass market adoption 5 years ago, so I think overall things are moving at a reasonable pace.
The thing is, hybridization gets you maybe a 25% real-world efficiency gain, and it's the lowest hanging (and cheapest) fruit to improve fuel economy. If we really want to do more than that, either vehicles are going to have to greatly improve in price, there'll have to be a great technological breakthrough, or people wil have to settle for less features.
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.
So those millions of people that own an SUV don't really want one, they're just forking over 350-400 per month for no good reason?
We'll start here. 'Unsafe' is subjective term, like all accident data. If I'm going to be in a head on accident, I'll take an explorer over my own S-10 (which garnered only 3 stars according to government crash test data). Same goes for side impact. You are statisically more likely to be hit than to hit someone. If you're being hit, then no, I'd rather not get hit by an SUV. I'd also not want to be hit by a semi, Fed-EX truck, Special Ed. Bus, or any other heavy vehicle that sits higher than my own car.
SUV sales are still brisk, although larger models such as the expedition, and lincoln's new aviator have fallen off, mostly due to the deservedly poor reviews. Strangely enough, the fastest selling vehicle in the first half of this year has been the H2 hummer.
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?
Have you looked an a honda insight? It looks strange and is horridly over priced considering it's functionality. great gas milage, but as a family car it falls short of even the accord or camry.
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.
If by market you mean "sell a few hundred cars so our PR people can get in good" then yes, you are correct. the closest data I couple find comes from an insight fan site here. 2001 sales of 4726 and 2002 sales of 2,216 don't consitute much of a market. That includes a one-time $2000 IRS Clean Fuel Vehicles tax credit on top of regular honda incentives. those sales put it behind even the Pontiac Aztec, a spectacular failure in comparison to most cars and SUV's
The 'sudden announcment' of hybrid vehicles; could just be reaction to our glorious and fearless leader's announcment that there was government (read: free) money in them thar hills for the development of fuel cell and hybrid vehicles?
'Alternative fuel vehicles' have been under continuous development by the big three automakers since the dawn of the industry, and long before it was fashionable. It's called innovation. if there is a chance to make money by being unique, someone will try it. Steam powered and electric cars have been around sinces the turn of the century, back when they were as functional as the early gasoline engines. through the 50's and 60's Chrysler had been doing work on turbine engines, only to see the program die without fruitition in the late 70s. the Ford and GM electric car programs have all but died at the hands of the fuel cell vehicle.
The hybrid Escape hits the market in the middle of next year to coincide with the release of several newly redesigned vehicles (including the mustang, getting it's first ground up redesign since 1977). Escape hyrbids will enter fleet services this year. The main delay in getting the escape to the streets has been the mandate from Bill Ford jr. that the hybrid vehicle's performance be as close to that of a regular escape as possible.
Hybrid vehicles are a niche market car in the US. In Europe or Japan
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
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.