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.
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?
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.
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)
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.