Slashdot Mirror
UBC Engineers Reach Mileage Of Over 3000 MPG
The New Revelation writes "Physorg reports that engineers at UBC have developed a single occupancy vehicle that achieves a ridiculous 3145 MPG! From the article: 'The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Supermileage Competition took place June 9 in Marshall, Michigan. Forty teams from Canada, the U.S. and India competed in designing and building the most fuel-efficient vehicle... The UBC design, which required the driver to lie down while navigating it, achieved 3,145 miles per US gallon (0.074 liters/100 km) -- equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 liters) of gas -- costing less than $5 at the pump.'"
Competition results, warning PDF http://www.sae.org/students/sm2006results.pdf
Indiana and a HS there too came in with high MPG, as did Laval in Quebec province.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
According to the rules they were required to have an average speed between 15 and 25 mph (24-40.23 km/hr). They drive six laps for a total of 9.6 miles (15.5km).
While I think efforts like this are great, it's likely a fairly flimsy vehicle due to its super lightweight construction. Getting in a wreck with another vehicle at almost any relevant speed would probably cause great harm, especially if the occupant is lying down in a forward-facing stomach-down orientation (which is unclear from the article).
-Shippy
The official rules (from here) document states the distance is 15.5km/9.6mi, consisting of six laps around a specified oval test track. There's an minimum average speed requirement of 24 kmph/15 mph and a maximum average speed of 40.23kmph/25mph, so real world conditions this is not.
Amusing, sure, but it should be noted before it gets out of hand that all forms of human propulsion were against the rules.
:)
That makes the inevitable fart jokes less witty too, just to be a pedantic hard-ass.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Back in school I got involved into supermileage competition as part of my sr. project. I was working on a DAC system to track fuel, temp and so on. I don't have to RTFA to know that the poster of this article must be smoking something really good.
First of all, one of the competition rules says that you can not drop your speed below 15mph. So what does most of the team do? They just ramp up to 20mph or so and then let the car coast until 16mph then speed up again. There is a penalty if you drop below 15mph. Oh did I mention that the track was smooth and leveled? Also, you don't have to run the entire gallon of gas. Basically everything is based on estimates. Everyone is alloted certain amount of fuel (don't remember how much). After a certain number of laps have been completed, they would empty the fuel tank and measure how much was left. Based on calculation they would determine who wins.
The competition was fun to check out. In order to win a lot of teams basically pick a person who is the lightest and most of the time they try to coast w/o having to use the engine. In my opinion, the competition should make it such that the drivers must have an equal weight or use balast and the engine must run constantly and producing torque. They should never allow coasting.
From the official rules:
40.1 Minimum and Maximum Speed Requirement
The performance run will consist of each vehicle running six laps around a 2.6 km (1.6 mile) oval test track. The vehicle must achieve a minimum six lap average speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph). This means that each vehicle will be required to travel a total distance of 15.5 km (9.6 miles) in a maximum of 38.4 minutes. The vehicle must not exceed a single lap average speed of 25mph (40.23km). This means a vehicle must take longer than 3 minutes 50 seconds to complete each lap. Vehicles must be capable of ascending a 1 percent grade and descending a 7 percent grade.
40.2 Slow Speed Penalty
If the minimum average speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph) is not maintained, a penalty will be assessed by subtracting from the km/liter (mpg) achieved, 4.25 km/liter (10 mpg) per second of time that the minimum average speed requirement is not met. For instance, if 39 minutes was the elapsed time for six laps, the minimum allowable time, without
©2004 SAE International 20 2005 Supermileage
penalty (38.4 minutes) was exceeded by 36 seconds. The actual mileage achieved would be reduced by 153.1 km/liter (360 mpg).
40.3 Maximum Speed Penalty
If the maximum lap average speed of 40.23 km/hr (25 mph) is exceeded, a penalty will be assessed by subtracting from the km/liter (mpg) achieved, 4.25 km/liter (10 mpg) per second of time that the maximum average lap speed requirement is not met. For instance, if the third lap was completed in 3 minutes 12 seconds, the minimum allowable time, without penalty (3 minutes 50 seconds) was exceeded by 38 seconds. The actual mileage achieved would be reduced by km/liter (380 mpg).
40.4 Start
Prior to the performance run, an official fuel tank (supplied) will be filled, weighed and installed on the vehicle. The start of the performance run will begin with the vehicle being placed on the track starting line. The vehicle engine is then started, either by the driver or his pit crew. Timing for the minimum speed requirement starts when the vehicle crosses the starting line. Vehicles cannot be push started. Transmission design must be such that the engine can be disconnected from the driving wheels so as to allow the vehicle to be stationary with the engine running.
40.5 Finish
Upon completion of the six lap performance run, 15.5 km (9.6 miles), the timers will record the elapsed time; the fuel tank will be removed and weighed. The kilometer per liter (miles per gallon) calculation for the vehicle will then be computed, dividing the 15.5 km (9.6 mile) distance by the amount of fuel used. If the maximum allowable elapsed time has been exceeded, the penalty will be computed and subtracted from the kilometer per liter (miles per gallon) calculation.
Yep, several times, it was in the same school division, about 100km away, or less by grid roads.
If I'd had this 3000MPG vehicle to get there, assuming it works on gravel and hills, I could have gone there and back every time I ever have, on just 1 litre of gasoline.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
They go something like 15mi/hr. They turn the engine on and get up some speed then turn it off and coast a while. They use Briggs and Stratton four stroke lawnmower engines with custom machined cylinder heads and such. Of course the cars are basically like bicycles with aerodynamic fairings on them.
I read TFA, and it made no mention of speed, distance or any other aspect of the contest. The driver lies down, but how? On the stomache, or the back (with a periscope?). Were they inside to avoid being blown about (aboot?) by the wind?
Try reading harder next time -- TFA contains a link to the official website for those ambitious clickers who want to find out more than just a summary. From the home page, you can click to read the official 2006 rules and also look to the right for a link to the team websites. The UBC site contains many pictures including a nice one of how the driver lies down and also tech specs on the vehicle.
Any other questions?
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Per the rules:
:D
"Slalom Section: Vehicle must traverse 30.5 meters (100 feet) slalom section in less than 15 seconds."
They're using a lawnmower engine that can do up to 3600 RPM, 4 cycle. (4 cylinders then?)
Also, section 40.1:
"Minimum and Maximum Speed Requirement
The performance run will consist of each vehicle running six laps around a 2.6 km (1.6 mile) oval test track. The vehicle must achieve a minimum six lap average speed of 24 km/hr (15 mph)."
So there you have it. It has to go at least as fast as someone could bike.
"This means that each vehicle will be required to travel a total distance of 15.5 km (9.6 miles) in a maximum of 38.4 minutes. The vehicle must not exceed a single lap average speed of 25 mph."
WTF???? This I don't get. I guess they're wanting the entrants to not somehow burst on a lap to alter typical performance?
So whatever the case, these vehicles, per the rules, cannot do more than 25 mph. That sucks.
Karma: Chameleon (mostly due to the fact that you come and go).
Well the veacles are only required to be able to climb a 1% grade (and decend a 7% one) at an average velocity between 15 and 25 MPH so it wont get you where your going very fast, or through hills.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
The teams that win use a "coast and burn" technique. Since the college competition requires you to use a 1.5HP briggs and stratton engine, most teams de-tune the engine and find that it's most efficient at high speeds. So instead of just running at a constant 20MPH they open up the throttle, get to a certain speed and kill the engine. Then they start up the engine and do it again.
I remember him as well. I saw the crash on TV. I know people who saw it in person. I read the autopsy report.
Ayrton's death had nothing to do with the lightweight materials of the car. The chassis did its job as intended and Ayrton's body was essentially unharmed, but that doesn't help if your brain is subjected to an "in the shell egg beater."
They dont usually take a wall at 200MPH, they take the grass, the gravel, and the tires....
You're young. I have a friend who got to watch Helmut Koinigg's helmet bouncing down the track, with his head still in it, the "wall" (ARMCO barrier) took it off. Indy Cars and American saloons still typically take the wall, Mario Andretti's backflip not withstanding.
Don't try Andretti's trick in your family saloon. Andretti's car was made of much lighter, and much stronger, materials.
On the other hand, this thing is probably even less confortable than a F1
Probably not much worse than a Lotus 25/33, and "this thing" doesn't pull 1.2 lateral g's. I've been in a number of single seaters and it's the HPV's that are the most uncomfortable, because you have to actually work in them.
KFG
"4 cycle" means 4-stroke, not 4 cylinder.
If it's the engine i'm thinking off (briggs+stratton typical thing) then it's a single cylinder 4 stroke.
I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
All the cars in this competition were mandated to use a 3.5 hp briggs and straton engine so that comparisons would be on the overall design of the vehicle rather than the engine.
I think that car you quoted used a fuel cell.
They're using a lawnmower engine that can do up to 3600 RPM, 4 cycle. (4 cylinders then?)
No, 4 cycle means 4-stoke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4-stroke) engine, as opposed to a 2-stroke engine. EPA laws now forbid new 2-stroke vehicles from using the 2-stroke (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2-stroke) type engine (you usually see 2-strokes in things like chainsaws and dirtbikes - you have to mix oil in with the gas). The thing is that 4-stroke designs are much more environmentally friendly than 2-stroke designs, however 2-strokes are generally more efficent in power production (more HP for less gas used). I would imageine that this rule is in keeping with the 'we may one day use vehicles like this' and the environmentally friedly nature of this competition. I read about this thing a few weeks ago, I'm pretty sure that it had a really tiny displacement single cylinder engine.
4 cycle does not mean 4 pistons. It's a reference to how many times the piston moves to make a complete "cycle". In the case of a 4 cycle, it fires once every 2 times it goes up. A 2-stroke fires each time the piston is up.
Basically they took a Makita 54cc (3.3 cubic inches) engine off a chainsaw (capable of doing 12,000 rpm) and hooked it up to a chain/belt and used that.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
Dear esteemed /.'ers
/. ...many would just look at the intro and conclusion sections of a report. We didn't provide too much detail so as not to bore. :)
/. but we're honoured. Keep the discussion (criticism) flowing.
:P Ah well.
I'm a member of the team (Charlie Yao) and thought I'd give some clarifications to what seems to be common questions.
Methodology of competition:
Basically, you're given a topped off fuel bottle and you run 6 laps around the track (with other vehicles running simultaneously). Afterwards, they remove the fuel bottle and measure the amount you consumed (by weight). Do some math, you get your efficiency.
Speed requirements:
The rules state between 15-25MPH. In practice, with 6 laps, you're given a time frame in which to complete it. If you go out of this time frame, you're penalized heavily. The max time is 38.4 minutes. The min single lap time is 3min 50s. Obviously, we care more about the former.
Driver orientation and details:
The driver lies down on his back, feet first. He still has his head tilted up so he can see... imagine standing and looking at your feet. Only drivers of a max height can fit since our vehicle is specifically designed for one. The minimum weight of the driver is 130lbs and ballast is added otherwise.
Litres/100km:
On typical vehicles, quoting km/l gives unwieldy numbers (so I hear, I'm neutral) so instead they use litres per 100km. For us, the reverse applies... 1337km/l vs. 0.074 litres/100km. And yeah, it was amusing to get 1337 performance. FYI, you can do multiple runs on the track (one team got in 8 while we got in 4) and our mileage varied from about 2900-3145 MPG. They take your best result.
Safety and practicallity:
No, it is not safe on the road... not with typical road vehicles. It is relative of course since those who choose the more fuel concious cars get screwed by SUVs. If everyone drove small cars, it wouldn't seem as dangerous would it? There actually has been an incident in the past where a student has been killed while testing on a highway. I believe it was in Ontario and maybe by U of T but I'm not certain. As for practicallity, no, it's not... but neither is any car designed for performace. Look at an F1 car and tell me where you're going to fit your family.
Info missing from TFA:
1) Not everyone is as inquisitive as
2) We have to keep some of our secrets away from our competitors
I'll check back to this thread every so often and try to reply to the best of my ability. I'd just like to add that perhaps the biggest value is educational. There's been a lot of innovation especially since we don't have the largest budget. Teams that have to travel substantially shorter distances to the competition have trailers for their vehicle, tools and extra cars for their members. We travel in one minivan and literally duct tape the car to the roof. If we can't find some more sponsors for a trailer... maybe we should get some from 3M. Also, there are teams overseas that get 3-4times our mileage... basically professional teams with relatively unlimited resources. They also generally don't have engine requirements.
Either way, it's been a great ride. It's eery to be on
Cheers,
C
P.S. Unfotunately the team pic didn't work out in my favour. I was using my shirt to hide oil stains from working on the car but it looks like I really need to go to the washroom
Not that my comment is 100% ontopic, but the horsepower wars for gas/diesel engines didn't begin until commercial trucking started moving west & into mountainous terrain.
Until then, they basically dawdled along and anything more than a few degrees of upslope would bring them to a crawl.
I guess what I'm saying, is that we've spent the ensuing years aiming for faster, stronger and more powerful engines.
Ever since the commercial truckers realized that efficiency = more money, that's the way the market headed. Technology for passenger vehicles has naturally lagged behind.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
In Northwest Europe, where a liter of gas costs 1.50 euro which equals to over 6.50 dollar for one gallon of gas, people have adapted to high energy prices. They developed and bought fuel efficient cars, factories have been spaced apart at distances that minimize transportation needs et cetera. In those parts of Europe the standard of living is comparable to that of most US states. At the same time however they reach that standard of living using 30% less energy.
The state, the government needs money to operate, it can levy taxes on gas or on working people or anything else. Shifting taxes to energy makes a country less dependant on foreign oil supplies.
They don't have to go to europe for that, UBC is in Canada which uses metric.
[20:36] wwwdot/.dotorg
Well, that or you plan your route such that you can purchase more bananas every so often along your trip, and then you pick them up as you need them. :)
As far as covering 3,145 miles on a bicycle goes... well, I know that a bicycle will go that far without falling apart, though you're likely to require new inner tubes, tires, and brake pads by that point.
Dogma: Dead (mostly because your Karma ran it over)
Last year at the Shell Eco-marathon.
My university took part this year with very limited money, only undergraduate students working on the project and they achieved around 1200 MPG. Minimum speed for the competition is set at 30 Km/h. The external design is very similar to the one depicted.
Not that impressive. In the european competition they would have finished at the 20+ position.
When I ride my 17 lb racing bike around town I average 20 mph and get just bout 20 miles per taco... and I looked it up, tacos are a totally renewable energy source!
An engineer from the University of Bath, UK recently invented the world's most fuel efficient car: 8000mpg.
bacon doesn't come from the head--learn your basic butchering!
jowl bacon does.
The libertarian solution to the failures of capitalism is to apply more capitalism til the failures are fixed.
Almost all designs have drivers lying on their backs. When I was in college, we were the only team to have a head first design with the front axle (w/2x700mm bicycle tires) above the drivers torso, arms in front, and his feet went on either side of the rear drive wheel. Although there is no express rule prohibiting it, the people running the competition thought our design was unsafe (huhh) and forced us to retire the chassis after 2 years.
Having driven before I can say that they pick the smallest guy on the team (must ballast up to 150lbs I think) and cram him in. No air flow, hot, loud, and no fun - definitely no DVD player. You burn to get you speed up, then coast. You can run as many times as you want and take the best run, you just have to wait for your rotation.
As mentioned by previous posters, Briggs is a sponsor so teams are requires to use a Briggs&Stratton engine. Most teams only use the case (required), replace the shell bearings with balls, de stroke it and sleeve it to a smaller displacement (we used a Honda piston & rod), make a new head with overhead valves (the Briggs is an L head). During are first years we used a modified stock ignition and aftermarket carb but by my senior year we had a pretty sweet ECU with fuel injection (we re-calibrated a GM ECU). Most drive trains at the time were chains to a pillow block with a centrifugal clutch. The total engine/chassis weighed like 80lbs.
Are you sure? Two-strokes are less fuel efficient than a four-stroke of similar size, though they produce significantly more power than a four-stroke of similar size. A 250cc two-stroke engine sucks a lot more gasoline (and the oil mixed with it) than a 250cc four-stroke, though the two-stroke makes a lot more power. The main advantages of a two-stroke is that they produce lots of power in a small package. Another nice thing is that they don't require an oil sump, which allows them to be run upside down or sideways (which is why they're favored in chainsaws and trimmers/weed-whackers). In addition, they're relatively lightweight because they utilize a simple design (with no valves/cams). You can get more power out of a two-stroke
That's hardly an improvement. Wankel engines have even worse thermodynamic characteristics than piston engines. They typically are less efficient, more polluting and harder to make reliable. Their only claim to fame is more power output in a smaller lighter package than a 4-cycle engine, but then again the stinky 2-cycle engine in my weed whacker can make that same claim.
Bill Bryson's Mother Tongue has been condemned by many linguists for its abundance of factual errors ("Russians have no word for engagement ring", "Finns have no profanity") and long-debunked urban myths (Eskimo vocabulary hoax). See my own featured review at Amazon, it lists a few, but since there is literally one on every page I could hardly list all. It's a terrible, terrible book and should be avoided. Crystal's two Cambridge encyclopedias are written at a high school level and are certain more worth recommending to laymen than Bryson, who has no qualifications in linguistics whatsoever.
The Adiabatic Engine built by smokey yunick achieved 50-60 MPG on two cylinders @ 150 Horsepower.
Smokey Yunick (an oldschool nascar grease monkey) Created the hot vapor engine a long time ago and nobody ever bit on it.
Bad translation but its the best documentation I could find on it.
http://schou.dk/hvce/
I was fortunate enough to work for the family after his passing and was able to see his workshop.
What tickled me most was the Delorian in the corner with a hot vapor engine in mid build.
The biggest engines in the world are 2 strokes. They don't run oil through their crankcases; instead, they have an air blower that blows fresh air in through ports at the bottom of the stroke ("scavenging").
There used to be a very popular series of industrial engines made by GMC/Detroit Diesel, nicknamed Jimmy Diesels. These were two strokes, with a mechanical scavenge blower (favoured as a supercharger by drag racers) and a very distinctive sound. Canadians who grew up in the 1970s will have heard it, whenever Nick Adonidas hopped in to Persephone and took off.
...laura