Slashdot Mirror
Student Killed Driving Solar Car
Lev13than writes "Tragedy struck the University of Toronto's Blue Sky Solar Racing Team on Thursday when 21-year old student Andrew Frow was killed in a car accident. It appears that Frow lost control of the low-riding experimental car and was struck by a minivan head-on. The team was driving from Stratford to Waterloo (about an hour west of Toronto) as part of a tour of universities in Ontario and Quebec to mark the one-year anniversary of the 2003 Blackout. This is a big setback for solar power advocates, especially as the blackout anniversary will pass with remedial legislation stranded in Congress. More information on the accident is available here." The vehicle's design is not really street-safe - this will be a problem as more efficient, lighter cars share the road with Hummers.
Some people seem more concerned about the car.
The most detailed story I've read about this was in The Kitchener-Waterloo Record, which unfortunately is subscription-only. From a Google News search, I don't see the article duplicated anywhere, so I am copying and pasting the article here. (There were also two photos, which unfortunately can't be linked to. Perhaps someone else with a subscription can set up a mirror.) Andrew Frow, RIP. :-(
U of T student dies in solar car; Vehicle out of control near Waterloo Regulations being followed, police say
A University of Toronto student is dead after the solar car he was driving veered out of control on a highway just west of Waterloo Region yesterday afternoon.
Andrew Frow, 21, of Toronto was driving the university's team car east along Highway 7 and 8, from Stratford to Waterloo, as part of a Canadian solar car tour. The small low-riding car suddenly went out of control at about 4 30 p.m., veering across the centre line of the two-lane highway, said Constable Glen Childerley of Perth County Ontario Provincial Police.
The car then swerved back into its lane, hitting the right shoulder. It then plowed across the highway into the path of a minivan in the westbound lane.
"It zoomed right across the road and was T-boned by the van," said Childerley, adding the driver was alone in the solar car.
The impact destroyed the car. Its solar-panelled roof was flung off and its shell ended up in the ditch on the north side of the highway.
The driver's teammates rushed to his aid. The students were in two minivans, one driving in front of the solar car, one behind, when the crash occurred.
Two of his teammates frantically performed CPR on the young man as he lay in the wreckage, said truck driver David Hackett, who pulled up at the scene moments after the accident.
Hackett, a volunteer firefighter in his hometown of Maryhill, offered to take over from the visibly upset woman doing mouth-to- mouth.
"I'm just sorry we couldn't do more," said Hackett, who was delivering groceries to Stratford when he came across the crash.
"I am grateful for the training that I had and that I could respond."
Paramedics, Stratford firefighters and OPP soon arrived on the scene and took the driver by ambulance to another ambulance with a doctor and waiting medical team.
The crew took the young man to a Kitchener hospital, where he was pronounced dead.
After he was rushed away, police began inspecting the mangled wreckage in the ditch to determine why the crash occurred. That section of the highway was closed for hours as they worked.
Hunks of metal, some bearing the University of Toronto logo, were strewn across the grassy ditch.
As police worked, students on the U of T team huddled across the street, many hugging each other.
They did not want to talk to the news media last night.
Rudy Schoenhoeffer, who was driving the minivan that hit the solar car, was also there.
"I'm just saying a prayer for him," the Stratford man said quietly as he stood by his van, its front end dented.
He was on his way home from work in Cambridge when the crash occurred.
Jessica Whiteside, U of T's acting associate director of news services, said it was too early last night for anyone at the university to comment.
Childerley said solar cars have to get a special permit from the Ministry of Transportation to drive on roads and highways, and must travel with a regular vehicle in front and behind. Those vehicles must have flashing yellow lights on their roofs.
The U of T car was following these regulations.
Kitchener-Waterloo Record
[Photo] The U of T solar car drives along Western Rd. toward the University of Western Ontario in London yesterday. Later, near Waterloo, another driver lost control.
[Photo] OPP investigate the scene of the fatal solar car accident on Highway 7 and 8 near the town of Shakespeare, Ont., yesterday.
Fairly tough to make a sturdy car that is also lightweight enough to be driven by low-power solar generation...
It wouldn't matter if it hit the road with Yugos, it would still get crushed. An unsafe, feather-weight car will lose to anything -- not just a hummer. Nice attempt to jab at large vehicles.
After all, many of the most popular ones are banned from many roads in California and other states. Since its a MSN article, I''ll elaborate - they are popular because they are big enough to get the large truck for commercial use tax discount... which also happens to be the weight limit for restrictions on most residential streets in Californial (and other places).
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
"the vehicle lost control"
What was the steering mechanism in that experimental car? Drive by wire? What failed? The story would more accurately have specified a collision of an "experimental steering" car, than a solar car, unless the steering was conventional.
--
make install -not war
I am good friends with some of the designers of that car. Hell... I even helped carry the solar panels into the conference building in Scarbrough in January where I met them. It is truly tragic, and my heart goes out to them. That is the problem with this kind of tragedy... this car was designed for racing and not highway travel competing for road space with Cadillacs.
Rest in peace Andrew, and keep them strong Raja.
while(1) { fork(); };
I remember hearing or seeing something about moving the bumpers on SUVs and trucks lower so that if the impact with a regular car, the bumper will impact where the structure of the car was built to take an impact. I think a lot of the problems arise when the SUV is impacting where the car was not designed to withstand an impact, like above the door frame. Of course this probably wouldn't have made a difference in this case, but something that should be considered regardless.
He may not have been returning from orbit, or travelled at supersonic speed. But his shadow will always be a mile long.
"A witty saying proves nothing." ~Voltaire
"d'Oh!" ~Homer
this will be a problem as more efficient, lighter cars share the road with Hummers.
Sure, lets blame the big, bad, SUV because your car is unsafe. I realize that the Hummer is the mortal enemy of solar car advoates everywhere but how is this possibly relevant? If you follow that logic we should ban Semi-trucks from the road as well. We've got to make it safe for experimental solar car vehicles, right?
Gimme a break. This is a tragedy, and you're trying to spin in into an anti-SUV infomercial.
I vote let's not view this as a broader issue at all. A young researcher was killed in a tragic accident while driving an experimental vehicle. Why can't we just be bummed about it instead of speculating about what it means for solar power, or debating whether somebody should be sued.
strong, fast, cheap. Pick two.
This is exactly what I was going to say. In certain classes of racing (NASCAR in the post-earnhardt-sr. era, I believe) you are required to use a specified carbon fiber crash bumper which is multicellular and will dissipate truly insane amounts of energy. Of course, they're intensely expensive, but I'd say they're well worth it. When it becomes reasonably inexpensive to build such structures I think it will be both reasonable and expected for many light vehicles to be built of such things in perhaps three or four pieces, and when a piece is damaged to any degree it will have to be replaced. It might even be cheaper to give the car one big body and replace the whole thing if the car is in a collision, swapping the entire contents into a new car with a preinstalled wiring harness and fuel lines.
Such a vehicle will likely have plastic body panels on the outside, to protect from damage by rocks and such.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This was a 2-lane highway (with typical speeds around 55mph, if I remember that area right?), and the solar car was hit when it swerved into the oncoming lane. That could be a fatal even for someone driving a larger vehicle.
So the more interesting question to me would be what caused the driver lost control.
--Bruce Fields
Frankly that car was not street legal, it shouldn't have been allowed on the highway
"solar cars have to get a special permit from the Ministry of Transportation to drive on roads and highways, and must travel with a regular vehicle in front and behind. Those vehicles must have flashing yellow lights on their roofs.
The U of T car was following these regulations."
Quoted from a copy-paste post above...
You can't take the sky from me...
As an out of control vehicle it could have has easily been hit by a truck as a Hummer and had the same outcome, perhaps even an impact with a small hybrid Prius would have had the same outcome (but been far more ironic).
The need to sacrifice weight to gain performance obviously led to some bad design choices. That said, solar power contests should probably be split into 2 categories:
1. No minimum weight, but only on closed courses.
2. Well-defined minimum crash worthiness, minimum weight for vehicle, still require lead and chaser vehicles on public roads. Some well established roadworthiness test by some officiating board before vehicles are taken on public roads.
Breakthroughs in Solar efficiency and conversion to actual horsepower are what this competition should motivate, not design of balsa wood enclosures to hurl down public highways.
I feel for the team and student who lost his life. I'm sure they didn't think they were taking undue risks, but they probably were.
I doubt this will have real long-term negative impact on Solar Power development. It's not like this out of control vehicle also took out a sideline of spectator Nuns. Nor is it hard to imagine the corrective action to keep this safe (as outlined above).
Letter To Iran
Japan allows far lighter cars on the road and yet, has only 60% of the fatal accidents per 10,000 vehicles.
In the US, poeple believe that SUVs are the safest, but the fatality record of SUVs is only about as good as that of a mid-sized car. While a heavier vehicle may be more "survivable", the mid-sized car, with its better braking, lower center of gravity (less roll-over potential) and better handling can better avoid getting into an accident in the first place.
Solar Cars, due to the extremely low amount of energy available to them, have to be extraordinarily light. When I was in the 2001 American Solar Challenge, there were cars that only weighed 2 1/2 times their driver. This is with metal roll cages on the inside. I know people are experimenting with full-chassis composite construction, which will make the cars even lighter. While it's true that F1 cars all have composite roll bars because of their strength, the problem is simply a matter of inertia. When a 1000 kg car hits a 2000 kg truck head-on, it's bad for the car, but when a 160 kg car with an 80 kg driver hits a 2000 kg truck head on, it's absolutely devastating, no matter how strong the material is holding it together.
I'm curious to see how this will affect solar racing rules. It's not like they're going to require crash testing of your half million dollar prototype that you bring to the race. Personally, I think there's probably a lot more room to be stricter with accident avoidance stuff, like making sure your steering and suspension is REALLY secure. My team nearly lost its car to a suspension failure, while going 65 on an interstate down a hill towards a bridge over a very deep chasm. The driver kept it kinda under control, but we got lucky. Turns out there was nothing inherently wrong with our design, aside from the fact that it wasn't sufficiently redundant to resist the force of miniscule human error in construction, followed by 1000 miles of road wear. Point is, wheels just don't fall off of modern production automobiles, but things like that happen with experimental prototypes.
On a personal note, driving a solar car that I built myself was one of the greatest thrills of my life. I was too big to drive our team's car with the top on, but even taking it around the parking lot on battery power was a great thrill. I can't imagine how taking that out on the road feels, but I imagine it compensates somewhat for the very real danger that exists whenever people strap themselves into unorthodox moving objects for the sake of enhancing the body of human knowledge. Whether it's a solar car developed and built by college students or a multi-billion dollar space shuttle designed by one of the largest engineering teams ever assembled, there is no substitute for experience, as NASA has tragically learned twice.
If anyone who knew Andrew is reading this, I hope you realize that he took a risk in pursuit of something greater than himself, for the benefit of everything on Earth.
WARNING: there is a trojan on your
Anyone who reads the record knows that they rarely add any value to [blah blah blah blah].
Doesn't change the fact that it's infringement.
Had the poster taken a couple of minutes to read, understand and restate the facts in his own words, it would have been perfectly legal.
Copyright law may be all out of whack, but this is clearly infringement under even the mildest copyright regime. We who want our copyrights to be respected should have more respect for others'.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Not really...note from the story that there was a support minivan in front of him, and another behind him. That's pretty good protection.
He lost control, and crossed the lane into oncoming traffic. That would likely have been fatal on a motorcycle, or even many smaller regular cars.
I've been a long time slashdot reader, but this is the first time that I've actually taken the time to create an account so that I could post something. I'm going on 3 years as the Electrical Manager for the McGill University Solar Car project. I actually met with a representative from the Toronto project not even one week ago about this tour. Our car was on the tour, but was not actually driving, because we weren't ready to go. I have to say that this post is one of the most disrespectful things I've read. Teams pour their hearts and souls into their cars. If U of T is anything like us, they spent countless hours trying to find sponors to build parts to save grams and milliwatts to give their car even the smallest edge. Do you have any concept of how expensive it is to make composite (carbon fiber monoque) cars? Our car has a value, not including the 3 years of manufacturing labor of about $750,000. These cars are designed to be as light and power-efficient as technology will allow. Our car is only strong where it needs to be, and it is *just* strong enough. Just saying that "the design was bad" really makes me mad. Do you have any idea? How could you possibly make that judgement? That comment was not insightful, it was plain ignorant.
such a thing happened here last week a Giant SUV ran a red light and was T-boned by another smaller SUV that had the right of way and was travelling at 55mph.
the occupants of the giant SUV all died.
Small light solar car or giant SUV... an accident at 55mph is usually pretty darn violent.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I know this is a little off-topic, but the poster mentions sharing the road with Hummers. I find it amazing that the impact points of cars, all the way around the vehicle, are not of standard height. What's the point of bumpers if they are going underneath the car on impact? Yes, I realize that off-road vehicles need higher clearance and need to use public roads to get offroad, but we see the results of non-standard bumper heights everyday, including here.
No, the thinking is crystal clear. When a massive vehicle collides with a puny, composite solar car, death is a certain result.
Therefore, these massive vehicles will, in fact, deter the acceptance of solar technology. Solar cars by nature must be extremely lightweight, and nobody in their right mind would drive one on the same road as trucks and SUVs.
We also have 6 inch cocks.
I know this sounds like a troll, but I have a valid point.
People who drive large cars with the ability to control large cars usually are not the problem. The problem are people who drive large cars and lack either the ability or the personality to control such a large vehicle are the problem.
In NSW, Australia, you can do your driving test on a 2 door 800c automatic suzuki, then go and jump behind the wheel of a hummer. Sorry, but that's just crazy. (I believe this is now under review, but its been under review for at least the last 20 years) Pilots have to retrain for each new model aircraft they manage, and similary there needs to be classes of vehicles based on transmission type, weight and size. Vans capable of carrying 10 passengers, even if not for commercial gain, should require testing. I get scared when I see a Mother with 10 kids (presumably not all her own) crawling unbelted around the car while she screams abuse at other drivers for every near-collision she's causing.
The other is a physcological test. If "big car" is a compensation for "small dick". Yeah, rice rockets are a pain in the arse, but when the choice is between contending with 1 tonne of dickhead propelled missile and 4 tonnes of dickhead propelled missile, give me the mag-wheeled Mirage anyday.
I'd also argue that people under 4'6" shouldn't be allowed to drive some of these big SUVs unless they are suitably modified. In jacking up the seat to see out the window means that they can't depress the brake in reflex time. That's just crazy. (Anybody who's driven between Turramurra and Gordon in the North of Sydney knows exactly the types I'm talking about). If little kids have to be over a height to ride a roller coster, people should have to be over a height limit to drive some vehicles. This isn't discrimination. Its public safety.
(Note: I am pretty short myself. I can't ride any model Harley except the FatBoy because my feet aren't close enough to the ground!)
I also agree that Hummers and their like shouldn't be allowed on certain roads. Note that some of the south-bound lanes on the Sydney Harbour Bridge aren't wide enough for the wheel-base of the Holden (Chevy) Suburban. The infrastructure of the city was never designed to cope with this sort of vehicle.
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
This won't be the end of solar racing, although it will be a significant setback for the Toronto team. They have lost a friend, a teammate and many, many, many hours of work, spent not only building their car but also convincing people that their cause is worth supporting. The team has a solid history--they placed 11th in the 2003 American Solar Challenge (and won the saftey award), 12th in ASC2001, 14th in WSC2001, and they were the top rookie team in SunRayce 1999 (info from their website).
I imagine that the future will see a serious review of solar car saftey rules, which will result in changes to the specifications for solar cars as well as the conditions under which they should be driven. Even though solar powered cars are not the way of the future, the sport has led to the develompent of new technologies that are nevertheless important (the world's most effiecient electric motors and maximum power point trackers), and it teaches young engineers far more about engineering than they could possibly learn in any other way.
A public show of support (and /. counts as these days) is really what the BlueSky team needs right now. Then, after the incident has been properly observed, a respectful review of the causes and solutions should get underway.
Jeff Thompson
Yale Solar Racing
Look, it very much sucks that he died. However, the goal that he was working for -- solar powered automobiles -- probably has more potential impact on humanity than his direct living.
To get a slightly more extreme example: If a doctor announced that he had discovered a cure for influenza or a way to purify water cheaply without engergy requirements, and then was promptly killed be a mugger, I'm sure that everyone would feel bad about his death, but I think that it's more than excusable to place as a higher priority finding out what happened to his work than making noises to make his family feel good. They *know* that his dying sucked already. And, honestly, I've never met or heard of the guy. If every person in the world was told "this guy died", should they all be obligated to lay down their tools and bow their heads for a moment? Of course not. The cost would be phenomenal.
If you want grief, let it be the grief from those who can grieve, the people that knew him. Not random, anonymous strangers on Slashdot.
As another example, every day CNN prints up stories about Iraqis dying. Should I stop and express a list of sympathetic things for an hour? No. People die. The fact that this guy had his name printed instead of just being a statistic, increasing a fatality count by one somewhere does not change that fact.
May we never see th
Nonetheless, large heavy vehicles on the road should be last resort, not a standard. And it is equally true that as long as big heavy vehicles are on the road smaller light-weight vehicles are going to be dangerous to drive- THIS IS OBVIOUS, and it annoys me to all hell that advocates of big vehicles think the solution is to drive bigger "safer" vehicles. The road need not be the spot for our national Darwinian drama. The road is not a place for an arms-race.
Let's face it: the reasons people want bigger vehicles (for the most part) is because a)They think they're cool b)they think they're safer, or at least they think they make themselves feel safer, c)having an expensive SUV broadcasts their financial success (a mating call, no? -for the males of the species, primarily), d)because the SUV is an attractive option because it is largely functional (if wasteful) because of its size AND because it carries an attractive image of independence, ruggedness, sportiness, etc. (look at those SUV commercials of vehicles driving through the wilderness (a morally dubious thing to do (the destruction caused is more than negligible), but hella fun).
The thing that we tree-huggers need to realize is that SUV's and other large vehicles actually serve a function in society, and the individuals who own/use them are acting rationally in the sphere of things that they think are important. HOWEVER, those things are the wrong things, the things that really aren't that important.
Unfortunately, our human species is not well equipped to take the long view of things. In fact, we are exceedingly poor at doing so- and this makes evolutionary sense- although taking a limited long view is evolutionarily adaptive, focusing on the long view is not because our powers of prediction were/are still exceedingly poor- more important to see the tiger about to eat you than to wonder how we could set up the environment so that there wasn't any conflict between humans and tigers, so to speak.
This is essentially a problem of "The Tragedy of the Commons", but in this case the Commons is not some field, but all of our planetary resources (including good air to breathe and fair weather), and each person's taking away of from the Commons, no matter how ridiculously abusive, is only a miniscule portion of that Commons. We, in fact, have a difficult time seeing the impact of our behaviour, or the scope of the situation. And because we do not see so clearly (and I mean see individually in everyday life) the impact of our behaviour, we do not feel compelled to act to change how things work- certainly not as compelled as we may feel to have the glorious feeling of bringing home that gorgeous SUV (I, like others, think that SUV's (minus the HUMMER) are often designed in a pleasing way). And because some of us are so enamoured with that vision of the good life, of independence, of manliness, of success, of Big Americanness (I am a proud American), and perhaps enamoured of actually having that good life (and I believe that it is probably true that a lot of anti-advocates of the SUV are simply suffering from jealousy because they cannot afford such a vehicle), yes, because of all these things, that many of us refuse to believe, sometimes consciously, but often unconsciously, what our scientists continue to tell us about the destruction we are causing, and the deep problems we are getting ourselves into. It is, in fact, a deep rabbit hole- and it is easier to fall than to climb
Logic, macros, and more
You, sir, are a fucking idiot.
You are placing human life above everything else, assigning infinite value to human life (and not even human life, but the direct life that you can see being lost). You don't know how many lives solar power would *save*. More lives have been lost over oil wars in the last *year*, and more men have died working on undersea oil rigs than will probably ever die working on solar power.
What are you doing right now? Posting on Slashdot. If you really, truly believed in what you were saying, that human life comes above all else, you wouldn't be posting on Slashdot. You'd be out volunteering to help consel suicidal people on a hotline. Or any number of other things that might save a life. But you know what? You aren't -- you're placing a bit of your short-term *enjoyment* (not even an advancement of human knowledge) over someone else's life. I'll bet you speed too, to get where you want to go five minutes faster by gambling with other people's lives. By your standards, you are one sick fuck. Instead, you are quite comfortable criticizing *other* people because they didn't place human lifes (including *their own*) above all else. Yes, they had to try out new designs. Yes, probably they will make a mistake or learn that something doesn't work when they were sure that it did. You are probably sitting in an air-conditioned house with all the food you want handy. It was shipped to you on trucks, which countless lives were lost in perfecting, running internal combustion engines, the development of which cost more lives. Your AC is powered by electrical power produced (if you live in the United States) almost entirely by coal. Do you have the remotest concept of how many people have been killed in coal mines?
But instead, you jab at anyone who is pushing the envelope, every time something goes wrong. It's comfortable for you to attack them. "Safety first". Christ. There is research going on. The people that blazed trails across America, Madam Curie inducing radiation burns on herself, the men that built bridges (and died doing so, as better techniques were learned), they didn't have soft rubberized surfaces and rounded-off corners. People *died*, you ass. But you can ignore them now, because they're in the past and you can just enjoy the fruits of their labor. You can sit supreme in your self-superiority ("If *I* was running that project, not only would nobody die, but we'd get just as much research done"). You don't have any idea what you're talking about. You haven't worked on any of the systems, or have the faintest grounds to talk about the risk factors involved. If you think that this guy's fellow researchers didn't give a damn about him and sacrificed him because they just didn't care about safety, you're a complete idiot. It's armchair quarterbacking of the worst kind, the kind that damages our advancement of knowledge to make you feel a little more warm and fuzzy inside.
May we never see th