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

So why did they win?

[jimbobborg]

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?

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?

[Drakin]

Popularity of 'em. It shows what could be done to improve something big, ugly and gas guzzling.

Re:Why an Explorer?

[fuzzybunny]

Because they couldn't fit enough hamster wheels in the trunk of the sedan to give it some real kick.

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?

[WegianWarrior]

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.

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?

[Zekat]

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.

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...

[denominateur]

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.

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

Re:Too bad...

[mlyle]

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.

Re:Too bad...

[Darth_brooks]

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

Re:Too bad...

[Captain Morgan]

Stem-cell research has moral problems? Like what? That sounds like a unsubstantiated religious argument to me. Next you'll claim that unborn fetuses are people when they aren't self aware or independent of the mother.

And speaking of smart decisions, Bush's environmental record isn't great. He continues to press for drilling in the arctic when the amount of oil from that drilling is very small by even the high estimates making the cost of damage to the environment close to the benefit of the oil to the country.

When Bush announced his whole plan to move to hydrogen fuel and more efficent vehicles there was a big automaker conference at the Whitehouse where the big 3 announced hybrid and hydrogen vehicles, but wouldn't let Honda and Toyota make an appearance with the hybrid cars they have been selling for a couple of years. Maybe because it would have made 2005 look a bit late and not so innovative.

Chris

Re:Too bad...

[Captain Morgan]

Religious argument has nothing to do with it. From the moment of fertilization, a fetus, embryo or whatever you want to call it is a human being. Homo Sapiens. That's a biological fact. Stage of development does not define a species.

A single cell is hardly a human being. Are two cells a person? Three? A fetus is an undeveloped person, thats why it is called a fetus and not a person.

What makes humans different than animals that we raise to eat? What makes it wrong to kill people and not wrong to kill animals? Just because we are the same species? I would argue that it is self awareness that sets us apart, people are able to suffer in ways that animals cannot because they just aren't conscious of things.

Abortion is a personal choice, akin to using birth control or not. One stops the development of a group of cells that may become a person. Another stops the whole process before it begins, not even giving the group of cells a chance. The cells grow inside of a womans body, thus she has rightful control over them, they are part of her. If she doesn't want them there its her choice to do so. If you have the same choice you are free to make it however you want.

Chris

Re:Too bad...

[www.whitehouse.org]

From all your knee-jerk Bush bashing you've probably failed to notice that Bush has recently made some exceedingly smart decisions regarding science. Stem-cell research aside (which has grave and ambiguous moral problems), he has excelled by initiating a vast hydrogen fuel program

Does Dick Cheney have an interest in hydrogen fuel production? Seriously, hydrogen fuel is a boondoggle environmental issue unless legislation is enacted restricting the methods of generation. What good is hydrogen fuel cell technology if most of the energy used to produce it comes from oil- or coal-burning plants? Changing the source of pollution does not eliminate the contaminants or remove our dependence on foreign oil/non-renewable energy. The real future is fusion, solar, wind, tidal research and technology, which get virtually no funding. They're just not sexy, because they're not an immediate band-aid.

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".

Re:Michael's Agenda

[poptones]

Uh, did you rtfa? Ford sponsored this competition, but they are not the only company to do so. Last year it was apparently a Subrurban, and I don't believe you'll find a Ford badge near one of those.

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.

Re:Michael's Agenda

[btakita]

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.

how abou the cost of building one?

[maliabu]

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?

Re:how abou the cost of building one?

[btakita]

It is very hard to price a prototype.

Before a good cost estimate can take place, the final design and assembly process needs to be developed.

Re:how abou the cost of building one?

[Zog The Undeniable]

There was a story about a year ago about a team that had redesigned the basic crank arrangement in an engine to get more power from the fuel. A conventional cylinder and crank design has to be carefully optimised so peak cylinder pressure occurs at the right point in the cycle (about 15 degrees after top dead centre) so that as much as possible of the force on the piston can then be translated into turning the crankshaft, without disappearing as heat (which is what happens to the vertical component of the piston force, which is of course resisted by the crankshaft bearings). Unfortunately the useful torque rapidly dimishes when the crank isn't at 90 degrees. The new design put an extra link in the conrod to increase the angle through which maximum torque is developed. There were fairly spectacular increases in economy (or power, if you wanted).

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.

Re:how abou the cost of building one?

[Zog The Undeniable]

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.

Re:how abou the cost of building one?

[Muad'Dave]

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.

Article links

[pen]

Two WVU students from Greene participating in national competition (Observer-Reporter)
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.

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

Re:Obligatory rant

[The Original Yama]

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.

Re:Obligatory rant

[qqtortqq]

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.

Re:Obligatory rant

[Obliterous]

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)

Re:Obligatory rant

[thelandp]

Given the types to ride the bus
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.

An environmentally friendly ford explorer is still

[kahei]

...environmentally hostile.

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!"

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.

Missed Opportunities

[eugene_t00ms]

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.

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.

You don't understand the atuo business

[Surak]

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. ;)

What Fordreally wants.

[TnkMkr]

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.

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 /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.

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.

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.

Anything we can come up with, someone else did ...

[MZdoctor]

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.

Ford Bashing

[TnkMkr]

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.

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.

Too bad...

[chunkwhite86]

Too bad Ford isn't actually using any of this hard work.

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_news13 /

* 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!