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."
Yet another time :)
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
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
I was amazed to see that this race has been run since 1987. In the first race, the average speed was about 67 kph (41 mph, I think). The last race was completed in excess of 105kph. About a 50% improvement.
:)
Does anyone with more info than the web site know what has accounted for the improvement? Are we just seeing lighter materials? More efficient solar sails? More efficient transfer of solar energy to kinetic?
Just curious
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
On the second day the Nuna 3 covered 835 km, at an avarage speed of 105 km/hr, which is also single-day record for the World Solar Challenge.
The speed an engineering involved are really impressive. I'm actually surprised that a solar power car can make it up to those speeds, let alone average 100KM/h. Sounds like an awesome way to save on Gas! (when it's sunny, if only the car was street legal, etc).
Congrats team Nuna!
paul reinheimer
While winning the race is indeed an accomplishment, I think the "Three Times in a Row" comment needs some perspective. Accoridng to the link, the race started in 1987 and was run every three years for the first few times. Now, it is a biennial event. So, by my rough guess (note that the "history" site is not clear), this event has only been run about eight or nine times. It's not like there have been 40 or so races in the past....
Yes, but not without our 2 lovely Flemish girls: Anne-Marie and Veronique.
Although Laura isn't half bad either.
Being from Delft those guys were lucky to even recognize what sunlight looks like, let alone design an auto that runs off it.
...and if you actually want to see the article, rather than timing out, you can get the NYUD cache:
World Solar Challenge
Bush's New Energy Policy: Solar Power
....and then I woke up.
(Press) Washington, DC
September 28, 2005
President Bush announced today a bold initiative to help the world's energy crisis. Bush recently read in a newspaper that a Dutch solar-powered car, named the Nuna 3, won the World Solar Challenge in Australia topping a hearty 102 km/h. President Bush was so impressed by the the performance of the solar-powered Nuna 3 vehicle, that he has announced that he is redirecting all energy research funding to study how to power vehicles on solar energy and soon have all major automobile manufacturers produce solar vehicles that will be give off little or no emissions. "It's just the smart and prudent thing to do. I know in Texas we get a lot of sun, and now we can put it to work." Bush stated.
He said it is due time for the United States, and soon the world, to free itself from dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels. The promise of the "unlimited resource of solar power" has emboldened him to take this courageous initiative. Many industry leaders were shocked by this sudden announcement, but have agreed to participate fully in implementing this new solar technology. "The future for travel is bright, indeed." Bush quipped.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
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.
Just a curosity question (I don't know much about the details of this process) but I was wondering if it might be more efficient to replace the battery component of a solar car with a fuel cell arrangement, and have any excess solar power available split water into hydrogen and oxygen? http://www.nrel.gov/hydrogen/proj_production_deliv ery.html#split I know batteries are a major source of weight issues, but I don't know how H2O splitting compares in terms of energy recovery to battery storage. Anybody happen to know if the tradeoff could be advantageous?
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
Wish me luck, I want to take this to my old physics prof.
Why? Do you enjoy being laughed at?
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
Your comparisson is flawed...
SUVs are normally used to drive ONE ass (or at most a few) around. Those Locomotives are pulling entire trains with assess or freight.
So the total amount of pollution/work is a lot better for them than for your SUV.
About the only justification for a SUV is either having a pet elefant to feed or having an incredibly big ass in which case you indeed have better things to worry about.
Jeroen
Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
ok, how about not worrying about SUVs when there have been 1) locomotives (in the past which were an integral part pollutions early roots),
Your typical locomotive, esp. nowadays uses very little fuel for what it transports, esp. when compared to other ways of transporting things. Improvement would be most welcome here still of course.
2) Tractor-trailers & 3) the smog put out by practically every company in north jersey.
The fact that there are possibly worse problems does not mean that you should not solve a problem you can do something about yourself.
im really a little more than annoyed at people who bash the SUV to no end while at the same time - over looking the trucks that carry 90% of americas goods through the country. even if SUV's dissappeared tomorrow - we'd still have a incredible amount of tractor-trailers... and they'd still be putting out smog and using gas in quantities that make SUVs look like the dream solution to polution.
Doing away with trucks and using a better, cleaner form of transport would be an excelent idea indeed..
how about we stop putting the blame on commonplace people and give it back to who it belongs to - the companys whos business relies almost exclusively on trucking and burning oil.
1. Those are seperate issues which both happen to polute things.
2. For the large majority of people, a SUV is a luxory. There are exceptions, but those are that, exceptions. Many industries are a lot more then a luxory. SUVs are a directly solvable problem, poluting industries are not.
Fix the problems you can solve easily first and then go on to the more difficult to solve problems. That way you do get the best result.
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.
Winning shot Notice the several guys attempting to moon the cameramen. Real classy group =)
m . It's picture #2.
Heres the context link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/4289958.st
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.
Ummm. It works in IE.
About the only justification for a SUV is either having a pet elefant to feed or having an incredibly big ass in which case you indeed have better things to worry about.
...). These regions can be inaccessable to other vehicles for months at a time, and require prohibitive transport time and risk (vehicular damage or disablement, "getting stuck", injurious or fatal accidents such as off-a-cliff/into-the-river/getting-stuck-with-no-h elp) when they ARE accessable.
A city person shows his elitist provincialism.
The main purpose for SUVs is to provide taansport and cargo carrying capacity for people living in, working in, or having to travel to - a site outside a city, especially if off the paved road network - or the road network at all - but also if weather is a problem (mud, snow, ice, mountainous terrain,
Some specialized areas: Doctors in rural areas, firefighting in wilderness areas, etc.
The "sports" part is because they're also useful for transport to wilderness areas for recreation or food gathering: fishing, hunting, camping, hiking. (Of course some of these are things left-wind elitists would like to ban altogether, others things they would restrict to people who hike in, making them inaccessable to the handicapped, infirm, or those who have full-time jobs and can't spare the extra time to make the hike. Forests and wildlife are only the rich and body-beautiful ubermensch, right?)
A big use: The "small truck" for farms and ranches. For many things it's better than even a pickup: gets into smaller places, less expensive to run, etc.
It's also much more fuel efficient than a pickup, van, or a compact "sporty" car. (Our Cherokee - the only one of our vehicles that can make the trip from our townhouse to our rural house - does as well in mountains with two passengers and a full cargo load as the little Eagle Talon with no load and one passenger - and beats an unloaded Aerostar with just the driver on level freeways by 6 MPG.
The main reason SUVs are so popular in cities ("Mall Terrain Vehicles"), though, is an unintended consequence of the governments' attempts to improve auto mileage and move people onto inadequate mass transit.
The CAFE standards killed the station wagon - the most efficient of the large-family utility vehicle classes. (i.e. take the kids to school or the scout troop on an outing, cary a weeks groceries home, tote appliances and small amounts of home-improvement construction material, haul larger amounts in a trailer, or a recreational trailer such as a travel trailer or boat trailer.) The things masquerading as a station wagon these days are NOT the same thing, and nowhere near as capable.
With a REAL station wagon no longer available, people with kids and a week's shopping to haul and/or trailers to tow switched to the next bigger vehicle type: The SUV. (It's a "truck" for the mileage regulations - the smallest and most fuel efficient of the commercial-cargo rated vehicles.)
Meanwhile the highways in many cities have been deliberately allowed to deteriorate to try to push people onto mass transit systems. (Yes, they even admitted it publicly in at least one place: The SF Bay area, when LA got their freeways back up in months after a big quake while SF was still twiddling their thumbs years after their own.)
A (classic) SUV has a suspension designed for off-road and can handle a potholed freeway just fine, when a compact car would be in the shop for a realignment (at a minimum) after hitting one of these irregularities, and has a hard time maintaining speed and lane position if the road is bad.
(Of course once the practical thinkers among the city people - often successful types that are trend-setters - started using them, it became a status symbol and a fad. These days lots of city people use them who don't "need" them - but prefer them and vote with their dollars.)
But now there's a big push by the elitists self-proclaimed social engineers to get
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
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
102 kilometers = 63.3798616 miles
Yeah. That last 0.0000616 miles is a real bitch.
I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.