Slashdot Mirror
Nuna 3 wins World Solar Cup for the 3rd Time
jberends writes "The Dutch TU Delft team wins for the third time in a row the World Solar Challenge in Australia. The average speed of Nuna 3 was 102.75 km/h over the 3021 km strech which is the first time that an average speed above 100 km/h is achieved in the Challenge. It is also the first time in the history of the race that a team wins 3 times in a row."
Well, not only did the Dutch set a new record...the record they beat was their own! According to their official webpage, though, the Nuna 3 has a top speed of about 160 km/h!
Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
...and if you actually want to see the article, rather than timing out, you can get the NYUD cache:
World Solar Challenge
Solar Sails are something completely different, but yes, I guess it's mainly due to the extremely high-grade solar cells they got from ESA ;-)
Having worked on a solar car in the past (1996), I would say that the improvements have been incremental, but across a large number of components. Some major ones off the top of my head:
1. The 'best' shell back in my days were the ones that sort of looked like a fish. A round front that tapered to a flat (mammallian-like) tail. These days the best shell is a flat rectangle with a little bubble for the drivers head. Not only is this aerodynamically more efficient, but it exposes a greater portion of the cars solar cells to the sun at any given time, and a more uniform power output across all sun conditions.
2. Solar cells are better. Maybe from about 20% efficiency to 25-30% efficiency for the best cells.
3. Weight reduction: fiberglass monococ shells now made with carbon fiber; replacement of metal components with composites where possible. Aluminum wiring instead of copper.
4. Efficienct DC hub motors: These have come a long way in the past 15 years.
5. Battery technology: Hasn't advance too far, but still lighter more enegy dense packs are always being developed. I don't know what is state-of-the art these days...
Do we live in the same 'Europe'? My Europe (or rather the little part of it that I live in) has a max speed of 120 KM/h. And our friendly neighbour (Germany) has an even better rule: No max speed (unless said otherwise). So I guess you define Europe to end at the borders of your country, which is kind of _not_ the idea.
-=- I heard rumours about an OS called "Social Life", heard of it? Is it stable? -=-
How about getting rid of that extremely inefficient and polluting piece of outdated technology instead?
Note that even though the average speed was 107 kmh, the maximum speed for the race was limited - by Australian traffic law- to 110 kmh. Theoretically, they could probably have overstepped that speed a bit.
Yes, of course there are a few things standing in between this achievement and actually running practical cars on solar energy.
To name a few:
- This car is specifically tuned for maximum average speed when running on solar. No storage or even room beyond the bare minimum necessary.
- The Sun shines a lot in Australia this time of year, compared to other places.
- Not a lot of stopping and going is required. Acceleration is the real energy hog.
Please correct me if I got my facts wrong.
The progress is even more than what is expressed in the average speed. The speed limit of 110 KM for several parts of the route limits the average speed of the fastest cars now more and more. Wonder whether there will be some new limitations on the designs for 2007 to bring the speed down. The Dutch Nuna team kept a 107 KM max on the 110 KM stretches.
A decent locomotive can get 400 ton-miles/gallon of diesel fuel. Your SUV gets about 20. Bit of an advantage to the loco there. :0 And a tractor trailer can get 120 ton-miles/gallon.
karma police: arrest this man, he talks in maths; he buzzes like a fridge, he's like a detuned radio. [radiohead]
I saw one guy in WIRED magazine say the amount of electrical power required to convert water to hydrogen to move a car 300 miles is measured in MEGAWATTS. Is there any more info on this?
It shouldn't be measured in terms of power at all, but rather in terms of energy, e.g. megawatt-hours. To move a given mass a given distance requires a certain amount of energy. To move a given mass a given distance in a given amount of time requires a certain amount of power.
Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
In case anyone didn't know, the true reason for yet another record-breaking win comes down to a single factor: solar array power. The Nuna cars, ever since 2001, have all had first quality satellite grade solar arrays. They have also been the only car with a sponsor (ESA) that could afford these incredibly expensive cells, which have a list price on the order of 2 million dollars. Every other team has settled for "factory second" solar cells with 25-40% less power at less than 1/10th the cost. While Nuna's array power is likely in excess of 2500 watts, the rest of the top 3 have less than 1900W. Nuna has yet to innovate in aerodynamics, vehicle dynamics, or construction techniques. This is just another example of a good business plan and the right contacts prevailing over true engineering excellence. Nuna has done a great job in getting their whole country behind them with tremendous media coverage. To see some excellent designs, check out the next top 3 teams: Aurora, Michigan, and TIGA. Aurora has placed 2nd in the last 3 challenges, usually only an hour behind Nuna but with 30% less array power. They boast an incredibly light car, very good aerodynamics, and a unique carbon fiber tubular suspension/frame that is truly unique. Tiga is the top Japanese team and is the best solar car around a closed track. At under 550lbs (with driver) they are the lightest car in the race. The car handles like a BMW and runs just as fast. Michigan is the top American car and boasts arguably the best aerodynamics of all the cars. Their car is only 10" thick at the midsection and uses sweeping wheel covers to sail through crosswinds. They were also the 3rd best car on the track during the race qualifier, an engineering feat in itself, as a thin car presents a number of suspension/frame and dynamic challenges.
If you really work outdoors, you want a tractor or a rangerover. Not an SUV.
Obviously posted by someone who doesn't "really work outdoors" and has no clue. Talk to some of the people who do sometime.
There are jobs for which a tractor is more appropriate. There are also jobs for which a bulldozer is more appropriate. This does not in any way reduce the jobs for which an SUV is either the best fit or the most practical choice for a single vehicle to do a diverse SET of jobs.
As for the Range Rover: There are a number of different designes in the SUV class, with different characteristics. The Range Rover has its uses - such as safaris. But ranchers, for instance, may want a vehicle with a different combination of cost, repair requirements and frequency, size, fuel consumption, and capacity. (A multimillionaire plains rancher, for instance, might go for a Grand Cherokee - and many of them do. Someone with a handfull of acres in a mountainous region might go for something smaller.)
Plus the demographics show that a vast mayority (90%+) of SUV's are never used off-road at all (which isn't much of a surprise, as they drive like shit off road).
So what?
With the herds of urbanites buying SUVs, most of them are now used for things other than their original purpose. And the auto companies have reacted to them, and their complaints about the handling of a "real" SUV, by doing things like redesigning the suspensions or even switching to passenger car chassis to give a more car-like ride, padding the interior, lowering the clearance, and hanging on all sorts of smashable doodads where a rock will remove them within the first hour of off-road driving. (Back in 2000 we had to argue for hours with a salesman to get the "upcountry suspention" option - which had to be special ordered - when we bought one from an urban area dealer.)
What fad-following urbanites buy has NOTHING to do with the needs of the people who actually use them for their original purpose. Which was the point of my original post.
But I tell you what: Why don't you wait and see what $3.00/galon gas prices (or whatever Rita drives it up to) does to the relative popularity of SUVs and subcompacts among urban shoppers in the next couple model years.
I think you'll find that consumers have a clue, and that the market will do a much more effective job at switching them SUVs to pipmobiles than any groupthink posturing or government "message-sending by restrictive legislation" program.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way