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.'"

Comments

That begs the question

[Sentri]

What is it in something useful like, say...

rods per hogshead?

(for all those about to find out for me: google tells me that 3 145 miles per gallon = 63 403 200 rods per hogshead)

Re:That begs the question

[fscatt]

Or furlongs per forthnight

Re:That begs the question

[CRCulver]

It's not a matter of grammar, it's a matter of lexicon. If you can't tell the difference, then for pete's sake pick up something like The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language , ed. David Crystal (Cambridge University Press, 1998).

I'm increasingly beginning to understand the sense in linguists' saying that basic linguistics should accompany maths and sciences in schools.

Re:That begs the question

[innocence18]

Are we talking about US hogsheads or UK hogsheads?

Re:That begs the question

[nytes]

I was trying to convert this to libraries-of-congress/gallon, but I just plain gave up.

Re:That begs the question

[Anonymous Coward]

The parent post is a little ruder about it than is called for, but people need to stop using "begs the question" to mean "raises the question". Most of us won't say anything, but if you misuse that phrase in real life, some people will think less of you.

Re:That begs the question

[tehshen]

Is that the best you can do? It's exactly 39626920746/625 (or less exactly 63403073.1936) rods per hogshead.

Re:That begs the question

[MamiyaOtaru]

Linguists are fond of asking if the form of Spanish spoken in Mexico shouldn't be considered "standard Spanish" since it is spoken by more people than there are in Spain. They'd say if the overwhelming majority uses a phrase "incorrectly," it actually signifies that the meaning of the word has changed. Get it through your head that for most people (and thus for linguists), the phrase "begs the question" means something other than what it used to. Linguistics is descriptive, you're thinking of something else, something prescriptive.

Re:That begs the question

[CRCulver]

Where did I say that I wanted to make a prescriptive fiat against the phrase "begs the question"? I merely mentioned that disputes over the meaning of the term are lexical matters, not grammatical matters as the OP said.

Re:That begs the question

[Stellian]

rods per hogshead?

This was moded funny, but I don't seem to get the joke. If you are implying that the extra information given, 0.074 liters/100 Km is useless, then I assure you it's not. This is how we measure fuel efficiency around here. 3145 MPG means absolutely nothing to me.
For comparison, a regular car achieves something in the range 5-15 l/100Km, so 74 ml/100Km is quite impressive.

Re:That begs the question

[zxnos]

hmm,.. ..european bacon.... ahghhhhghhhghh

Re:That begs the question

[DarkSarin]

bacon doesn't come from the head--learn your basic butchering!

Re:That begs the question

[Johnny5000]

rods per hogshead?

This was moded funny, but I don't seem to get the joke. If you are implying that the extra information given, 0.074 liters/100 Km is useless, then I assure you it's not. This is how we

It's from the Simpsons-

"My car gets forty rods to the hogshead, and that's the way I likes it." - Abe "Grandpa" Simpson

Re:That begs the question

[Johnny5000]

bacon doesn't come from the head--learn your basic butchering!

jowl bacon does.

Re:That begs the question

[Xichekolas]

While I realize that 'begging the question' is supposed to be a logical fallacy, I have never heard it used any other way than to mean 'raises the question.' And while I realize that my experiences and its use on TV and in movies are not the gold standard of the English language, at some point the language evolves.

Just think of all those English teachers in school that railed against ending sentences with prepositions. This particular 'grammatical error' was actually common to some of English's greatest writers, then went out of fashion in the 17th century, only to become accepted again more recently. Some people make it a point of pride to be uber-conscious of grammar, and cling to these little arbitrary rules to make themselves feel cultured or intelligent or something, but the point of language is to communicate something. If the person understands a phrase to mean X, and everyone generally understands that phrase to mean X as well, then the phrase means X. The fact that you understood 'begs the question' to mean what the submitter intended just shows what it really has come to mean. You can pretend that you are part of an exclusive group in the know ("Most of us won't say anything"), but the fact is that you are wasting valuable time nitpicking a grammatical non-issue to demonstrate your supposed superior intellect instead of doing something useful like selling your WoW character or compiling something for Gentoo.

For those that are curious, you can read more about ending your sentences with prepositions here and here. Also, a very interesting compilation of english grammatical issues can be found here.

Re:That begs the question

[93,000]

That's because you're forgetting to use the standard unit of size and volume: the Volkswagon Beetle (VB). Try it again using LOCs/VB and you'll be pleasantly suprised at how easily it works out.

Re:That begs the question

[rjshields]

Would it be arrogant to assume that US/UK people make up the largest slice of people here? If not, MPG is a sensible unit to use. You can easily convert it to Km/l using google: http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=3145+miles+per+ga llon+in+kilometers+per+liter

Re:That begs the question

[mightybaldking]

Mod parent Up.

Not flamebait.

"But if it isn't flamebait, it wouldn't have been modded as such." <-- That's begging the question

Re:That begs the question

[CodeArtisan]

Would it be arrogant to assume that US/UK people make up the largest slice of people here? If not, MPG is a sensible unit to use.

Of course, 1 US Gallon 1 UK Gallon, so MPG needs to be more clearly defined even for the Atlantic Cousins.

Re:That begs the question

[operagost]

But scrapple does... ahghhhhghhhghh

Re:That begs the question

[clarkc3]

Well, lets do the math

1 rod = .003125 miles | 1 mile = 320 rods
1 hogshead = 63 gallons | 1 gallon = 0.01587 hogsheads

3145 Miles Per Gallon = (3145*320)/0.01587

1006400/0.01587

which gives us approximately 63415249 rods to the hogshead. A wee bit better than the 40 rods/hogshead that Grandma Simpon claimed his car got

Re:That begs the question

[Xichekolas]

My argument is that the phrase 'begs the question' has passed into the daily lexicon (at least in America) to mean 'raises the question.' Had this been a discussion about logical fallacies, or had the poster tried to use the 'begging the question' fallacy incorrectly, then by all means, make fun of him. But when the phrase is used in it's obvious colloquial manner, don't get all twisted up over it.

The same goes for your quantum leap example. If we were discussing electrons and I said 'Such and such electron made a quantum leap from that energy level, through three others, into this energy level over a period of several minutes' ... I would expect you to point out that I am a pinhead. But if I say that my cell phone represents a quantum leap over my last cell phone... I obviously mean the colloqial usage. To think that using quantum leap in that context has anything to do with electron jumping would be absurd, but the fact remains that phrases like 'quantam leap' and 'begs the question' have entered the english vocabulary with these non-technical meanings. To use them in a non-technical manner is not grounds for ridicule.

To illustrate, think of how many people say they 'surf' the web. I bet you might have even uttered this phrase at some point. My, how the surfer technoelite would be appalled! According to Wikipedia, "Surfing is a surface water sport that involves the participant being carried by a breaking wave." ... So you are somehow riding a breaking wave on the internet? How could you use a verb like surf in such an incorrect manner?!

Just because a phrase originated in a technical field doesn't mean that it carries that technical meaning when used out of that context. Wikipedia (here) says it best... "Words that have a formal meaning may also have a colloquial meaning that, while technically incorrect, is recognizeable due to common usage."

Using phrases as such may not be utterly correct, but I maintain that the point of language is to communicate, and practicing formal writing is not the point of /.

Re:That begs the question

[Whafro]

By using the phrase "begs the question" ignorantly, people are depriving the language of a term that has few other real synonyms, if any, that can be used in the same way-- unlike the "popular" use of "begs the question" which is perfectly adequately served by "raises the question," "poses the question," and myriad other variations.

It's like the word "disinterested" which specifically means that one is not invested in an issue in a monetary sense, as opposed to "uninterested" which basically means that one doesn't care. People using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" are stripping the language of a word that has few synonyms, if any.

Re:That begs the question

[mightybaldking]

However, in this case the OP was using a phrase incorrectly when there was a perfectly correct alternative that is no more difficult to say.

Re:That begs the question

[Sirfrummel]

wtf u talkin bout us 'mericans?

Re:That begs the question

[Creepy]

furlongs (220 yards) per fortnight (14 days) is distance per time not distance per volume (so it's comparable to miles per hour, where 1 furlong per fortnight is approximately 0.00037202381 miles per hour)

a better estimate is furlongs per hogshead, and that's approximately 1585080.

Re:That begs the question

[a55clown]

Scrapple comes from other parts of the pig as well.

Re:That begs the question

[jdevivre]

Thanks for the enlightenment, Jack.
(despite how gloriously biting that sounds, I'm sincere!)

I've known about the "begs the question" issue for a while, since the late Canadian PM Pierre Trudeau used to throw it around in Parliament (correctly, his hobbies included logic theory). I completely agree with your argument. The "begs" in that term has no translation and the concept of self-proof has no simple replacement. I did not, however, give any thought to the "disinterest" issue. Wow. I'm not sure why I assumed it had more than one meaning. Again, thanks. I feel like I've learned something today.

Re:That begs the question

[carlislematthew]

Yes, I think the US gallon is smaller than the UK gallon. That means that in the US, you can have MORE gallons in the same space! This is American innovation at work.

Re:That begs the question

[spun]

"Poses a circular argument" is really that hard to say? Right, I know begging the question isn't quite the same as a circular argument, because you don't use A to prove B and then B to prove A, you just use A to prove A, but that's really splitting hairs for most people. The reason the original meaning of "Begging the question" is going away is because it is unclear and not useful for most people, who wouldn't recognize a logical fallacy if it jumped up and bit them in the syllogism. You have a valid point, from a linguistic snob's point of view. Unfortunately for liguistic snobs, there are no Holy Guardians of the One True Language. Language is as it is used, and people change words and make up new ones all the time. Complain all you like, but it's unlikely to have much of an effect.

Re:That begs the question

[theStorminMormon]

1. I am not - nor was I - ridiculing anybody.

2. To say that a phrase is correct simply if enough people say so is problematic.

Do you really know that more than 50% of people use "question begging" incorrectly? Does it take a majority? How about if 30% of people use it wrong - is that enough to establish an alternate meaning? If so where are you going to draw the line? If I say "question begging" means "eating pineapple" who are you to say I'm wrong? That's what it means to me.

The point is that language only works in so far as it is communal. In that sense, allowing alternate meanings to phrases that already have specific meanings corrupts language. If we all know that X means X, then X has meaning. If, over time, we all decide that X really means Y, then X still has meaning and there's no confusion.

But if some people say X means X1 and others that it means X2 then we have issues. And if we know that when X was invented it meant X1, and all the people that really care about X a whole lot and study it know it means X1, and the only reason any one thinks it means X2 is that they didn't understand X1 - they it's foolish to say "X2 is also correct".

Your counter-example of "surf the net" is inapt. In the first place, this isn't a confusion of what "surf" means - it's a metaphor. To follow your logic we'd have to get rid of all metaphors from our language. But the fact is that metaphors work precisely because there's no ambiguity about what the word in question means. It's the same with any colloqialism. We all know what "beat a dead horse means", so there's no problem using it in a non-literal sense where there's no beating and no horse.

But if there's uncertaintly about what a phrase means, than you can't use it as effectively for anything. Everytime I say "begging the question" in an online argument I cringe because I know some people (30%? 50%? 70%?) are going to misunderstand me because they don't know what I'm saying. In my philosophy classes or talking with philosophy professors I use the term without ambiguity, but thanks to people who don't know what it means (aided and abetted by people who don't think carefully about language and meaning) the phrase is less useful both for those who know what it means and those who get it wrong.

-stormin

Re:That begs the question

[Kitsune818]

Oh man.. I haven't had scrapple in forever.. Good stuff with some maple syrup or mixed with scrambled eggs.

Fortunately I grew to like the stuff before I had a clue what it was, otherwise it would have never made it to my mouth.

Re:That begs the question

[aquabat]

A little off topic, but your post reminded me of something I saw at the local Chevy dealership recently. Out on the front lawn of this dealership, there is a big-ass SUV with lettering an the side that reads:

WOW! 53Km/Gal!

Re:That begs the question

[Kitsune818]

3145 miles works out to 1,246,666 VW Beetles (13.32 feet long) parked end to end.. (conincidentally, 1,300,000 Beetles was the amount produced annually at production peak).

The fuel (hypothetically) consumed occupied .13 cubic feet (1 cubic foot = 7.4 gallons). The VW beetle glove box was about 1 foot wide by 6 inches high and 6 inches deep, or .25 cubic feet, so fuel consumed was roughly half a VW Beetle glove box.

I was unable to find any useful size information on the Library of Congress beyond total pages.

Re:That begs the question

[pclminion]

It's like the word "disinterested" which specifically means that one is not invested in an issue in a monetary sense, as opposed to "uninterested" which basically means that one doesn't care. People using "disinterested" to mean "uninterested" are stripping the language of a word that has few synonyms, if any.

What's wrong with "impartial?" The word "disinterested" should be taken out and shot, precisely because its meaning is unexpectedly different than what might be inferred from its parts. Just like that other ridiculous word, "inflammable."

Re:That begs the question

[Em Adespoton]

This is forgetting that this was a scientific advancement made by a Canadian research group from a Canadian university. The global scientific community uses metric, and so does Canada. The only reason miles and gallons are even mentioned, I'd guess, is that the competition was in the US. I read a Canadian paper this morning, and it's all reported in metric.

Re:That begs the question

[cagle_.25]

Unfortunately for liguistic snobs, there are no Holy Guardians of the One True Language.

Well, the linguistic snobs have certainly applied for the job. Truthfully, they have a point: clear, precise language is an aid to clear, precise thought. All of those people you mentioned who can't recognize logical fallacies are unable to do so because no one ever taught them to make distinctions in thought -- and those distinctions are taught via language at an early age.

Saying "Language is as it is used" is fallacious because the speaker assumes that all language use is equally valid and helpful. But that's clearly false: just look at the good and bad posts on /., or compare Blair's speeches to Bush's. Better yet, try teaching chemistry to a bunch of high-schoolers and see which ones have the most trouble. The slow students will be the linguistically challenged, 9 times out of 10.

Good language helps the speaker clarify his thoughts, points the listener unambiguously in the direction of the speaker's thoughts, and is persuasive as a side-effect. New phrases, grammatical constructions, and meanings of old words that accomplish those goals can genuinely be said to be linguistic innovation. All of the rest is just linguistic flotsam.

So: "Language is as it is used *well*"

Re:That begs the question

[Whafro]

Not that I completely disagree with what you're saying, but one can be both partial and disinterested, or interested and impartial.

Also, disinterested can be used as a verb, as happens when referring to partners or parties as related to privately-held companies: "John sabotaged the dealmaking process, and so was disinterested by the Board." In the verb sense, the word means precisely what you'd infer from its parts.

Re:That begs the question

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

I'm increasingly beginning to understand the sense in linguists' saying that basic linguistics should accompany maths and sciences in schools.

Why the hell have you pluralized math? Are they teaching fuzzy math along w/ regular math?

Re:That begs the question

[DavidTC]

Impartial is a state of mind, not a monetary status.

You can be partial towards one side or another winning (For example, if one of them is family.), and still be disinterested monetarily.

Likewise, you can be impartial but not disinterested. It would be hard, but it's possible.

Disinterested is a specific legal term. Impartial is a different specific legal term.

And it's not inflammable that's the ridiculous one. The correct word is inflammable, it means 'easy to inflame', aka, 'easy to catch on fire', or 'catches on fire quickly', which is a slightly incorrect way to say 'explode'.(1) It's not the prefix in- that everyone assumes, it's the preposition 'in' that we still have. 'inflame' is a very old word, and still in use in English, although rarely in a non-metaphoric sense. When things are 'inflamed', the whole thing essentially explodes into flame. Rags burn, gasoline soaked rags become inflamed.

At some point, people stayed using the much newer, gibberish term 'flammable', which would mean 'easy to burn', except they use it in the same meaning of inflammable. Almost everything is 'easy to burn' once it is actually on fire. Fire is a pretty automatic process once started. The problem isn't that a gas truck will burn, it's that it will burst into flames, aka, inflame.

Don't bitch about imflammable, bitch about flammable, that's the screwed up term.

1) Yes, explosions have a few requirements, I am aware of that. But one of those requirements is that they must happen quickly. Everything that explodes would be inflammable, if the blast didn't outrace and extinguish any flames.

Re:That begs the question

[heinousjay]

You're missing the larger point, and I bet it's because everyone keeps dressing it up in fancy clothes and parading it around like a debutante at a ball, so I'll strip it bare for everyone right here:

So fucking what?

Re:That begs the question

[Chowderbags]

The language spoken in England is no closer to Elizabethan English than the language spoken in America. And lets not forget that Chaucer would've had a fit if he saw Shakespeare's works, probably proclaiming them to be written for the vulgar masses. Heck, Beowulf isn't even close to modern English in any part of the world. So don't claim that American English is crap without realizing that Commonwealth English isn't any better, historically speaking.

Re:That begs the question

[ceoyoyo]

According to Slashdot 1 burning Library of Congress equals 7.3x10^14 J. A gallon of gasoline is 1.3x10^8 J so there are 5.6x10^6 gallons in a bLOC.

Your figure of 1,246,666 VW Beetles = 3145 miles gives 396.4 Beetles/mile.

Fuel efficiency of this vehicle in standard journalistic units is then
1246666 / (1/5.6x10^6) = 6.981x10^12 VWBeetles per bLOC. Unless I made a mistake.

Re:That begs the question

[ceoyoyo]

Hah, that's where you're wrong. The QUEEN guards the Queen's English, one one true English. By the way, you haven't used the letter "u" enough.

Re:That begs the question

[garethw]

I understand from Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue" that the so-called correct usage of "begging the question" is, in fact, a corruption of "beggaring the question".

If that's indeed the case, parent uses the expression correctly, doesn't it?

Re:That begs the question

[pclminion]

Impartial is a state of mind, not a monetary status.

The word "disinterested" has no monetary connotation. Even the legal definition (according to my source) is: "Free from bias, prejudice, or partiality." No mention of money. Sure sounds like "impartiality" to me.

As for flammable/inflammable, I see your point. It's the duality that's stupid.

Re:That begs the question

[kurzweilfreak]

When the hell did you take mathematic in school?

Try this word problem: algebra + geometry + calculus = maths

:)

Re:That begs the question

[CRCulver]

I understand from Bill Bryson's "Mother Tongue"

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.

Re:That begs the question

[Xichekolas]

Brilliant!

Re:That begs the question

[theStorminMormon]

language is still always changing

I agree with this principle with one minor correction. Language is spoken by people - so really it is people that change language and not that language merely changes over time by itself. I'd say language doesn't exist outside of the context of those who use the language.

Take the word "irregardless". I don't care how many times I hear it - it drives me nuts and I attempt to correct everyone that says it. I say 'correct' because even though it is a common mistake it is still a mistake. And the more people harp on it being a mistake, the less chance that it will eventually become standardly accepted.

The same is true here. "Begging the questeion" may indeed be somewhere between meaning what it originally meant and meaning what the poster erroneously believed it to mean. But it is by no means a foregone conclusion that the corruption will eventually be standardized and accepted. So why bother to correct those who make the mistake? If language derives meaning only from communal consent, why shold X mean X any more than it should mean Y?

1. The phrase is useful, it's replacement is not (in my opinion). It's easy to say "that raises the question" or some other such phrase. This is a simple concept. Circular arguments are not as simple - and so having a simple (non Latin!) way to point them out is useful for those who like to argue and care about clear thinking. If the meaning of the word becomes corrupted, then I lose a valuable phrase that I happen to like to use.

2. The transition period is no good. In between meaning "a circular argument" and meaning "raising the question" the phrase will have no unambiguous meaning. If the choice between A or B is utterly irrelevant, but moving from A to B (or vice versa) is harmful - then logic dictates you stick with whatever you've got. Right now the correct meaning of "begging the question" refers to circular argments and I'd rather we move back to that direction and not away from it (into deeper ambiguity).

3. The reason we have synonyms is not that we like a lot of ways to say the same thing. It's useful for rhyming poetry and such, but I'd say fundamentally the richness of a language is not derived from redundancy but from subtle distinctions between similar words/phrases. Thus, as a general rule, if a phrase or word enteres the vernacular from specialty I think it enriches the vernacular only insofar as it maintains it's distinct meaning. For example "quantum leap" can easily be applied to non-physics situations, but it only adds something to the language if you keep in mind that it means "moving from one state to another without transition". Otherwise it becomes just another way to say "awesome", or "terrific", or "great", or "fantastic". Note, if you will, the rich varieties in these words that have been lost to our modern language. No one associates "awe" with "awesome" or "terror" with "terrific" - they're all more or less the same.

So you've got two options. If you care about language then you seek to employ it correctly and maintain the nuances of alternative expressions. If you don't, then you just go with the "majority rules" argument, and as a result inevitably lose a lot of the finer flavor of language.

I don't want to be a total grammar nazi or anything, but I do care enough about words and language that I'll always perfer usage that maintains the richness of our language rather than usage that - no matter how popular - gives us yet another way to say 'good'.

-stormin

Re:That begs the question

[caldodge]

It seems to me that the more important measure for us nerds (we nerds?) is smoots/hogshead.

Google sez it's 187,370,651 sph

Re:That begs the question

[StikyPad]

rd rr

Re:That begs the question

[jrockway]

> So fucking what?

People that do know the difference will think that you're not as smart as them. That's "fucking" what.

If you don't care, fine. But realize that "I'm right, so fuck you" only works in a society of one.

Re:That begs the question

[heinousjay]

But realize that "I'm right, so fuck you" only works in a society of one.

But who are the ones saying it here?

In any case, this is inconsequential. If people with more brains than social skills want to believe someone else is stupid based on such meager evidence, that's not my problem at all. I only lose out on knowing people I don't want to know. Once again, so fucking what?

Re:That begs the question

[node 3]

You are correct to say it's problematic, but you are wrong to say it's foolish for people to accept follow-on meanings. If that were the case, we'd be speaking in ye olde English.

While I can't offer any solution to the problem (it's a problem that's inherent in any open language system), I can offer some advice with how to look at it.

First off, there's formal and informal. A lot of words and phrases are acceptable on an informal level, which are absolutely wrong in a formal level. "Irregardless", "I could care less", "ain't", not using "whom", and of course, slang in general, are all informal and correct usage, but are not formal English (although some are being accepted more and more as formal English). The same goes for grammar in general.

Second, there are different contexts. In specialized fields, words and phrases take on specific meanings which aren't there in the general (even formal) usage.

Lastly, there are different senses for words and phrases (this doesn't really apply here so I'll leave it at that, just trying to be thorough with the list).

Formally, "beg the question" means something different (although somewhat similar) to the informal meaning. In specialized fields (primarily, logic and philosophy), they use the formal meaning, most everyone else uses the informal meaning. Which came first is irrelevant when it comes to the current state of affairs. Currently, the informal usage is well-established, and nothing you do will change that. It's a fact of life you'll just have to deal with.

That doesn't mean there's nothing you can do. You can do as you're doing now, which is to try to educate as many people as possible (without coming across as a pedant or a snob, otherwise you'll be working against your goals) to the formal (and, in my opinion, more useful) meaning.

And you're wrong when you say that the phrase has no equivalents. What's wrong with saying, "you are assuming what you are trying to prove", or "you are assuming something that first needs to be proved"? They're not as short, but they work, and pretty much everyone will understand what you mean.

Re:That begs the question

[niXcamiC]

Linguists are fond of asking if the form of Spanish spoken in Mexico shouldn't be considered "standard Spanish" since it is spoken by more people than there are in Spain.

So, is british english or american english standard english?

Re:That begs the question

[BubFranklin]

???.... you lost me flotsam. Can you can you reiterate, recapitulate, ingeminate or simply use english?

Much appreciated, bloke, mate or whatever you guys affectionately call perfect strangers. Cheerio!

-Bub

Re:That begs the question

[cagle_.25]

Hehe. I guess I ironically proved my own point: "flotsam" is bad English if I don't have a reasonable expectation of being understood.

I encountered the term in Tolkien. It's part of the name of one of the chapters in LOTR, "Flotsam and Jetsam", where Gandalf finds Pippin and Merry amongst the wreckage of Orthanc.

Technically, flotsam is cargo or wreckage floating on the surface of the sea, while jetsam is cargo that has been thrown overboard (jettisoned) or washed up on the beach. However, the two words are linked to refer to homeless people: The government seemed to do little to help the flotsam and jetsam of society. -- the Hutchinson Encyclopaedia.

Presumably, "flotsam" is a corruption of "floating something" while "jetsam" would be "a jettisoned something", but that's linguistic speculation!

Re:That begs the question

[theStorminMormon]

It's really a difference of opinion at this point, and nothing more, but I don't think that the real meaning of "beg the question" is restricted to formal English. The idea of dividing English between formal and informal is just an artificial way to shroud some bad English under a guise of semi-legitimacy.

Slang is slang. You don't need to create a super-category for it (informal English) because it already has a category: slang. "Beg the question", I'd say, is not slang. It's just a misunderstood version of the plain old English phrase. Note that it's not a corrupted form (e.g. "ain't") nor is it an altogeher false word (e.g. "irregardless") nor is it in any other way bad grammar. So it's not slang, and it's not a violation of formal English rules. It's just a question of people not understanding the definition of the phrase: it's that simple.

-stormin

Re:That begs the question

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

When I took Math Analysis essentially pre calc. And a quick google search will show that Math returns 451,000,000 results while maths returns 47,200,000 results. My point being while the parent post was being a bit riduculous of usage, I was pointing out the fact that most people on this side of the pond don't pluralize math. Know to your word problem, I add this point, a person who teaches those subjects simultanously is not called a maths teacher, or the other part of the SAT's(not the verbal)isn't called the Maths section.

Re:That begs the question

[node 3]

Nope, it's not a matter of opinion at all. If people use a phrase, consistently, in a certain way, the phrase means what the usage implies, no matter what you believe.

"Beg the question" has a formal meaning. I'm not "artificially" dividing the language into formal and informal, I'm describing a natural separation. "Formal" is what snobbish academics will tell you your words mean, informal is your words meaning whatever works in common prose.

There is no single authority on the English language. Trying to pretend that there is a One True Language is to deny reality.

"To beg the question" became a phrase when a bunch of philosophers decided to translate a latin phrase into English. Those philosophers have no special authority over the English language. They cannot arbitrarily tell anyone else what a phrase actually means. They can merely use a word or phrase in a certain way, and if it catches on, it becomes recognized as "valid".

Likewise, when a word or phrase is used in a new way (and by 'new', this almost certainly always means 'incorrect'), if it becomes common enough, it becomes valid. And there's not a damned thing you can do about it.

In common parlance, "begs the question" means something, and you have absolutely no authority to tell people they are wrong. In fact, they are very much right, because the phrase has become understood to mean what they mean it to mean, and not what you believe it should mean.

Of course, the original meaning of the phrase still exists, and philosophers and logicians still benefit from it and recognize it, but it's become a specialized niche meaning. That's reality. I, like you, prefer that meaning, but I, unlike you, am willing to accept reality as it is, and not pretend it is what I think it should be.

Now, I tried to point out this fact of reality to you, and since it truly does cause confusion and frustration, especially from the old guard, I offered some advice on how to look at it so maybe you'll be able to not feel it's such an abomination, but a normal function of the language, but you decided to just shrug it all off.

Re:That begs the question

[theStorminMormon]

I think this is the fundamental problem with your understanding of this issue:

That's reality. I, like you, prefer that meaning, but I, unlike you, am willing to accept reality as it is, and not pretend it is what I think it should be.

While you posit yourself as the world-wise man who is willing to accept reality and me, in contrast, as the semi-crazed and outmoded stodgy old-guard who just can't accept reality, the fact is that I'm the one who's embracing reality to a greater extent than you.

Consider your phrase: If people use a phrase, consistently, in a certain way, the phrase means what the usage implies, no matter what you believe.

If this is, in fact true, then all I have to do to "be right" is convince/educate people as to the genuine meaning. So one real distinction between the two of us is that you view the transformation as some kind of quasi-magical process that "just happens" whereas I consider it to be a change driven by human behavior and thus, to some degree, within my capacity to influence.

Of course if it really is true that in common usage "beg the question" means "raises the question" than I'm the one that is wrong. You're caught up in trying to prove a point that is obvious - and that I've moved beyond.

The trouble is that this is not obviously true. In the first case, you don't have any hard data about how many people believe one vs. the other. In the second place, it's not even obvious what that data would mean. It's not as though 51% of people prefering one definition to another makes one right and the other wrong. And further complicating the matter is the fact that it also matters who believes what. If you ask the "man on the street" to define metastatic and (let's just say) most of them say it means "a harmful kind of cancer" are they right? Do you honestly believe that if by a 10:1 ratio people believe "metastatic" refers to "a harmful kind of cancer" that all the MDs in the world are wrong? Clearly authority falls into the mix.

Of course you've already brought up the formal vs. in-formal dichotomy as a band-aid to your obviously flawed notion of linguistic ontology. In the first case, this provides only 2 types of meanings, which is blatantly false. "Metastatic", for example, has a different (and legitimate) usage in theology/philosophy. On top of that, it's not always clear which usage would be formal and which informal. Just based on a kind of class-status appeal you could say the definition prefered by those with higher education is formal, but what if the word in question is a technical term associated with uneducated (but skilled) labor? What if its college profs that misuse it and (say) sailors that get it right. Then which is "formal" and which is "informal".

Where does all this leave us?

1. The process of language evolution is interactive. Thus I may not have "authority" to say "you are wrong" when someone misuses the phrase "beg the question", but if I succeed in educating one person than - despite all your posturing about maturity - I've made the word that much more correct no matter what you say about my authority.

2. Language can not be reduced to binary values like formal/informal, right/wrong. There is room in the vocabulary (as with the term 'metastatic') for a word to have more than one specialized definition. The theological and medical definitions do not contradict, however, and therefore can cohabit nicely. The problem with the "begging the question" phrase is that people use it in the context of debate, argument, and logic. So you've got two definitions inhabiting the same (or overlapping) space. This means that you can not have both definitions without ambiguity - lessening the usefulness of both definitions. It'd be like someone without an MD walking into a hospital and telling the doctor "look, I've talked to the guys on the street, and we don't give a damn about your authority. We've taken a vote, and we've decided that 'metastatic' means 'nasty, m

Re:That begs the question

[node 3]

You have, through the course if this discussion, begged several questions. Your assumptions have been:

1. That words and phrases can have only one meaning.
2. That the first meaning wins.
3. That the most official/authoritative meaning wins.
4. If any two meanings are contradictory or confusing, then one of them is no longer valid (the way you choose is somewhere in items 1, 2 and 3 above).

Of course, I know that you probably don't really believe any of those, but you have used them to further your position.

You've also used ad hominem and appeal to authority fallacies. I'm sure there are others, but those are the ones that stand out.

The *fact* is that words and phrases can have multiple meanings. The *fact* is that those multiple meanings can be contradictory. The *fact* is that meanings from "official, authoritative" sources can co-exist with meanings from more vulgar sources. The *fact* is that different meanings can cause confusion. The *fact* is there is no official arbiter who can enforce any one meaning universally, or authoritatively banish a meaning.

None of these facts, it seems to me, can be reasonably disputed. Not liking how things are does not negate reality.

You are right when you say "to beg the question" means "to assume what needs proving" (or some variation thereof), you are wrong when you state that that is the only valid or correct meaning.

And here's the kicker. Let's say you manage, through a rigorous campaign, end the common usage and convince everyone to use the "superior" definition (hey, I'll donate to that cause), you will still not have fully extinguished that meaning from validity. You'll have removed it from common usage, but the phrase is still valid so long as any texts that use it exist, or so long as anyone remembers it exists, etc. It does, however, become archaic.

I agree completely that the more formal definition is superior, and I commiserate in its degradation in common usage. But I accept that it has been degraded, and accept that, although I don't like it, the common usage has become a valid usage. There is no law in nature or language that requires I like how things are, nor is there any restriction in language that makes confusing or contradictory definitions impossible. I'm not arguing against your attempt to educate people about the "superior" meaning, I'm only arguing against the notion that people are wrong. They aren't wrong. The very fact that people can use it to successfully communicate is what makes it right. The first few people to get it wrong really did get it wrong, but once it becomes common, it's game over. That doesn't make the original meaning wrong, either. Both are right. One is more nuanced and meaningful, the other is more common. They both address a similar issue, and have somewhat incompatible meanings. Languages grow and change, and not always for the better. Them's the breaks. You can't change that.

Re:That begs the question

[BubFranklin]

hehe, thank you for that bit. I've heard the term a number of times, forgot to ever look it up. :)

-bub

Re:That begs the question

[myepitath]

You are such a troll.

Re:That begs the question

[Creepy]

actually, the standard joke is from the Simpson's episode where Abe Simpson said "My car gets forty rods to the hogshead and that's the way I like it!" Some people (including me) started using furlongs per fortnight for distance and time. I'm just saying use the right one for the right units ;)

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

speed?

[x2A]

Wonder what speed it travels for it's optimal fuel consumtion

Re:speed?

[MrSquirrel]

Additionally, how much of a tail wind did it have... and how many cans of beans did the driver eat?

Re:speed?

[Superpants]

That's a secret.

Re:speed?

[xstonedogx]

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).

Re:speed?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:speed?

[mrcaseyj]

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.

Re:speed?

[x2A]

Wow, at that speed, it would take you nearly a week to get through the gallon!

Re:speed?

[Walt Dismal]

In EPA tests, the vehicle was found to get 0.3 mile per bean (MPB). This assumes no extra tacos were consumed by the driver and that the driver does not take Beano. Your mileage may vary depending on brand, as Hunt's is equivalent to standard, Van Camp's midgrade, Heinz is premium, and B&M Baked is only allowed within Boston city limits and not before a Celtics game. This information has been provided by the American Bean Council. Got Bean?

Re:speed?

[numbski]

Per the rules:

"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. :D

"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.

Re:speed?

[joggle]

I wish they would come up with a challenge making a better car rather than a better bike. Seriously, who would buy a car that can only carry a 130 lbs (59 kg) person (actually, less than that since that weight includes clothing and gear according to the rules) 15 mph? I appreciate that they are trying to prove what is possible with small, efficient engines. But is it really a 'car' if it has the same perfomance as a bicycle?

Also, why such a severe restriction on the engine? According to the rules they must use a specific 4-cylinder engine produced by Briggs & Stratton. Seems to cramp creativity a bit (although I guess it gives them a sponser).

Re:speed?

[ithinkuknow]

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.

Re:speed?

[smash]

They're using a lawnmower engine that can do up to 3600 RPM, 4 cycle. (4 cylinders then?)

"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.

Re:speed?

[MjrTom]

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.

Re:speed?

[TheViffer]

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.

Re:speed?

[Bananatree3]

Why restrict to a certain engine? There are several possible reasons for this:

One: As you said, it's advertising for one of their biggest sponsers, Briggs & Stratton.

Two: Limiting all teams to a standard engine focuses the contest on designing a super efficient body. It gives a somewhat scientific control to the "experiment" of the race you could say.

Three: It may (possibly) be a deterrent for the teams to not cop out and buy a super duper-efficient experimental engine from some no-name company and call it as their own.

Re:speed?

[s13g3]

Wow, at that speed, it would take you nearly a week to get through the gallon!


Longer, as it's approximately 4 days 14 hours from atlanta to juneau for 3,776 miles traveled at reasonable highway speeeds. Unless you drove for 7 days straight.

Re:speed?

[Memnos]

Actually, for *optimal* fuel consumption it travels at 0 kph.

Re:speed?

[morie]

whatever the speed, they sure won't beat the solar cars in australia, which didn't need a gallon of anything in the first place and raced a 3000km race at an average of 100 kph.

www.solarchalenge.com, if memory serves.

Re:speed?

[famebait]

And don't get me started on those olympic running competitions. The tracks are totally unrealistic, unlike anything you'd find if you really needed to run from or to anything. And what's with those restrictions about equipment? I mean, if you wanted to get somewhere fast, you would of course use a motor vehicle, but that's forbidden. Why stifle creativity like that. Rubbish.

Re:speed?

[evilviper]

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.

Most insightful/informative comment here, and yet still only at +3. So very sad.

Re:speed?

[Bozdune]

Which pretty much shows that most of Australia is uninhabited desert. Try running the solar race in Boston or San Francisco or anywhere else where it... um... rains.

Re:speed?

[rufty_tufty]

You know there's a word for someone who looks at a new technology and sees that it doesn't have direct application to his life and therefore talks it down.

Seriously this is research, they are pushing the limits as far in one direction as they possibly can with the assumption that if you research at the extreme then you'll learn things that can be applied to more mundane situations.
What next? IBM issue a press release about new transistors based on nanotubes that go 1000X faster and you complain that because there won't be a processor available based on them available any time soon that they are wasting their time?

Watching Karma burn in 5, 4, 3, 2 ....

Re:speed?

[TheRealBurKaZoiD]

That reminds me of something I saw on vacation last week in Portland, ME. We were driving down the road in Windham, and we hear this loud whining motory sound, like a lawn edger or something. Loe and behold, down the sidewalk came a guy on an old bicycle, and affixed to it was a small gasoline powered motor turning the chain on it. He and had made a makeshift accelerator that was on the handle.

We were doing 30mph, and he smoked us, seriously. He shot past us and disappeared down a side road.

Re:speed?

[morie]

You are right, that is about as feasable as touring through europe form finland to greece and from bulgaria to portugal.

Then again, they did do that after the 2003 race, through cities and all, and not even in mid summer.

Re:speed?

[lowrydr310]

(more HP for less gas used)

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

Re:speed?

[AzsxQuii]

I tell you....Its like reading the FIA's recommendations for the formulas (under which construction and operation of the formula 1 cars must operate). see http://www.fia.com/resources/documents/1603301296_ _2006_F1_TECHNICAL_REGULATIONS.pdf

Re:speed?

[RingDev]

"Three: It may (possibly) be a deterrent for the teams to not cop out and buy a super duper-efficient experimental engine from some no-name company and call it as their own. "

And what's wrong with that? If a team wins using some start-up company's new experimental engine, the company with the engine gets advertising and investment, and the team gets a win. Not to mention the team winners will likely have a great shot at getting a job with that company.

-Rick

Re:speed?

[timeOday]

I supppose drag racing totally escapes you as well?

Look, any time you optimize for a single parameter of performance, you're going to get something weird. But it allows you to push that single aspect of performance and measure it independent of everything else. That way you know what compromises you're making in that area when you make a more realistic design.

Personally I'm amazed a vehicle can carry a person and get over 3000 MPG. It really puts the status quo into perspective.

Re:speed?

[Hoi Polloi]

I agree. Where is the cupholder? And going through a drive through when the window is 3 feet higher than you is going to suck.

It'll make my commute from Boston to Denver every day a bargin though.

Re:speed?

[MjrTom]

You are correct. I had a brain fart. More power for less engine displacement is what I meant.

Re:speed?

[operagost]

It's a single cylinder, four-cycle engine. Your standard lawn-mower type.

Re:speed?

[starm_]

It's actually a single cylinder, 4 stroke lawn-mower engine.

Re:speed?

[x2A]

"Unless you drove for 7 days straight"

You wouldn't drive for 7 days straight, you'd have to be pretty wired for it, at least :-p

Re:speed?

[x2A]

And they're having fun. Sometimes I feel like the only person on /. who sees the importance of that. Even if they finished with "Well we didn't manage to make any technological breakthroughs, but it was fun all the same"... good for them. It does look fun.

Re:speed?

[AvitarX]

I read an article about Cubans doing something similar (due to the difficulty of getting new cars ect.).

The modified bikes to be able to do as much as 50 MPH. Apparently they are very dangerous because the breaks are not meant to take all that.

Re:speed?

[RoffleTheWaffle]

I'm no expert, but...

Okay. Let's take this very same car, and double the engine capacity. (Granted I'm not taking a lot of things into consideration, but let's just look at this in a very basic way.) This cuts it's fuel efficiency in half - something around 1,500 or 1,600 MPG - but would presumably also double it's top speed and the engine's ability to move a load. If this machine did travel at an average speed of at least 15 MPH, one with twice the engine power would travel at 30 MPH. Not quite a car, but respectable. If the average speed of this vehicle was even higher - somewhere in the 25 MPH range - then you could possibly take this thing over the 45 MPH mark - possibly 50 MPH or higher - which is getting pretty close to highway speeds.

With double the power, it could also presumably accelerate twice as fast - something you should definitely consider when designing or purchasing a vehicle. If it could accelerate and respond quick enough to be road safe, that's one more problem out of the way. (If it already achieved this end, that's also good.) If it could move double the previous load, bringing it's maximum load up to 260 pounds, that means a big guy like myself would be able to get in with about 80 pounds to spare - enough for a suitcase on a road trip, or a PC tower for a LAN party. See where I'm going with this?

Now let's double the double. 750 MPG, but with a top speed of at least 60 MPH and a maximum load of 520 pounds. I'd buy that in a heartbeat.

The idea here is to push the limits of fuel efficiency not only to prove that it can be done, but to find an application for it somewhere else. If the 'doubled double' version of this vehicle was more comfortable, road-safe, and cheap, I don't think anyone would object to getting one. Even if fuel efficiency doesn't scale directly up or down in the way I put it - I'm almost certain it doesn't - you could shave even half the MPG off of that final number and still achieve phenomenal efficiencies for a single-person vehicle - 375 MPG. Multiply the initial final number by four gallons and you get a maximum operating range of 3,000 miles. That's a long way to travel without having to fill up.

Once again, hardly an expert, but it's food for thought. I also agree that the people participating in this contest shouldn't be limited to just one kind of engine. I'd kind of like to see a contest to find out who can build the most fuel efficient engine, and then tack it onto one of these cars. That'd be neat.

Re:speed?

[daveilers]

THey were required to travel at least 15 mph on a 6.9 mile rack for the test I believe.

So although you could get 3000 mpg it would take you 8 1/3 days to drive that far (without bathroom/sleeping breaks)

Re:speed?

[ChrisMaple]

If aerodynamic drag is the primary form of resistance to motion, doubling the power will only increase top speed by 26%. This is a cube root relation, assuming that the type of air flow (laminar, attached, etc.) does not change. Furthermore, doubling the available power should not cut MPG by as much as half, even if it is done very clumsily.

Re:speed?

[twitchingbug]

So there you have it. It has to go at least as fast as someone could bike. :D

Well, 15mph is definitely attainable on a bike, but it does take some effort to average 15mph over 9.6 miles. I don't think just anyone can hop on a mtn bike or hybrid and pull out an 15mph average over that distance. I'm guessing most normal people will commute at about 10mph.

I'm not a great cyclist, but I average about 16 mph on my commute to work which is about 15 miles. However traffic lights and stop signs and a headwind by the bay hold me back a little. I'm guessing if I have perfect conditions and a flat course, I could push 19-20mph average over the 15 miles. I'm on a road bike too. People on mtn bikes will top out at 15 mph beacuse mtn bikes are geared lower and the knobbies have pretty high rolling resistance.

To put it in perspective, Lance would average probably about 31-32mpg on a perfectly flat course.

Re:speed?

[DeputySpade]

Hey, Mr. Physics:

If you double the available power (which doubling the displacement would not likely do) you are not going to simultaneously double the acceleration, top speed, and useful load. You _may_ be able to double _one_ of these things. Maybe even increase both acceleration and top speed (but not double) with some judicious gearing. Perhaps I'm way off on my math, but wouldn't you need at least 8x the power to double the load, top speed, and acceleration? maybe something like 5x power to do this with a decent gearbox? To double the doubles I think you'd end up needing somewhere like 18x the original power (again assuming you only doubled 2 and got the third for "free" with a good transmission). 18x Power means less than 1/18 Milage. That puts you in the neighborhood of 160 MPG. Would you really get that excited about a single-person vehicle that could achieve 50 or so MPH, got 145MPG and could accelerate fast enough to be safe on the road with other traffic?

If so, try this.

Re:speed?

[tcgroat]

The competition rules require 15MPH minimum average for six laps of a 1.6 mile track, and 25 MPH maximum for any one lap. There are considerable penalties for being too slow or too fast. This is about the same pace as a road bike.

Good lord, man...

[Chris Mattern]

...you've invented the bicycle!

Chris Mattern

Re:Good lord, man...

[SirSlud]

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. :)

Re:Good lord, man...

[jmv]

Can *you* go 3,145 miles on a bicycle and drink only a gallon?

Re:Good lord, man...

[20th Century Boy]

On meth, yes.

Re:Good lord, man...

[MichaelSmith]

Can *you* go 3,145 miles on a bicycle and drink only a gallon?

Because I ride a bicycle to work I can accuse people who run the same distance of "wasting energy". Perhaps in the future radical motorists will direct the same accusation at me when they do the 10km commute on 1Kj (or whatever).

Re:Good lord, man...

[Mike Peel]

Surely there's no downside to running, as opposed to biking? Yes, it uses a bit more energy, but it will improve the fitness of the runner (probably more so than biking will for you), and there's no real shortage of that sort of energy anyway.

It's people who drive to your workplace that you should really go after - using finite petroleum resources, polluting the air, and at the same time not getting the fitness benefits of biking/walking.

Re:Good lord, man...

[srussia]

No, but I can go 15.5km on a bike without drinking a drop. (Ah, lies, damned lies, statistics, and EXTRAPOLATION).

Re:Good lord, man...

[kfg]

Of gasoline? Damn straight. In fact I prefer not to. I express my fuel use in mpb (miles per banana; about 3. Thus not as inexpensive as you might think).

Can these vehicles even cover 3,145 miles?

Shit no. They'd fall apart.

Can I cover 3,145 miles on a bicycle? Shit yeah, and neither I nor it would fall apart, but, ummmmmmmmmm, I might need a van to follow me, to carry all those damned bananas.

KFG

Re:Good lord, man...

[monsted]

Surely there's no downside to running, as opposed to biking? Yes, it uses a bit more energy, but it will improve the fitness of the runner (probably more so than biking will for you), and there's no real shortage of that sort of energy anyway.

That's what they said about oil!

Re:Good lord, man...

[skreeech]

Maybe if I am dropped from orbit and into an ocean.

Re:Good lord, man...

[chrisv]

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.

Re:Good lord, man...

[kfg]

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. :)

There's a whoooooooole lot of frickin' nothin' in the middle of the country, no matter the route. Dakotas/Montana to the north, Kansas/Nebraska/Colorado/Utah mid, Texas/Oklahoma/New Mexico/Arizona south. Thank God for trail mix. Finding safe water is the tough nut, or even just finding water at all. There's a reason that grass is the only thing that grows on the Great Plains.

And your need for water is inversely proportional to its availability. You may not notice you're sweating in an arid climate, but its being sucked right out of you at a tremendous rate.

. . .you're likely to require new inner tubes, tires, and brake pads by that point.

Naaaaaaaaah, I get about 10k out of 'em, even got that out of a silk sewup on the rear wheel once, but then I'm light and don't use the brakes much. I've discovered that they only slow you down. Staying off the road in the heat of the day helps preserve them; and you. Siesta is a positive adaptation. If I do any significant riding in the rain I actually go through chains faster. The road grit gets to 'em.

KFG

Re:Good lord, man...

[Eric S. Smith]

Surely there's no downside to running, as opposed to biking?

There is more wear and tear on the equipment — running is nortoriously bad for your knees. I suppose we could say that you have to factor in, as a sort of externality, the eventual energy cost of assisted mobility for someone with shot knees, on the theory that it would become necessary sooner for runners.

Re:Good lord, man...

[recursiv]

Eric Smith makes one good point, but I'd like to give a list:

Downsides to running as compared to biking:

• Harder on your body, especially knees
• Slower
• More difficult to carry other objects
• Less efficient per distance (although if you are into fitness you can still work arbitrarily hard while biking, you just go faster)

But then, I might be biased. I like to ride a fair amount.

What what happen in an accident?

[MarkByers]

What what happen to it if it got hit by an SUV?

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[Sentri]

In america: A Lawsuit

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

...by the SUV driver.

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

...and a witness for "pain and suffering" from having to view the accident.

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[x2A]

it would be disqualified for using alternate forms of propulsion.

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[yobjob]

...on cable.

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[Ossadagowah]

Someone sets it up the bomb!

Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[saskboy]

One can only guess that the $5 quoted is metric, or Canadian $5.

Yes, I'm kidding. Why not throw in a USD or CDN after the $5 to let us know? Still with the Canadian Dollar at about $.90US, I think most people could afford the gas either way.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[Dachannien]

The 3145 mpg figure was probably Canadian, too.

That would be... let's see, carry the one... roughly 28 mpg American (22 city).

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[saskboy]

And it didn't say if it was British or American Gallons too, right?

Gosh I can't wait until this measuring mixmash is over with and metric starts gaining by more than just inches on Imperial in the States.

Metric time however... the car could have gone from Victoria to Halifax in possibly 1.5 metric months.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[smash]

I just don't get it personally. The rest of the scientific world (and hell, most of the civilized world full stop) uses metric units - why are they so entrenched in the USA? "It's too hard to change" is just a cop out...

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[Eideewt]

There's no good reason to change. Dividing by 10 is not all it's cracked up to be. I'd much rather use a system of measurement that simplifies calculations I actually want to do: travel time in minutes at 60mph, thirds and quarters of a foot, and so on.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[jsoderba]

The US doesn't use the Imperial system. It uses the incompatible American or "English" units.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[Soruk]

The US doesn't use the Imperial system. It uses the incompatible American or "English" units.

English units? In England we still use the Imperial ones (unless the EU threaten lawsuits against us for not using Metric).

*thinks*
French Horn: German.
English Horn: French. (known as the Cor Anglais)

English units: American.

Yes, I can see the pattern. No-one wants to claim responsibility for any of them.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[saskboy]

It doesn't take much effort to switch. 100km/ hour, so 50km = half an hour. You might have the convenience of flying along at a "mile a minute", or using an ounce of prevention, but most other humans shake our heads in frustration at the American refusal to update and simplify communication of measurements between cultures. Americans would no longer think the air freezes at the Canadian border since Windsor is +8 while Detroit is +42.

I can drink a litre of water in a sitting, but not a gallon.
It's easier to walk a kilometer too ;-)
It is harder to lose a kilogram or gain a Celcius degree, I'll grant you that.

And dividing by 10 is awesome. Remembering WHAT to divide by in the US is a pain. 1/8 of an inch, WTH? That's sure intuitive.

And what's harder to remember: water freezes at +32F (and +18F, +11F and points below), or in metric Celcius it freezes if it's 0 or a negative number? Then it boils at 100C.

It would only take bottlers to always put liters/grams/whatever on their containers for a few years, and wean people off fluid ounces. Then start putting Celcius on the weather broadcasts right after the Fahrenheit temperature, for a few years. Then the next generation will have moved over to understanding the comparison, just like in Canada. It's not very difficult, and if done slowly costs next to no money to implement.

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[Eideewt]

I just don't see any incentive to change except that everyone else does it. It doesn't much matter to me if it's easier to remember that there are ten millimeters to a centimeter. Everyone in the US manages to remember it just fine: it's clearly not that difficult. For that matter, everyone in the world manages to remember that there are 24 hours in a day, 60 minutes in an hour, and so on. If nearly everyone in the country is fine with Imperial measurement, then who are you, presumably inexperienced in its use, to tell us we're wrong?

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[smash]

"Everyone in the US remembers just fine" ... oh ok so that makes it just dandy.

The imperial system is not intuitive (stones? miles? farenheit?), or even standardized (US gallons? british gallons? dry gallons?) at all.

All clinging to imperial does is cause problems dealing with the rest of the world - and yes, contrary to the commonly held US belief structure, there's more people OUTSIDE the US than IN it.

Dividing by 10 does work well (decimal point shifting) - you have far fewer base units to learn/remember. Most people can get by with kilos, metres, litres - most of the other units are just base 10 multiples/fractions of that. Also, many of the units are easily calculated (eg, volume vs distance, volume vs weight, etc).

But before you even consider that, how about the fact that the SI measurements are largely metric anyway? It's not just the rest of the world you have to deal with - SI standard measurements need to be converted as well.

I'm sure NASA would disagree with the idea that things are just fine the way they are :D

I have enough experience with imperial measure (feet, inches, psi, stones, pounds, pints... especially pints :D) to know that it's nowhere near as simple and "clean" as metric - and it seems the majority of the civilized world agrees with me :D

But hey, I don't particularly care - if you lot want to make things hard on yourselves (in the long run - continuing for the rest of eternity to convert metric back to imperial), be my guest.... :)

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[Eideewt]

I know SI measurements are largely metric -- that was my point. The people who do need what metric units offer use them, and the rest of us don't. The rest of my point is that we're doing just fine with imperial measurements, even if they aren't as "neat" as metric, so what makes you think there's a problem?

Re:Metric money? Or Imperial money.

[saskboy]

"we're doing just fine with imperial measurements, even if they aren't as "neat" as metric, so what makes you think there's a problem?"

The point is you're not doing just fine. International trade is effected by the problem of Americans insisting on using outdated measuring systems, so labelling and package sizes need to work in both trading locations. Vehicle dashboards are even different. Darn nuts and bolts aren't the same sizes.

Some xenophobic Americans would prefer if everyone learn english when they become Americans. The poor immigrant also has to learn about fluid ounces?

America is in the unfortunate situation of being behind the rest of the world, not something that typically happens. The proper response when everyone else is more numerous, and they've created an easy, friendly system along with several Americans in favour of it to, is to say, "Hey, that's a good idea World. Instead of languishing here with outdated measurements, we'll standardize with you, just like our time system is, and trade and communication will improve."

Details?

[Skynyrd]

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?

I'm assuming they didn't drive it across Canada.

Sheesh.

Re:Details?

[swmccracken]

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.

Re:Details?

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

I read TFA, and it made no mention of speed, distance or any other aspect of the contest.

I saw this on TV a while back actually. I forget what show it was, but the host/narrator was really obnoxious. Anyway, the details are that the test conditions required them to go downhill ... in a hurricane, in order to achieve those results.

Re:Details?

[nacturation]

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?

Re:Details?

[nead]

Why not write a decent article with those details in it in the first place? I'm on a news hunt, not a research project.

Re:Details?

[R3d M3rcury]

"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?"

The driver lies on his back, as though he was lying on a chesterfield.

(Sorry. Couldn't resist.) :^)

Re:Details?

[Skynyrd]

Why not write a decent article with those details in it in the first place? I'm on a news hunt, not a research project.

Exactly.

Mpg into Metric

[Jazzer_Techie]

I'm not sure why English volume/distance measurement was (albeit correcly) switched to a distance/volume measurement in the metric conversion.

Whatever the case, it can't be a coincidence that this gets 1337 km/L.

Re:Mpg into Metric

[2short]

Because Liters per 100 Km is how fuel consumption is typically quoted outside the US.

But why this team would express their efficiency as anything but "1337!", I cannot imagine.

Re:Mpg into Metric

[kfg]

. . .switched to a distance/volume measurement in the metric conversion.

The seemingly odd metric measures given aren't the conversion, they're the original. The competition is run across a fixed distance with a fixed amount of starting fuel and the amount of fuel burned is then determined by measuring what is left.

So the competition results are expressed in liters burned per the reference distance, with the lowest number the best.

That is converted into mpg for consumption by the unwashed masses (the press) and the public.

KFG

Re:Mpg into Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

That is converted into mpg for consumption by the unwashed masses (the press) and the public.

What are you talking about, unwashed masses?!? The whole world uses miles per gallon!

(Signed, typical American)

Re:Mpg into Metric

[swiftstream]

Most Europeans, at least, measure mileage in volume required per 100km. The Germans says "verbrauch," roughly [a car] "requires" so many liters per 100km.

N.B., Americans actually measure distance/volume (miles per gallon)--you switched them.

Desaparecidos

[StikyPad]

Strangely, the entire team is now missing. Big oil had no comment.

Only ?

[Professeur Shadoko]

http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/news/index These guys got 5385 km/l (that's 12,666 MPG !) in 2005.

Re:Only ?

[tomjen]

Sure, but getting help from the devil is cheating

Re:Only ?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Only ?

[mboots]

Back in 1986, my school's (University of Saskatchewan) team won it's seventh consecutive title in the Marshall competition with a record of 3086 (US)mpg.

10 years and 59 mpg later...

Re:Only ?

[evilviper]

These guys got 5385 km/l (that's 12,666 MPG !) in 2005.

Divide by Zero. ERROR! ERROR!

According to their site, that car doesn't run on gas at all: http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/technics/index

Maybe they're doing something crazy, like counting a small ammount of lubrication oil...

Re:Only ?

[maeddi]

Shell provided a conversion factor between Hydrogen and Gas. They used the equivalent of 1 liter gasoline for a distance of 5385 kilometers.

/Several friends of mine were in this team.

No back seat.

[elgee]

How can you get laid in it?

Re:No back seat.

[notanatheist]

No, no. You lay in it.

Re:No back seat.

[bblboy54]

If its a convertible you're set. Since your already laying and there would be no roof, all that is needed is the female.... Which could be the larger issue seeing as how only geeks would have such a vehicle in the first few years of production.

Re:No back seat.

[GbrDead]

... in Non-Soviet Russia :-)

Re:No back seat.

[Rob_Ogilvie]

This is slashdot... you don't get laid at all.

Re:No back seat.

[Memnos]

Good Lord, man, this is Slashdot. Stop bothering us with pointless questions about futile pursuits.

Re:No back seat.

[booch]

Here's my car. No back seat. But try telling me that it won't help me get laid. ;)

3145 MPG

[alphamugwump]

So, was that city driving, highway driving, or downhill all the way?

Re:3145 MPG

[LordEd]

The rules:

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.

Has anyone calculated...

[PornMaster]

There's got to be a way to calculate the maximum amount traveled per gallon of gasoline cumbusted by looking at the maximum theoretical energy released by that process, and given a minimum reasonable drag/friction, and the requirement to initially get a minimum reasonable mass up to a speed reasonable to calculate the MPG.

I'm not particularly capable of determining the inputs, nor do I know the calculation to apply, but it'd be interesting to see what an ideal might be, to measure percent efficiency attained.

Re:Has anyone calculated...

[DrFalkyn]

Automobiles have to fight against wind drag and rolling friction, for which there are theoretical miniumums, so the minimum energy consuption is alot greater than zero even assuming no/little acceleration.

Re:Has anyone calculated...

[Robber Baron]

There's got to be a way to calculate the maximum amount traveled per gallon of gasoline cumbusted

Ummmm...this wouldn't have anything to do with your "handle" being "PornMaster", would it?

Re:Has anyone calculated...

[SlimFastForYou]

I wonder if it will ever be feasible to have variable-friction tires on conventional roads. Higher friction for when you want to accelerate/brake or when the road conditions are poor, and lower friction for cruising/turning the steering wheel. I know one major requirement this would have to overcome would be a fast response time when switching from low to high friction.

does it have a trunk?

[Tecknowolf]

I like the concept and all, but I want to see the rumor come true that an X-Prize contest be in creating a usable vehicle with superior gas mileage. I can't pick up a date or carry home groceries in those vehicles :)

Re:does it have a trunk?

[jcjones86]

You take your dates in the trunk of your car?

Re:speed? Results

[saskboy]

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.

Any Canadians shocked?

[cwalk]

I am not surprised that the top two teams were from Canada. Maybe it's just me, but when I think of fuel efficiency, I tend not to think of the US.

More teases today?

[Anonymous Coward]

First a CPU that can go 500 Ghz?
Then a car that can go 3145 MPG?
What's next, a lawyer for your hair?

I'll believe it when I'm driving down the road lying down and the computer's trying to kill me 2001 Kubrick style.

Scientists and reporters live in Cartoon World.

Re:More teases today?

[Dekortage]

What's next, a lawyer for your hair?

Well, if you can get your hair insured (a little more about it here) then there's a lawyer involved somewhere in the process... and don't forget to make deposits at the hair bank.

This is almost useless

[drgroove]

While an interesting study for academia, how does this help an automobile industry where the average car is a four door sedan? What technologies used in this exercise translate to real cars? Building the body out of light weight materials definitely cuts down on fuel usage, but is it impact resistant in a crash? If contests are going to be sponsored for improving fuel efficiency, they should be targeted towards the cars that most of us drive, not theoretical, completely impractical academic-mobiles that will have absolutely no use on the road.

Re:This is almost useless

[HeavensBlade23]

But theoretical science often *does* lead to science with more practical applications.

Re:This is almost useless

[kfg]

Building the body out of light weight materials definitely cuts down on fuel usage, but is it impact resistant in a crash?

Ever see film of an F1/Indy car hitting a wall at 200 mph and the driver walking away?

As it happens the light stuff is also the strong, safe stuff. Doesn't rust either.

Steel is used for economy of manufacturing ( it can be stamped to shape and robotically welded), not because it's the best material for the job.

KFG

Re:This is almost useless

[jmv]

Considering that a lot of people (not everyone of course) drive to work alone in their car, stuck in traffic at 20-40 km/h, you could imagine a sort of "lightweight commute vehicle" that could be useful. I guess it would be half-way between a car and a bicycle (yes, tons of people ride a bike to work, especially in Asia), close to a motor bike I guess.

Re:This is almost useless

[bobscealy]

After reading the article and the supermilage webpage I was unable to find any statement of thier intention to help the automobile industry. Its a competition dude, it doesnt have to have any relevance to the vehicles that Joe Average drives to work in.
You want to improve fuel efficiency in a four door car? Fit it with a much smaller motor, cam it to have a narrower power band and make sure you always drive in that power band. Give it a teardrop shape. Remove external mirrors, and place covers over the wheel wells. Fit narrow, low rolling resistance tyres. Cut down on internal features like a stereo, carpet, and unnescesary niceties. In the end you have a car that is great on fuel that about 10 people will buy. People are quite happy to sacrifice fuel economy for the features that they have become acustomed to.

Re:This is almost useless

[roman_mir]

how does this help an automobile industry where the average car is a four door sedan? - it doesn't. It's just a competition, no more useful than the world cup or the stanely cup, but less annoying.

Re:This is almost useless

[droopycom]

I remember Ayrton Sena.

They dont usually take a wall at 200MPH, they take the grass, the gravel, and the tires....

On the other hand, this thing is probably even less confortable than a F1

Re:This is almost useless

[idonthack]

But you have to actually start building prototypes for consumer models, instead of just making another lab car. The science does us no good if it is not applied in a real-world situation.

Re:This is almost useless

[x2A]

How does football help the industries that sponser it? Kicking some inflated rubber around on some grass doesn't improve mobile phone service.

It's a competition. Where your sense of spirit?

Re:This is almost useless

[kfg]

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

Re:This is almost useless

[19thNervousBreakdown]

I like motorbikel better.

Re:This is almost useless

[EaglemanBSA]

For a more fully-featured, impact-resistant design of such, check out this link - http://www.ent.ohiou.edu/~me470/SnrDesign05_06/me4 72/SrDProject_MainPageEPCT06.htm

a single-person transportation vehicle on reduced-petroleum-dependancy fuel methods...much less in terms of pure gas mileage, but if you poke around, you'll see they also withstood impact tests and were tested for city driving conditions (accelerations, etc.)...the vehicle on the far right had a final mpg of around 275-300 mpg.

Re:This is almost useless

[kfg]

If you hit a truck head on at 60 mph . . .

. . . your chances of survival are better in 100 pounds of carbon fiber than in 1000 pounds of steel (assuming both are properly designed).

In the steel car you will die not from the g forces, but because the passenger compartment deforms and crushes you. This ability of steel to plastically deform is what makes it an inexpensive material to make cars out of in the first place.

It helps if you've got a proper safety harness to hold you in place, not the crap they put in road cars. I hit a tree head on at 30 mph once upon a time and even with the belt done up as tight as I could the steering wheel put a dent in the brim of my hat (it had a wire bead). A HANS device would have saved me three days of not being able to lift my head off my pillow without using my hands, not that I'd actually recommend one for road use.

I used to have a friend who hit by a truck head on in a vehicle weighing only 240 lbs. He was only doing 20 but the truck was doing 90. Took him three days to die. If he'd had just 40 lbs. of carbon fiber around him he probably would have come out ok.

Of course if your hypothetical truck got hit head on by a train. . .so maybe we should all just drive trains. Its the arms race model of safety. You're welcome to it if it makes you feel more secure. I prefer safe materials and design myself.

Unless you're the biggest thing on the road there's always going to be something bigger than you and if the train hit a train station head on . . .well, you'd have a really good movie. Was that cool or what?!

KFG

Re:This is almost useless

[DerekLyons]

While an interesting study for academia, how does this help an automobile industry where the average car is a four door sedan? What technologies used in this exercise translate to real cars? Building the body out of light weight materials definitely cuts down on fuel usage, but is it impact resistant in a crash? If contests are going to be sponsored for improving fuel efficiency, they should be targeted towards the cars that most of us drive, not theoretical, completely impractical academic-mobiles that will have absolutely no use on the road.

But theoretical science often *does* lead to science with more practical applications.

If this [competition] was in fact 'theoretical science' - you have a point. But it's not.
 
[rant]
Every time an article like this is posted to slashdot, somebody asks what are the practical applications? And, invariably, a karma whore will drag out the tired old chestnut quoted above, knowing he'll get modded up. But sometimes, it's a valid question and deserves a real answer - not a chestnut.
[/rant]
 
This competition wasn't an experiment to see what can be done to raise gas mileage. From a scientific point of view, it's the equivalent of the guys who attach jet engines to their cars. It's cool and all - but it isn't research and it doesn't prove anything. The scientific method is all but uninvolved. The students took extremely well known and well proven principles and 'turned them up to 11'. The result, given the years this competition has taken place and years of concept cars, was utterly unsurprising. It's the high tech equivalent of mixing baking powder and vinegar together - it'll work every time.
 
The original poster is correct, this is an ivory tower exercise - not a practical one. The results of this competition tell us nothing that wasn't already known, and contributes zip point to the development of real world vehicles.

Re:This is almost useless

[evilviper]

While an interesting study for academia, how does this help an automobile industry where the average car is a four door sedan?

The same way the development of the atomic bomb helps your neighborhood supermarket.

If contests are going to be sponsored for improving fuel efficiency, they should be targeted towards the cars that most of us drive, not theoretical, completely impractical academic-mobiles that will have absolutely no use on the road.

Yeah. What's wrong with these university students pushing technological limits to see what is possible. They should be making mundane, practical, marketable designs. You know... like a COMPANY.

Re:This is almost useless

[Hittite Creosote]

Ayrton Senna's death wasn't due to the chassis, it was due to the front right tyre hitting senna on the head. The car was doing 193mph when it left the track, 135mph when it hit the wall. But if the tyre had missed him, he'd have been fine.

Re:This is almost useless

[surprise_audit]

Well, I'd say there is *some* practical use - it's now known that a vehicle capable of carrying a person can get 3000 MPG, albeit under very specific conditions. Granted that the specific conditions are virtually worthless in the real world, it has been achieved, and maybe, just maybe, *some* of the principals can be adapted to the real world to improve gas milage of a regular 4-door sedan.

Re:This is almost useless

[_DangerousDwarf]

Well lot's of them die too. Just about every year someone dies. And as other posters have pointed out, they dont usually have headlong collisions either. Of course the steel roll cages in the cars likely help too.

Re:This is almost useless

[sketchman]

Indeed. I've seen one slide on its rear spoiler about 20 feet, and the spoiler and the car and the driver were all fine.
Scratches, yes, but the shape of the car was not distorted much at all.
In contrast, many cars that are considered safe take one hit and are finished.
I think automakers should perhaps try worrying about the car as well as the driver in a crash. Because it seems that only the latter is thought of when crash testing. But, I guess that makes sense. More cars totalled = more cars purchased.

Re:This is almost useless

[wurp]

For colliding with a stationary object, the mass of your car is not important, as you've said.

I'd like to point out though that if you collide with something mobile, your mass determines how much the collision makes your velocity change versus their velocity. Massive objects can hit light objects and just bull on through, so passengers would be subjected to much less stress than passengers in the light object. In the massive vehicle, your velocity might change from 50 mph forward to 30 mph forward, whereas in the light vehicle it might change from moving 50 miles an hour forward to 30 miles an hour backward (an eighty mile per hour change in velocity).

That said, I hate SUVs and I think we should tax the crap out of them for the damage they do in increased pollution and risk to other people on the road.

Re:This is almost useless

[Beek]

It's simple physics... The car MUST absorb all of the impact in a crash. If it doesn't, then the passengers will take all of the impact. There's no way around it.

Re:This is almost useless

[mrgeometry]

Well, it seems to me that activities like this competition contribute a lot to education. Think of it like a science fair, say. The high school and college students who participated in teams in this race have surely learned a ton about building a vehicle, testing it, fuel efficiency, aerodynamics... not to mention plain old teamwork.

Sure, they're learning these things in a specialized context. Just like how homework problems in math or programming class are always very specific problems that never quite match up with how those disciplines are used in the "real world". Doing a few calculus problems doesn't make you a mathematician and taking part in one competition like this doesn't make you an automotive engineer. But it seems to me that activities like this would help a student a lot, both to learn things about the field, and to give encouragement...

So I've rambled on again. I guess my point is just that there can be a lot of value to an activity like this. Even if it doesn't lead to better cars, it will hopefully lead to better engineers.

Re:This is almost useless

[kfg]

Of course the steel roll cages in the cars likely help too.

I take it you've never seen one of those photographs of a skinny little fashion model holding up an F1 chassis? They weigh about 80 lbs. There is no steel roll cage. What purpose would it serve when the carbon honeycomb safety cell is a godzillion times stiffer, not to mention infinately more puncture resistant?

When F1s were made of steel tubing they crumpled like alumuminum foil when they hit something. Then they started making them out of aluminum foil! A few drivers a year were likely to die. After the introduction of carbon chassis F1 went 10 years without a single fatality and that fatality wasn't due to a safety cell failure (doing 137 mph at the time he actually hit the wall).

You only need those steel roll cages they put in saloons, because. . .the cars are made of steel.

I still ride a steel bicycle by choice. I only drive a steel car by necessity. Hell, wood is safer in a crash. In fact the combat aircraft most famous for being able to take a pounding and still bring you home was made out of wood.

KFG

Re:This is almost useless

[RexRhino]

You could get a 4 door sedan to be orders of magnitude more efficient, if you made the body out of plastic, fiberglass, with plexiglass windshields, gave it a hybrid engine, bike-like wheels and brakes, etc. Of course, such a thing would probably be illegal, as it wouldn't meet the safety standards. Not that it wouldn't be safe, because people drive bikes and motorcycles all the time - but it would not be "soccer mom" "think of the children" safe.

You see, we want super efficient cars - but we want to sue the car company for 100 million if the car can't withstand a 150MPH head-on collision from another car without exploding, even fifteen years after the car was build and is now a pile of rust, and the guy in the other card was driving drunk. Our enviornmental hysteria and product safety hysteria are mutually exclusive. It is the Ralph Nadar paradox!

Re:This is almost useless

[kfg]

The failure of carbon fiber is that when it fails it fails catastrophically. Like glass breaking. See the model posing for publicity photos standing on the front wing of a car, which failed.

The failure of steel is that it doesn't fail, but deforms and crushes you inside of it.

You are best off in an uncrushable carbon safety cell surrounded by energy absorbing structure that is optimized for energy absorbtion, not carrying structural load. A box wrapped in foam, or perhaps accordian steel.

KFG

Re:This is almost useless

[drgroove]

Of course it does. This research, however, won't. That's why I have a problem with it. It's almost entirely useless, save for being an interesting and perhaps thought-provoking experiment for the students and readers of the experiment. There aren't any larger take-aways for fuel efficiency in real, everyday use cars out of this.

Re:This is almost useless

[Suidae]

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. /i

The only time the typical American saloon seems to move anywhere is after a few too many pints. But then there typically is a lot of spinning and running into walls, so it is a little like racing.

Re:This is almost useless

[rcw-work]

In fact the combat aircraft most famous for being able to take a pounding and still bring you home was made out of wood.

Err, which plane?

Carbon fiber is extremely strong, but it is also stiff and brittle (and expensive). Fiberglass is also strong, but very, very flexible - Voyager's wingtips could have bent until they touched each other before breaking. Of course, in a crash, you want the structure ahead of you to break or crumple in a controlled manner (to increase the amount of time you decelerate) and not rebound.

Re:This is almost useless

[G00F]

With less mass involved there is less energy that must be absorbed in a crash.

last say we have two cars, both are just as strong and collapse the same.

Car A weighs 500 lbs
Car B weighs 2000 lbs

Both slams into a wall at 50 mph.

Which car and person will take more damage? The correct answer is Car B.

Now if car A and B collided, which person and car is safer? Well, Person B will be safer because they are only being stopped by a the energy of a 500lb car rather than a 2000lb, so they will continue on like a 1500lb car continuing to use up it's energy usually in the smaller car as well as other obstacles.

So, the big cars that weigh a lot is what will kill any little car no matter the safety ratings.

But in crashes against the environment, it is the little car that could be the winner.

Re:This is almost useless

[DerekLyons]

I have no doubt that it has educational value - I am merely adressing the OP's question of practical value.

Re:This is almost useless

[DerekLyons]

Well, I'd say there is *some* practical use - it's now known that a vehicle capable of carrying a person can get 3000 MPG, albeit under very specific conditions. Granted that the specific conditions are virtually worthless in the real world, it has been achieved, and maybe, just maybe, *some* of the principals can be adapted to the real world to improve gas milage of a regular 4-door sedan.

Maybe, just maybe you should have bothered to actually read and understand my message and/or TFA - because I adressed just that concern. Here is the relevant part: The students took extremely well known and well proven principles and 'turned them up to 11'. We are already building aerodynamic cars - and have been doing so since the 70's. We are already making cars lighter in weight - and have been doing so since the 70's. We are already improving the effiency of the engine - and have been doing so since the 70's. etc... etc...
 
In short - with the exception of the coasting technique (an artifact of the competition rules), we have 'adapting' and applying those principles for three decades.

Re:This is almost useless

[sketchman]

Indeed. But, could cars not be put together in such a way that they fall apart in a crash rather than crumple up? Then, they could just be put back together again.
For instance, a car made of Legos would be very hard to destroy, because the strength of the snap-together bonds is weaker than the strength of the blocks themselves. Don't call me an idiot yet. No, I'm not proposing a car made of Legos. But, surely the principle of a Lego car could work as well with carbon fiber or steel.

hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[pixelite]

At least they wouldn't be if the oil companies didn't havev their way.

1. Some folks at Shell Oil Co. wrote "Fuel Economy of the Gasoline Engine" (ISBN 0-470-99132-1); it was published by John Wiley & Sons, New York, in 1977. On page 42 Shell Oil quotes the President of General Motors, he, in 1929, predicted 80 MPG by 1939. Between pages 221 and 223 Shell writes of their achievements: 49.73 MPG around 1939; 149.95 MPG with a 1947 Studebaker in 1949; 244.35 MPG with a 1959 Fiat 600 in 1968; 376.59 MPG with a 1959 Opel in 1973. The Library of Congress (LOC), in September 1990, did not have a copy of this book. It was missing from the files. I bought my copy from Maryland Book Exchange around 1980 after a professor informed me that it was used as an engineering text at the University of West Virginia.]

VPI published a paper, March 1979, concerning maximum achievable fuel economy. This paper has several charts illustrating achievable and impossible fuel economy. About 1980 I contacted the author concerning conflicts between the paper and documented achieved "impossible" mpg. The author said, "I will get back to you.". I am still waiting for his response.

2. The book "Secrets of the 200 MPG Carburetor" is by Allan Wallace and was available, about 198(?), from Premier Distributing, 1775 Broadway, NY, NY, 10019. Page 18 has photocopies of three 1936 tests by the Ford Motor Co. (Canada) of the Pogue carburetor (U.S. Patent # 2,026,798). The worst case test achieved about 171 MP(US)G. I can not provide any other publishing information because the book is among the material stolen from me in 1986. My copy of page 18 is very poor.] (3/08/04. I am grateful to Lee Winslett for a copy of this book and the article from Colliers.)

Collier's magazine, in 1929, published an article "300 Miles to the gallon.

3. Argosy Magazine, August 1977, has a five-page article (Text copy here.) about Tom Ogle and the media witnessed test of the "Oglemobile". Tom Ogle, on that test run, achieved more than 100 MPG in a 4,600 pound 1970 Ford Galaxie. When I attempted to find a copy of that Argosy Magazine, it was missing from LOC files in 1980. Argosy ceased publication, I was informed, a short time after the Ogle article was published. I could not find a copy of that Argosy issue at any library within 200 miles of my home. An Editor at the company that purchased Argosy found and mailed a copy to me. While attempting to verify statements in the article, I spoke with Doug Lenzini (SP?) with the EL Paso Times. Mr. Lenzini informed me that he knew Tom Ogle, and the Oglemobile achieved more than 200 MPG. When I contacted the El Paso NBC affiliate that filmed the test run described in the Argosy article, I was informed that the person who had filmed the test had left the station and taken all the records with him.]

A. The Ogle U.S. Patent, #4,177,779, has this statement "I have been able to obtain extremely high gas mileages with the system of the present invention installed on a V-8 engine of a conventional 1971 American made automobile. In fact, mileage rates in excess of one hundred miles per gallon have been achieved with the present invention." According to the Argosy article, a Shell Oil Co. representative asked Ogle what he would do if someone offered him $25 Million for the system. Ogle responded "I would not be interested" He later said, "I've always wanted to be rich, and I suspect I will be when this system gets into distribution. But I'm not going to have my system bought up and put on the shelf. I'm going to see this thing through--that I promise." According to an article in The Washington Post Parade Magazine, March 4, 1984, Tom Ogle died of a drug and alcohol overdose in 1981. Other articles concerning Tom Ogle can be found in the El Paso Journal, January 16, 1980, and also, The Hamilton Spectator, June 24, 1978.

B. The Oglemobile, in simplification, ran on fumes extracted from a heated tank in the trunk (See the Ogle patent.) A very simple method of extracting gasoline fumes is described in a

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Planesdragon]

At least they wouldn't be if the oil companies didn't havev their way.

Wow, I didn't think that people trolled journals.

Just in case you're missing the point, though -- there have been several points in the past century where, if it was possible just to achieve a two-fold increase in fuel economy without significant sacrafice (let alone the ten-fold of the magic carb.), it would have been done. One of those points is today.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

you're name isn't Fox Mulder is it?

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[MrSquirrel]

BMW was/is working on a system that captures the heat and uses it for steam power -- http://www.popsci.com/popsci/automotivetech/163cf5 1b6fd89010vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[mrcaseyj]

It's relatively easy to determine the aerodynamic drag on any particular vehicle. The energy content of gasoline is also well known and doesn't change much if it is a vapor or a liquid. The only thing that could possibly be covered up is the chemical to mechanical energy conversion efficiency of these super mileage engines or carburetors. Most of these mileage claims probably exceed 100% efficiency and are thus dismissed as scams or mistakes or such. There are plenty of people trying to sell magnets and other useless gadgets to increase gas mileage. Of course it may be possible to get a V8 or other car to go 100mi/gal under special circumstances like 15mi/hr speed to minimize drag, constant speed to save energy accelerating, no hills, etc.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[regular_gonzalez]

Plus, Big Oil killed Kennedy -- HL Hunt was the gunman on the grassy knoll. True story.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[mrcaseyj]

Let me explain my message above a little more.

It doesn't matter much if your carburetor burns fumes because the fumes are just molecules of gasoline. There are only a certain number of molecules of gasoline in a gallon. Each molecule of gas releases a certain amount of energy when it is burned whether it's in fumes or liquid. Thus running on fumes doesn't make your gallon of gas last any longer if you want to get the same power out. Actually vaporizing the gas into fumes does increase its energy content slightly, but not much. It may allow the fuel to be burned a little more completely, but again, regular engines do pretty well already.

There are several ways to know that our engines haven't been detuned. One is to put a car on a dynonometer and measure it's power output and fuel consumption at the same time. Another is to determine the aerodynamic drag and rolling resistance, and use that along with the gas mileage to determine the efficiency. Aeronautical engineers do extensive calculations and tests to extract efficiency from their aircraft. They would surely know if their engines weren't doing their best or car engines were doing much less than aircraft engines.

Car engines convert gasoline energy to crankshaft energy with something like 25% efficiency. That only leaves about a possible four fold increase in gas mileage even if these carburetors and engines could achieve 100% efficiency. Not that four times better gas mileage wouldn't be great, but any claim of a larger increase based only on engine or carburetor improvements is immediately suspect. What's more, the laws of thermodynamics limit piston engines to much less than 100% efficiency.

Many of the above super mileage claims are probably scams. Some are mistakes. Some are misinterpretations or misquotes. Many are probably impractical circumstances like ultra light, ultra low drag, low power vehicles under constant, low speed, flat ground conditions.

There are too many engineers that could and would EASILY expose a cover up if one existed. Not just a few engineers like have been cited above but LOTS of them. In fact most engineers could easily uncover such a conspiracy. Every town would have multiple engineers that could and would uncover such a conspiracy. So what's a better explanation for these ultra mileage claims? That they are impractical, mistakes, scams, and such, or most of the engineers in the world have been duped by the oil companies? There are plenty of real conspiracies in the world. This one is pretty easy to dismiss.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Massive146]

I don't believe that an economy increase of 800% can be obtained by just changing the carborator. All other things constant, I assume there would be a linear relationship between engine efficiency and fuel economy. If an engine is already 30% efficient, to increase the economy from 20mpg to 160mpg (worse than the worst case test) would require an engine efficiency of 240%. Also, I would like to see how the tests are run. At what speed, what kind of terrain etc.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[NuShrike]

You forgot Tesla's electric car that ran on either broadcast power or power from the air/Earth with technology similiar to Moray's. It seems much of Tesla's paperwork was seized by the Office of Alien Property immediately after Tesla's death (even though Tesla was a US citizen), and it's unknown how much of his paperwork "disappeared" even though "much" of it was returned to his nephew.

Also, was the VTEC-E mpg based on the Japanese or American cycle? We're going to see some car coming from Japan in a few years that'll be close to 100MPG, but that's on the Japanese cycle where their highways are closer to 30mph than our 65mph. So, that 100MPG engine would translate to something like 65MPG here in the States.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[jimicus]

UK spec petrol engined cars routinely achieve 40-50 MPG at 55mph - but remember that's imperial gallons, not US gallons. (1 imperial gallon is about 1.2 US gallons). Don't know about the US, but a typical UK car will have an engine somewhere between 1.3 and 1.8l and weigh between 1-1.3 tons. Diesel engined cars generally achieve somewhat better mileage, but tend to be noisier, slower, more expensive to buy and maintain and generate more emissions (though a lot of those problems are alleviated in the most modern diesel engines).

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[David Off]

> In 2003 another English newspaper tested a 75-mpg Toyota diesel.

That is probably the Yaris. I have one and it does go a long long way. It is also pretty fast with a top speed of 110 mph and good handling.

I generally fill up around once a month, which is nice with diesek prices in France around 1.1 euros per liter (close to $7/gallon - gas/petrol costs more). I generally get around 550 miles on a seven point five gallon tank... most driving on country roads with some motorway driving to 80 mph. Journeys usually around 30-50 miles. If I drove a bit more frugally I could probably get over 100 mpg. I do very few short journeys though - generally walk or take my bicycle.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Ancient_Hacker]

Let's look at a few facts:

• During WW2, the British protected their island with various fighter planes, many powered by an internal-combustion engine called "the Merlin". (Incidentally, it wasnt named after the magician).
• The Merlin engine had been under intensive development for several years, eventually, due to improvements in carburation, supercharging, and internal strength, going from under 1,000 HP to over 2000 HP.
• But it's specific fuel consumption didnt improve much if at all.
• Now it's hard to imagine a strong enough conspiracy, when your nation is on the verge of being overrun by the Huns, to still hold down improvements in engine economy and efficiency.
• Same thing happened later on to the US. Our bombers had to go over Germany without fighter escoerts, because the P-51 fighter planes, also powered by Merlins, did not have the range to stay with the bombers all the way to Germany and back.
• Lots of bombers were shot down over Germany, lkosing ten US airmen per plane.
• Much later, drop tanks were developed to increase their range. Note they didnt just tune up the engines, instead it took over a year to develop the drop thanks, pipes, pumps latches, and stability tests to increase the P-51's range.

Same thing could be said of Israeli tanks and planes. They were attacked many times, and they didnt drag out the 200MPG carburetors either.

So let's just retire the 200MPG stories, okay?

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Anonymous Coward]

You're absolutely wrong and playing into their hands. Few know the true truth, and I am one of them - the Knight's Templar guard the dangerous secret of the 200mpg carb. (as well as the 300mpg fuel-injection system). I suspect this post will disappear shortly.

I've had the same captcha thingy like 2 or 3 times this last few hours.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[ImWithBrilliant]

You've got enough documentation to build these inventions. Prove they work rather than whining about cover ups. You'd make a mint off selling portable power sources.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Solder Fumes]

Regarding engines that "burn water" by performing electrolysis on demand: anyone who believes this would work is severely lacking in basic scientific knowledge and moreover is mentally retarded. When you combine oxygen and hydrogen, you get water and energy. When you split water into oxygen and hydrogen, you expend energy. The energy amount is the same, not counting losses in your electrolysis machine and combustion engine, which will be significant.

An engine that was self-sustaining on water would be a perpetual motion machine just by running itself, let alone producing over-unity energy.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[Icculus]

Just pointing out that it's close to $7/gallon in the same way that 5.3 is close to 7 (your estimate is ~32% too high)

1 Imperial Gal = 4.55 L

1 US Gal = 3.79 L

EUR1.00 = USD1.26

@EUR1.1 / L

1 US Gal = USD5.25

1 Imp Gal = USD6.31

So, yes, too high in both cases, but a bit closer using the imperial gal measure. I'm pretty sure the OP didn't bust out the calculator or check the exchange rates.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[mythogen]

A well tuned carburetor is just as good as fuel injection.

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[CokeBear]

Now all we need is a system that captures the hot air expelled on Slashdot, and we could achieve energy independence!

Re:hige mileage vehicles are not impossible

[David Off]

thanks for the corrections... all the calculations were in English gallons so obviously you need to factor them down a wee bit for the US etc.

Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at all!

[rufusdufus]

This vehicle looks just as unrealistic as the solar cars they race in Australia, the main difference being that the Solar cars use no fuel at all! Whats the point? This stuff will never be used on a massive scale.

Its time these challenges insert ergonomic requirements into their competitions. Start with requiring the cabin to have a certain size, with reasonble seats,leg room, and storage. In this way they can start tackling the real issues with fuel consumption.

Ok, before you sticklers pounce on this guy...

[Dystopian Rebel]

Labodomy - having one's lips ripped off by Tie Domi (Toronto Maple Leafs)

Frontal - from the front

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[eclectro]

..but does it come in SUV?

No, but it does come with a full aerodynamic body condom.

Sounds scary

[Shippy]

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).

Re:Sounds scary

[Moocowsia]

Thats not the point of this at all. It's like denouncing the engineering talent that went into a F1 car, for not having enough cargo capacity to fit your vacationing gear.

I've seen this car in person, and it barely comes up past your knees, and looking at it you wonder how the hell someone fit in it at all, not how durable it is in a crash. If you wanted safer maybe take a look at the rollcage on the UBC FSAE ca, but at less than 40kph it would be kind of pointless.

Re:Sounds scary

[Shippy]

It's like denouncing the engineering talent that went into a F1 car, for not having enough cargo capacity to fit your vacationing gear. No it's not. I never said it was the point of that car, but if you're going to have any sort of motor vehicle, you don't want it to be likely that you'll die in a collision. This includes F1 vehicles as well.

Re:Sounds scary

[bobscealy]

There are a few F1 teams out there that might disagree with your super light = flimsy.

Re:Sounds scary

[reub2000]

Kind of pointless to hold such a competition if it doesn't produce a usable vehicle.

Yeah Right

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Yeah Right

[samwhchan]

There actually is a weight requirement. If the driver is too light, then the vehicle is ballasted. As for not being allowed to coast, I think the whole idea is to achieve a high fuel efficiency. If you can take advantage of momentum and gravity, why wouldn't you? People don't tend to step on the gas if there's a red light straight ahead, or if they're going downhill. Also, hybrids cut their engines when they're fully stopped to reduce fuel usage.

If only I could visualise it...

[veg_all]

equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 liters) of gas...

Ah! Now it's clear as day.

Halifax is in Texas, right?

Re:If only I could visualise it...

[Epeeist]

Actually no, it is actually in West Yorkshire here in the UK.

This is a big deal

[Baldrson]

Fair contests like this really separate the performers from the bullshitters. Its why you basically have to drag the government kicking and screaming to fund fair contests like this by embarrassing the hell out of them with stuff like the X-Prize.

When you look at the race results a few things stand out:

1. The winning entry beat the first runner up by a whopping 72%.
2. The only "big name" university represented in the 22 entrants (all listed in the results) is UC Berkeley and they were seventh place.
3. The only university outside of North America came in 18th place, and IIT, the darling of mainstream media like CBS "60 Minutes" didn't even compete (not that Caltech, MIT or CMU are any better for not having entered). Even so, congratulations to Dehli College of Engineering for competing.
4. The winning high school team from Evansville, Indiana, had the second best mileage out of all contenders including the universities.

Re:This is a big deal

[1iar_parad0x]

Here's, what stands out in my mind when I see competitions like this:

1. Effort. Effort is everything. Do you think MEs at MIT, Caltech, or CMU are inferior? The reality is that efficent gas mileage is a solvable problem. Our dependence of foriegn oil is a solvable problem. If some HS students from Indiana can come up with solutions so could the US gov't.

2. Ivy league (or the nerd ivy league) schools are more hype than people want to admit. Good engineers learn by doing. I wish they had more of these competitions. Given the opportunity more students could excel.

3. Frankly, we need an energy crisis. That's probably the only way anything is going to get solved. Unless somethings on fire, we tend to ignore it.

4. The results of the competitions are skewed. The best students at West Idaho State don't have the same internship or research opportunities that the students at MIT have. So naturally, the best students want to do something. They end up taking the competition more seriously. Which would you rather do, an internship at Ford or NASA or compete in a gas mileage contest?

Re:This is a big deal

[Myopic]

as a libertarian, i see things differently than you.

me, i see the X Prize as the perfect example of why government need not bother sponsoring these private competitions. it seems to me that the X Prize went along just fine without any tax money (actually, i don't know, maybe there were taxes involved). i'm not so strictly libertarian, so i don't think there is anything wrong with reasonable governmental incentives for private innovation, but i also certainly don't think there is anything wrong with *not* having governmental incentives.

Re:This is a big deal

[Baldrson]

Do you see anything wrong with the government not financing prizes for fair contests when it is financing cost-plus technology development contracts for decades on end for a permanent bureaucracy dedicated to not producing a solution to the fusion or orbital launch cost problem lest they lose their stream of funding?

Re:This is a big deal

[zCyl]

but of course there are no explainations to be found for the difference.

Maybe the driver inhaled while going downhill? :)

They do list "conservative driving habits" as a key improvement...

Re:This is a big deal

[kria]

Rose-Hulman is a decent size name, in private engineering college circles. I know, I went there. :)

Anyway, I'm assuming that 0 means that they submitted a design, but didn't compete. I went to their website to try to dig up if that was the case, and found that they may have been focused on Project X, where they are working on a biodiesal powered SUV. Rose is a small school (my class had 450, roughly, in its freshman year), so I suspect they have problems supporting more than one car based project. I know they used to have a very successful solar car team, but they haven't done anything in a while.

Ah-ha. I found Another Article, which suggests they had engine problems (and probably didn't finish). Ah well, maybe next year.

Re:This is a big deal

[Myopic]

Yes. I'd do away with them both.

Why do you ask? are you unable to separate those issues?

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[Firehed]

Hm... I'd have thought it was a piece of rope tied to an oversized skateboard. There's a one-gallon gas tank strapped to it solely for the purpose of being able to give it an MPG rating. By the looks of it, doing that will give you more control than what was designed, as you can at least ask the driver where you're headed first. I don't know how many of you have tried to drive looking out only the sunroof, but my gut reaction tells me that it's fairly tough. Though, I don't know how accurate of a description full-body condom is, seeing that you rarely see objects that look more accident-prone.

Re:Liters?

[satcomdaddy1]

Quite frankly, I'm a bit confused m'self. The LITER is the smallest unit of measurement? Here I was thinking it was the molec.....molecu....ato.....phot.......much smaller than that!
My highly advanced math skillz tell me that to reference it to the whole liter, it would be somevhere in the neighborhood of 1351.35Km/L, unless my math is way off, or I jumped the decimal.

Re:This just in

[8ball629]

Better yet, ride a Flybar.

Re:This just in

[chriscoolc]

How does a comment like this get bumped up to a 3? Sheesh.

$60 in 2006 dollars is less money than $60 in any previous year since the 70's, so even if you regard your '73 ride as equivalent to your Jaaaaaaagwiiiire, you're still way ahead.

Re:This just in

[Anonymous Coward]

You could try trading in your Jaguar for something vaguely fuel efficient, like a Ford Escort. You know, just a thought...

Re:speed? Results

[saskboy]

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.

Re:speed? Results

[MasaMuneCyrus]

Ivy Tech? What the heck? I live in Indiana, and Ivy Tech is a low-budget state college. Where are all of the Purdue and IUPUI physicists and engineers?

UBC website

[O_at_TT]

UBC Supermileage website

Apparently the driver lies on his back. The vehicle is version 4.0, so to speak. They built on past experiences and consistently improved their designs, year after year. That's key to winning IMO.

-Oliver / TreasureTunes.com

It's as if. . .

[ParanoidJanitor]

. . .a million top oil execuitives cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

Re:Snopes.com

[Maxo-Texas]

Not a direct hit but close enough.

http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.as p

There are too many automobile companies.

There are too many motorcycle companies.

There are too many lawnmower companies.

There are too many gasoline engine makers... in the world... for your story to be credible.

In addition, I offer other anti-super fuel efficiency arguments:

Is it plausable that this technology was supressed during World War II, when the outcome of major battles depended on gasoline more than once and there was massive rationing in the states (ration coupons for gasoline, etc.)

Is it plausible that perhaps companies composing a fraction of 1% of the economy could suppress this information from the rest of the economy which would make so much money off it (every major trucking company, every taxi company, every delivery company, etc.).

I think the other companies have too much to looossee* for them to let such an invention be supressed.

---
* I have given up trying to oppose the increasingly popular misuse of "loose" as "lose" so now I will join with them.. but of course I am way behind on having the proper number of extra letters by the new contemporary spelling of loooose so I'll be putting in even more extra o's to catch up.

Re:speed? Results

[MasaMuneCyrus]

And my state I mean community. :-P

Re: Picture in article

[Deal-a-Neil]

Wait a second, is that Fabio doing an Eminem casual crotch grab for the camera? Aw hell, congratulations anyway. Time to actually read the article. :-)

Why?

[StarKruzr]

What was the benefit of having a maximum speed?

Re:Why?

[x2A]

they don't have to buy a more accurate stop-watch :-p

Re:Why?

[nacturation]

What was the benefit of having a maximum speed?

Probably to simulate average city driving. By having both a min and a max, this also ensures that the engine will likely have to work for most of that time. What's interesting is that it's an average maximum speed over six laps. An enterprising team (UBC?) will take advantage of that and accelerate at the most fuel efficient rate possible until it reaches the speed such that coasting the rest of the way will average out to the maximum speed. Of course, I'm assuming that this is the most efficient method... YMMV.

Re:Why?

[Alien Being]

so the driver would live to talk about the ride.

Re:Why?

[19thNervousBreakdown]

Probably not. Unless the engine has some strange quirk that makes it more efficient to have a certain volume of air/fuel put through it that's above what it would take to maintain a constant speed. Even then, the efficency would have to be greater than the increased inertia and friction.

Re:Why?

[Spoke]

My guess would be safety. I wouldn't want to crash going very fast in those things.

This is a simple matter..

[dino213b]

..of power to weight ratios. A bigger vehicle with a small engine will not be as efficient as with a mid-size engine. On the other hand, same small engine will be more efficient in a smaller vehicle. If you follow that trend to a vehicle size of a skateboard, you get some "incredible efficiencies," but they are unrealistic as they cannot be applied to a modern day concept of vehicles. Having said that, it's important to recognize that there are better and worse engine designs out there; it is not just a simple matter of weight and power ratios when it comes to the consumer.

This headline is wishful thinking. I suddenly got reminded of the "500 ghz chip" news story from earlier this week. Most people started drooling over that headline thinking a new CPU speed barrier has been reached, when in actuality the speed referred to a single switching transistor running at ridiculously controlled conditions.

Of course, the 100 mile per gallon carb lives in every last romantic one of us.

Re:This is a simple matter..

[paco3791]

You had me up to "weight ratios" but when you didn't follow up with the obligatory coconuts and swallows... you just lost me.

3000 MPG

[Arthur B.]

That's one good pron collection!

Re:Liters?

[raoul666]

How do you get a fraction of a liter?

We use these crazy things called "milliliters". It's really quite simple.

Re:speed? Results

[B3ryllium]

Way to bring it back on topic :)

For myself, one of these UBC cars would get me *almost* a round trip to Rockglen ... maybe about 200km short on the return trip. That's only according to google maps, though, which is notoriously unreliable for me. Heh. :) 1 day, 11 hours of driving, apparently.

Web site of the winning team

[dellsworth]

I was curious how the winning team won, so I went to their web site: http://www.mech.ubc.ca/~supermileage/.

From their FAQ:

Q: What changes did you make to the 2006 vehicle to yield such large increases to your mileage this year?

A: We keep our vehicle as spartan as possible, with only the bare essentials to keep the vehicle lightweight. Aerodynamics, rolling resistance, driving technique and engine performance are always being revisited and continuously improved.

This year's most significant advances were most likely made in the execution of the design that we had intended for last year's vehicle. Everything in the vehicle was tuned and design with fuel efficiency in mind.

Not much there. Digging some more, their tech specs say their engine displaced 54 cc. However, the original engine displaced 148 cc. (See the engine manual.) Obviously, they made some modifications.

Re:This just in

[1stpreacher]

Yeah, so instead of enjoying your trip to work, you can be pissed off like everyone else because you hate your car... Come on... Help out, would you?

Re:Snopes.com

[Lije Baley]

Don't give up the fight yet! Don't become just another looser!

Beggin' for punishment..

[RoadWarriorX]

at engineers at UBC have developed a single occupancy vehicle that achieves a ridiculous 3145 MPG!

This is just beggin' for a bunch of punchlines:

1. "This car may not get any chicks, but hey, at least someone will have one heck of a solitary road trip!"
2. "The good news, we can get great mileage; the bad news, we look like we are driving a giant dildo. Who's driving this thing? Is it the Ambiguously Gay Duo?"
3. "The car get 3145 MPG, but goes only 5 MPH. At this rate, my grandma get better mileage."
4. "The competition called for conservative driving habits, I'd be disqualified. I won't give up my cell phone, blasting the radio and sipping my grande non-dairy double-latte."
5. "I heard that this car had a 54 CC engine. Nothing say cool like pushing your hunk of junk up that hill."

Re:Beggin' for punishment..

[Shinglor]

Clearly you're unfamiliar with the concept of a punch line.

Easy with a 77 pound car

[TRRosen]

Hey I have servers that weigh more than that.

More useful than a Segway?

[EmbeddedJanitor]

Goes faster anyway. I'm sure a 1000mpg version could carry two people and a bag of take out food.

Re:Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at al

[mrraven]

You mean something like this V.W. that uses .89 liters to go a hundred kilometers. For U.S.ians that's 235 miles per gallon for a non hybrid diesel that is legally drivable, not too bad.

http://www.ultimatecarpage.com/frame.php?file=car. php&carnum=1316

Re:Liters?

[brian0918]

*Whoosh*

That is the sound of a joke going over your head.

Is that with the air conditioning running?

[rkinch]

By my calculations the fuel consumed equals gobbling a cylindrical thread of fuel 0.6 thousandths of an inch in diameter, about 1/5 that of a human hair.

Re:Some of the rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Great! So my lawnmower can get 3000mpg. While better efficiency is always a laudable goal, I think that representing this story as being about car fuel economy is misleading in the extreme.

I'm just not sure I get how any of this will be useful. I'm sure they learned things about aerodynamics and so on, but they are so far away from an actual car that I doubt much or any of it will actually translate. As a reference point, my car has over 95 times as much power (at 4300 more revs). With the added increase in power and top speed, the car needs to be designed completely differently. A low-power lightweight vehicle wants to minimize downforce, since downforce increases drag and saps power; but at speed you need it to keep from taking flight. You also need bigger brakes and, to keep the brakes from failing due to heat, aerodynamic work to keep air flowing over them. Plus, a bigger, more powerful engine produces more waste heat, usually enough that, despite 34 years of engineering, you need a radiator.

I guess the real answer is in the link you gave: "students." This is an opportunity for newbie engineers to get some firsthand experience in a competition. So while cool, and definitely for nerds, I don't think it meets the "news" criterion.

Good Point

[SirSlud]

I was thinking the same thing the other day as I was driving my SUV ...

"Jesus, what the hell am I driving? What if I collided with a building?"

Suffice to say, my new car is 6 stories high and covered in concrete.

Re:Good Point

[Colonel Angus]

It's not often that I find myself literally laughing out loud while reading Slashdot, but that did it. Glad the mods rewarded it rightly.

Re:Good Point

[Control Group]

If I had mod points right now, yours would be the first +1 funny I'd ever handed out. I can't remember the last time something on /. had me literally laughing out loud.

Re:Although

[gbobeck]

"I'd rather have a full bottle in front of me than a full frontal labotomy. " -Fred Allen

Re:speed? Results

[stfvon007]

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.

Re:Liters?

[nacturation]

How do you get a fraction of a liter? Do you chop it up into little inch-sized pieces

Assuming you're not just being retarded, that's actually close. A litre is 10cm x 10cm x 10cm of water (at a certain temperature, whatever). So that's 1000 cubic cm. A millilitre is therefore 1 cubic cm. The real question is how you stack those 1000 cubes to put it back together!

Everyone is concerned about the crash rating?

[howajo]

I can say in all sincerity that I support MORE dangerous vehicles. We have, for the most part, eliminated the healthy and positive phenomenon of natural selection. I think that there SHOULD be a significant penalty for commiting stupid acts.

With that in mind, I suggest that this ultralight vehicle be produced, but instead of a tiny 54cc engine, it should have about 500 hp. Also, it should have a bitchin' loud sound system, and old school bag phone, no seatbelt, and a shelf to hold your #5 combo. Maybe a coozy for your beer too.

Re:Everyone is concerned about the crash rating?

[maxume]

Mo-tor-cy-cle. Your dream already exists. As Big Ben Rothlesburger demonstrated, when attacking a much larger car, lead with your face.

Re:Everyone is concerned about the crash rating?

[howajo]

You Betcha.

2001 Kawasaki Concours

Sadly, only 108 HP, :-(

Oh well, after college.

If everyone rode motorcycles, there'd be a lot less dumb ones (and smart ones probably).

More like 10-15% efficient

[Newer Guy]

85-90% goes out as heat or noise...

Re:More like 10-15% efficient

[Massive146]

No. About 20% of the energy is lost through the cooling system, 20% radiates off the engine, and 30% of the energy leaves the motor with the exhaust. And the other 30% is transmitted through the drive shaft. The efficiency of the whole drive train may be 10-15% efficient, but the motor efficiency is closer to 30-40%. I just took all these measurements on a turbocharged Audi engine a couple of weeks ago.

Re:Liters?

[brian0918]

Note to self: only make jokes on /. that are blindingly obvious, or face immediate death by moderation.

Re:speed? Results

[popeguilty]

As someone who's done time at both Ivy Tech and BSU, I am also shocked at this- I got the impression my classmates were barely capable of melting butter on a hot day.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[Bob_Geldof]

Sure it does! As a Single User Vehicle.

Re: UBC Engineers Reach Mileage Of Over 3000 MPG

[Anonymous Coward]

> a ridiculous 3145 MPG!

That's ridiculous indeed, as the world record is held by the Microjoule team with 10,705 miles per gallon...

Re:Although

[CosmeticLobotamy]

Yay, I'm not the only one who can't spell that word!

Out of touch

[mgeneral]

I have to say that this type of competition is really out-of-touch with reality. Every year we see these ridiculous efforts put into creating a vehicle that has so little value to a mass audience. This *thing* they created has such little value to the practical day-to-day person. Now, before I get slammed on this...I will agree with those who claim that you have to support cutting edge research that eventually filters down to the consumer product...but...year-after-year, these sorts of gimmiky challenges are put on, and so seldom do you see *challenges* that have a more practical, obtainable, goal that would make a real difference. I, for one, would rather see challenges that match real world conditions...how about requisites of: A 4 passanger vehicle with cruising speeds of 65-75 mph. Look at the darpa challenge to create an autonomous vehicle that can travel 300+ miles off-road. Great idea...sure, the first year was a complete failure...but eventualy it will get better and someone will achieve the results. This article, or challenge seems focused on the same stuff we've been doing for years, except only slightly better. For 20 or more years I have been hearing about these challenges to make solar cars, or ultra-high-efficiency vehicles...and its been done...over and over again. Sure, every year they get better, but look at what they've built...something that no one could use in the short run. I drive a honda hybrid...its better than a non-hybrid...but still...far from being what I expect our technology today to support. I get 45mpg...but by now, shouldn't we have consumer oriented, practical vehicles that easily achieve 60-80mpg or more??? 20 years ago, there were german diesels that were getting better than 50mpg. Isn't this just another pissing match? Where is the real innovation that will ultimately filter down to you and I? I already know that if I make a car for a single passenger with a high efficiency, aerodynamic design, it will get great mileage...who cares now...show my something better...show me something practical. Stop wasting time on something thats been proven before...lets focus on more practical gains.

Re:Out of touch

[Hittite Creosote]

Actually, I'd say you've missed the point of the exercise. Look at who's entering - not professors, not top researchers - students. It's an exercise to train them, not the technology. The end product of this isn't the car, it's the experience and training for the people.

Shell Eco Challenge in Europe

[Terje Mathisen]

A similar competition was recently held in Europe, contested by student teams:

http://www.shell.com/home/Framework?siteId=eco-mar athon-en

The winning entry ran on biofuel (Ethanol) and achieved 2885 km/liter, which should correspond to about 6800 miles/gallon:

(Warning: PDF file)
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_press/Nogaro%20May%202006/press_release_se m_210506.pdf

Terje

Re:Shell Eco Challenge in Europe

[maeddi]

As always, we can do better ;-)
Shell Eco-marathon teams from across Europe continue to chase Swiss record (PDF)
However, the vehicle used a fuel cell. Several friends of mine were in the project team and a lot of money went into that project.

Re:Shell Eco Challenge in Europe

[Anonymous Coward]

The winning entry ran on biofuel (Ethanol) and achieved 2885 km/liter, which should correspond to about 6800 miles/gallon

Will America never end its love affair with their 3000 mpg gas-guzzlers?

Fun with SI units

[pesc]

Any nerd knows that fuel consumption is measured in square meters (m2 with the 2 superscripted).

You have 0.074 liters/100 km which is:

0.074dm3 / 100km = 0.000074m3 / 100000m = 0.00000000074m2 = 0.74mm2

So the correct unit is 0.74 square millimeters!

If you imagine a 100 km long pipe filled with 0.074 liters, the area of the cross section would be 0.74 square millimeters. ;-)

Re:Fun with SI units

[pesc]

And a nerd would check his calculations before posting: :-(

0.074dm3 / 100km = 0.000074m3 / 100000m = 0.00000000074m2 = 740um2

Re:Snopes.com

[Anonymous Coward]

Surpressed during World War II? If developed by Americans and after a certain point in time during the war, hell yes! Fuel was a problem for everyone, but only Jerry was running out to the point of leaving armored divisions laying about in the streets. Small group of people know about magic fuel device (MFD) = contained. The press knowing about MFD = Jerry knows, figures it out quickly (German scientists weren't stupid, y'know), suddenly there's a nice big armored problem in Europe.

Now, in terms of a small fraction of the economy keeping it under wraps these days, I'll believe pretty much anything at this point. There's no end to what you can do when you buy the right senators. There's no end to what you can hide when people dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory. (Thanks conspiracy theorists!) And there's no end to the not-giving-a-shit of the average American.

I'd consider it possible. I'd also consider it unlikely, however - magic fuel devices are here today. The problem is, nobody wants to drive 3000 miles at 15 miles per hour. :p

Re:Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at al

[Deliveranc3]

Screw that, 300 MPH and an IV that knocks you out.

People have no right to consciousness :P

Most driving is single driver no passengers, stick em in a tube knock em out and wake them when they get there.

Before you sticklers pounce on THIS guy...

[douglips]

Yes, it really is "Leafs".

'Official' response

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear esteemed /.'ers

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 /. ...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.
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 /. but we're honoured. Keep the discussion (criticism) flowing.

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 :P Ah well.

Re:'Official' response

[ispeters]

Safety and practicallity: ...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....

I remembered hearing about that when it happened. Something about wind knocking the car across a divided highway. Here's a link to the CTV version of the story: Solar car goes out of control; driver killed. Also, Google search that actually returns some results.

Ian

Re:'Official' response

[ArtStone]

Was any consideration given to using an optic system so the driver would not have to tilt their head up to steer? Not only should it reduce wind resistance, it would be a lot more comfortable for the driver...

The Patently improbable

[robbak]

This guy has the common misconception that having a US patent is evidence that your invention actually works. Or even exists.

A US patent simply means that you were able to confuse an undertrained patents clerk.

Re:The Patently improbable

[booch]

More importantly, a patent only protects the idea for 20 years. So if it were true, the patent would have expired, and plenty of companies would be able to implement it. (Yes, there's the issue of trade secrets required to make it work optimally, but the patent should be enough to get most of the efficiency, if it truly is earth-shattering.)

Re:speed? Results

[TubeSteak]

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.

In Europe all vehicles are fuel efficient

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[KeyboardMonkey]

Yes. In fact the summary should read 3145 Metres Per Gallon.

Shell Oils Fuel Economy Race

[jd]

There are fuel economy races all over Europe, Silverstone motor racing circuit being used for the British race in the series. These used to require petrol (gasoline to Americans) engines only, but in the last few years, this could be supplemented by other energy sources (but not human power). When I was still in 6th form, the winner had managed 6,500 mpg. The last race prior to introducing alternative energy saw an amazing 9,998 mpg. The races after that, to me, aren't nearly as interesting as it is impossible to distinguish on the numbers alone an improvement in design (of car or engine) from a really good, sunny day.

For the UBC to be at a paltry third of the efficiency of European cars is not terribly impressive in itself, unless the burdens placed by the rules are substantially more severe.

On a side-note, it occured to me some time back that very often, students living in a University city need something a little more solid than a bicycle and a lot cheaper to maintain than a full car. These vehicles would sorta fit into this category. The idea I have is for nearly-disposable cars, where it has sufficient fuel and oil to last a year or more of typical student usage. The student rents it for an academic year for next to nothing, needs to perform zero maintenance for the whole time, and then returns it. This eliminates any fuel price issues, the risk of running out of fuel when going to lectures or dates, etc.

Minis filled this role OK, but they're a pain to maintain and are relatively expensive on fuel. The biggest drawbacks are that the fuel efficient cars are incapable of carrying any significant weight (so forget carrying the books for a day - those would weigh more than the car!) and that you can't exactly carpool with them. The lack of creash resistance is a non-issue, as minis have a habit of exploding on impact. I'd swear that the scriptwriters for the A-Team must have owned minis.

Re:Shell Oils Fuel Economy Race

[recursiv]

What is non-solid about a bicycle?

Re:Shell Oils Fuel Economy Race

[Shotgun]

I'd like to see NASCAR change the rules from using a restrictor for limiting speed to just rationing gasoline. Each team would get a set amount at the start of the race (just a little less than what was needed to complete the race last year), and the winner would be the first man to cross the line. Now driver would become real athletes, as they get out and run to complete the last 1/2 mile.

With the millions poured into NASCAR, you would see real innovation...real fast.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[klang]

That is really god milage .. for a SUV!

Reality check?

[philask]

Wouldn't it make more sense for these competitions to be based on a standard road car? To get these super smart technologies implemented in a normal four seater car which could be driven as such and would perform similarly to existing cars?

Unrealistic (but impressive)

[PhotoGuy]

It is a bit misleading using an MPG rating, in such an unrealistic situation; as well as a bit senational to say "Vancouver to Halifax". I somewhat doubt these specialized units would have the ability to climb the grades to, say, cross the rockies, much less an average hill in Nova Scotia. (They'd probably do well on the prairies, though.)

Impressive technology, nonetheless. I would like to see a similar competition where certain torque requirements were met, to carry a certain weight up a certain grade, during parts of the competition. As the mileage differences between small cars and trucks/SUV's attests, potential power comes at a great cost in mileage, even when that power isn't being utilized.

This is why hybrids can do well; they switch to a mode with less power (batteries/electric) for casual driving, and flip to a more expensive means (gas), when more power is required. The UBC unit sounds a bit similar but on a much less powerful scale; the gas engine comes on now and then when a bit of power is required, and then it flips to its other mode, inertia, for as long as it can.

That's nothing !

[Mr Europe]

That's not even near the real World Champions.

See the latest Shell Eco-Marathon results:
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_results/Nogaro_May_2006/Race_classificatio n.pdf

And please note the column "Best test / Meilleur essai" is in the kilometers/litre.
Thus the winners result 2885 km/litre eguals about 6834 miles/gallon !
(Gallon=3,79 litre, mile=1,6km)

Rules: http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downlo ads/sem_events/nogaro/rules/rules_2006_revised.pdf

Re:That's nothing !

[gral]

Um, is that correct? Using your numbers for conversion, that would be:

2885 km/Liter
1803.125 Miles per Liter

and

475.75/Gallon

Re:That's nothing !

[gral]

Ok, sorry, late in the day. ;-) My math was messed up.

Re:km per liter

[SolitaryMan]

Google tells me that 3 145 miles per gallon = 1 337.07695 kilometers per liter

This means that in Europe, this guys would be really 1337 hax0rs :)

ICE quirk

[NuShrike]

Current vehicle engines have this strange quirk.

The engine isn't running at its most efficient conversion of gas to energy unless it's operating within its most efficient point in its powerband - a HP plateau between certain RPM markers. Check it out on a dyno. So yes, it would be more efficient to accelerate harder from a stop with the RPMs within the powerband, coast, then rinse-n-repeat.

It's called Pulse-n-Glide by the Prius marathoners, and also on Wikipedia.

Constant speed isn't the most efficient way to use a internal combustion engine (ICE), although it certainly is the easiest.

Re:ICE quirk

[Massive146]

Actually, the highest efficency, in grams of fuel (or liters) per kWh, always occurs at the rpm of the maximum torque.

Re:ICE quirk

[odie_q]

Unfortunately there are more factors you need to consider than just raw fuel efficiency. The pulse and glide technique is only practical if you are alone on the road. Consider a situation with normal traffic, and every car using pulse and glide. It wouldn't work. The Prius marathoners you linked to also ran into problems with this, being pulled over by a cop for driving too slow.

The traditional technique (planning ahead and avoiding sudden changes in speed) brings not only decent fuel ecenomy, but also increased safety and ride comfort.

Re:ICE quirk

[RESPAWN]

I call bullshit. Many cars don't reach peak torque until very late in the rev range. The 2000 year model Honda S2000 doesn't reach peak torque until 7500 RPM: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2000&make=Honda&model=S2000&trimid=-1. That's only 1500 RPM below Redline, btw. I have a hard time believing that the engine is actually working most efficiently at 7500 RPM.

Re:ICE quirk

[MindStalker]

Morons.
Though I have to admit I pulse and glide a lot in my real car. Slam on it at green lights then when I know there is a readlight ahead I let go of the gas far in advance and glide to the redlight. Sometimes this annoys other motorist, though if they would just follow along they would save a lot of gas too.

Re:ICE quirk

[rjstanford]

The engine in the S2000 is hardly a typical engine. Most cars hit their torque peak somewhere around 2000-2500rpm, dropping off somewhat around 4500rpm. If you look at their power curve you'll see that the 2000 hits its first peak at around 3000rpm, then gets a bounce from the hyper-dramatic VTEC cam tuning change and lifts somewhat more later in the powerband. This is highly unusual. Look at almost any other car's curve -- specifically cars with engines that don't have wildly divergent cam profiles that only engage around 6000rpm -- and you wouldn't see this. As for being efficient, its more honest to say that due to its "extreme" design the S2000 engine would be horrible to drive at speeds lower than around 5500rpm, so they change the entire cam profile and effectively give you a different engine for slow driving. The torque peak for the 2000 still comes relatively lower in its usalble powerband.

As an aside, while googling for that graph, I came across a surprisingly well-written commentary on torque and powertrain design. No relation, just passing it along.

Re:ICE quirk

[l33td00d42]

i'm pretty sure Pulse-n-Glide is only optimal given your engine is more powerful than what you need from it. if you didn't need the ability to climb hills or go faster than 30 mph, you could get away with a tiny engine--using it constantly at its powerband.

Re:ICE quirk

[RESPAWN]

D'oh! I click on the link and it just redirects to a .gif for pistonheads.com. Do you have the link to the original article? I'm actually really interested in the powercurve graph.

To be fair, though I did pick the most extreme engine I could think of off of the top of my head, I would have to disagree with the sentiment that most cars peak around 2000 - 2500. Some examples off of the top of my head...
My 2003 Civic (a relatively normal car) peaks at 4800: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2003&make=Honda&model=Civic&trimid=-1
A 2006 M3 peaks at 4900: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=BMW&model=M3&trimid=-1
A Chevy Aveo is a little closer to your range at 3600: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2004&make=Chevrolet&model=Aveo&trimid=-1
A Chevy Impala peaks at 4000 or 4400, depending on the engine: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Chevrolet&model=Impala&trimid=-1
Even the Camry, the best selling car in America, peaks at 4000 for the 4-banger and 4700 for the V6: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2007&make=Toyota&model=Camry&trimid=-1
And lastly, the Ford F-Series trucks, quoted as being the best selling vehicle in North America, peak at 3500 or 3750 depending on the motor: http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx ?year=2006&make=Ford&model=F-150&trimid=-1

While it may have been true at one time that most engines peak at 2000 - 2500, I would venture a guess that it's not the case today.

That said, I don't have access to the power curves for any of those vehicles (and frankly don't have enough time to look them up at the moment), but I would venture a guess that they all start to make "usable torque" around 2000 - 2500 RPMs.

Speaking from experience, the Civic really doesn't start to produce good power until 2500 - 3000. The Aveo is dog slow no matter how you cut it and I hope to never drive one again. I haven't driven the most recent incarnations of the Impala and Camry, but the previous generation models both seemed to produce appreciable torque starting at around 2000rpm. I know the F-series truck has good low end torque, and I haven't been fortunate enough to drive the modern incarnation of the M3. (They'll never be able to improve over the first geneneration M3 in my opinion, anyway.)

That article is really good though and actually supports my reasoning for why I like the S2000 (even despite its anaemic torque output) - I loooove my revs, and the S2000 due to its relatively flat torque curve seems to have good throttle response all through the rev range. It's actually a shame that Honda is cancelling the car since I probably won't be ready to buy a new car for another year or two.

Or maybe I'll get lucky, win the lottery, and go buy that turbo Porsche I've always wanted...

Re:ICE quirk

[Massive146]

The maximum torque occurs when the volumetric efficiency is the greatest. The maximum fuel efficency also occurs when the volumetric efficiency is at it's peak. Although it isn't common for the maximum torque and maximum efficiency to coincide. Maximum efficiency doesn't usually occur at the full power of that RPM. I've seen a bunch of engine charactaristic maps and they all have the maximum fuel efficiency at the rpm of maximum torque. I'm not sure when happens when you throw V-Tech into the picture though. I can't find any pictures online of such maps. I'll try to scan some and put them online so you can see what they look like.

http://www.offroaders.com/info/tech-corner/reading /cfm.htm
Volumetric Efficiency

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSFC
Bottom of the page, Note:

http://www.viragotech.com/fixit/FuelEconomyEngineE fficiencyPower.html
The whole page talks about this topic.

http://www.epi-eng.com/ET-VolEff.htm

Re:ICE quirk

[rjstanford]

I'll agree, but define peak as "get to within 6-8% of peak." One thing that systems such as VTEC timing have done is really flatten out the torque curves for a lot of engines.

Having said that, there's something else to consider. Any peak measurements or charts you see are measured at WOT. You also get some very interesting readouts of things when you measure the engine at, say, 20% throttle. Or 40%. Of course, a lot of this becomes moot when you get into CVTs as well... Or rather its key, but no longer your problem.

Re:ICE quirk

[RESPAWN]

Thanks! I'm very interested in learning about this. Common sense (and my parents along with various articles regarding fuel efficiency) has always told me that more revs = less efficiency.

It would be worth looking in to how technologies such as VTEC affect the volumetric efficiency. Especially as I think just about every manufacturer has some form of valve train modulation system (VVT-i for Toyta, MIVEC for Mitsubishi, VANOS for BMW, etc.).

I plan to check out all of those links tonight when I have some free time.

Re:ICE quirk

[RESPAWN]

CVTs will be the greatest thing since sliced bread once they work out the durability kinks. I think the biggest problem I've heard so far is that they aren't well suited for high horsepower applications due to the fact that they just can't "hang on" as well as two physical gears mating together.

It's a really weird sensation to drive a car with a CVT, though. I can't describe it except to say that it's weird to feel a a near constant ammount of accelerative force propelling you along.

Re:ICE quirk

[GWBasic]

I drive a 2003 Civic Hybrid with a CVT. (Continually variable transmission, it has a theoretical infinate number of gears.)

In my car, "Pulse and glide" gets me significantly worse milage then gradual acceleration. The difference is about 4-5 MPG!. My guess is that the "pulse" actually wastes a lot of gas. This is surprising, because the engine block has an electric motor built in that helps during the pulse!

Re:ICE quirk

[NuShrike]

What speeds do you pulse-n-glide on? There's an upper limit (usually highway speeds) where pulse-n-glide isn't really useful because air drag begins to dominate the normal frictional losses besides probably running above the efficiency peak of the engine.

Otherwise, PnG technique should work with any car at slower speeds, especially these racers of TFA.

Re:ICE quirk

[NuShrike]

CVT has a long history in racing with the last notable attempt by Williams in F1 in 1993. Many automation aids were banned in 1994. Just Google for: Williams F1 CVT.

The durability issues have been mostly related to frictional belt CVTs. Audi's multi-chain design is able to handle more power, and Toyota's reapplication of the standard differential/planetary-gear system as a CVT answers your meshed physical gearing need. Here's a description of the latest gen PSD.

As we've all experienced, constant acceleration cannot be really felt whether it be in the elevator, standing on the surface of a rotating Earth, or in a CVT driven car. So ya, pretty weird. :)

Re:ICE quirk

[RESPAWN]

I'm mostly only familiar with the frictional belt CVTs. The only one I've personally driven was Nissan's unit fitted to a Murano.

I just read a good article (http://www.sae.org/automag/techbriefs_01-00/03.ht m) on Audi's new system. The article states that their system will still only handle "up to 350 Nm (258 lbft)." While that is an adequate ammount of torque, a quick scan of some manufacturers' websites shows that most manufacturers' flagship sedans would be approaching that limit.

The other important thing to remember about the Williams F1 CVT is that it may have only been designed to last one or two races. Typically, at that level of the sport, many parts are not designed for longevity. If I'm not mistaken, before recent rules changes, many (all?) teams would use a new engine for each race. In fact, I remember reading an article about the development of the Bugatti Veyron. VW contracted the gearbox design to a team that usually handles Formula 1 gearboxes. The contractors mentioned that one of the biggest problems they had was with the longeivity of the gearbox. Sure, they design for high horsepower cars routinely, but never ones that are expected to put 50,000, 75,0000, etc. on the gearbox.

I would like to find out more specifics about the Williams CVT. It would seem like a good option to increase fuel efficiency in modern cars.

That said, I still prefer a traditional manual and would have a hard time trading one in for a CVT myself. Maybe people like me are one of the reasons that CVTs haven't been received as well in the US.

Re:ICE quirk

[GWBasic]

For short distances I'll gently bring the car up to speed and then glide to a stop, such as when I'm in stop-and-go traffic or driving through stop signs. It's best if I can keep the engine around 2k PRM.

At higher speeds what hinders milage is the CVT transmission. This is because it's impracticle (sp?) to shift it into neutral during the "glide". Likewise, I find that it has quite a bit of internal resistance. I once had an oppertunity to drive the manual version of my car, and it got noticably higher milage.

The people in TFA probably have transmissions that are designed to allow the car to glide, much like how you can stop pedaling in a bike.

Bah can't edit

[SlimFastForYou]

D'oh, it's late. I meant to list "turning the steering wheel" as needing high-friction, not low. Good thing I'm not an automotive engineer :).

Just what the world needs!

[kozumik]

Yet another competition to design an entirely useless and impractical technology demonstrator; after which, the sponsors of the event the American Automakers, will have no problem recruiting the aspiring automotive engineers to build more SUV. Or maybe I'm being cynical. Maybe GM really is planning a solar powered car sometime soon, with Honda, Toyota and other makers being really interested in hiring American English only speaking engineers who spent most of their college education in projects with not even the vaguest notion of practical design.

Re:km per liter

[skreeech]

They don't have to go to europe for that, UBC is in Canada which uses metric.

Re:km per liter

[Dolly_Llama]

Google tells me that 3 145 miles per gallon = 1 337.07695 kilometers per liter

Hand over your geek card imposter! Real geeks know it's

3.14159mpg = 1337 kpl

Re:speed? Results

[afaik_ianal]

And my state I mean community. :-P

And by my you mean by.

Ugh - By head's hurting.

How about 9023 MPG??

[mambru]

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.

I've seen this before!

[filament]

See the Pedal Prix. Only the Pedal Prix cars are pedal powered.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[moochfish]

Don't worry, when an SUV hits you, it'll run you over before you knew what happened.

But in 1985

[ishmaelflood]

The record was already more than 5000 mpg. Whilst I appreciate that the new regs require a slightly more practical design, is the best that can be done after an additional 20 years, merely 60% as good? Particularly since these designs can leach off all the low rolling resistance and aero technology developed by the solar car people?

On the other hand, for a student team, yeah, not bad.

I can top this...

[sydbarrett74]

I know of a single-occupancy vehicle design that gets an infinite number of miles to the gallon of petrol -- it's called a bicycle.

Re:I can top this...

[Detritus]

How much energy do you expend in kilocalories per mile? Your body is just an engine that runs on a different type of fuel.

...and in the real world

[mlush]

Have there ever been any real 'here is a gallon of gas how far can you go' races? It would add an interesting extra dimentions to the challange... routefinding would be critical.

Ridiculous MPG?

[nikanj]

"Physorg reports that engineers at UBC have developed a single occupancy vehicle that achieves a ridiculous 3145 MPG"

What's so ridiculous about it? I think the MPG of the bigger SUVs is a lot more ridiculous..

another one

[l3v1]

News like this are popping up from time to time, people claiming they have achieved some marveloous mpg rates, and it always turns out that either the car is useless (size, weight, etc limits) or the speed is very low, or a combination of these. All these machines, this one included have proved to be really useful for ... nothing at all. Hell, I'm surprised they don't say something like: hey I made a car which goes one million gazillion mpg - which can be true if it runs on something else than usual petrol or diesel fuel. I'm really all for saving and protecting the environment, and against SUVs and H2s, still, one has to be reasonable: time is money and nobody would want a car that goes 20-30 kph, no matter how much fuel it needs. Hell, given good wind, you could go even faster than that with a sail/kite and your roller :) Basically I'd be really much more interested in improvements on the hybrid car front than these not-good-for-anything mpg-based achievements.

I love geeky technology too

[kozumik]

... but people need to get real about these competitions they have every year.

Every year American auto makers fund for a pittance several of these types of competitions. The results are always the same: some college kids design a vehicle that weighs practically nothing, runs on solar or such, and is totally impractical. Usually little more than a bicycle or go-cart. This has been going on much the same for decades.

And every time the results are the same:

1) US automakers get their names associated with some supposedly high-tech, innovative, and efficient technology as part of a low cost PR campaign in the form of a tiny grant to students.

2) The media is obligated to cover it as part feel good fluff: see, we're still leading the world in useless technology despite everything being made overseas! Aren't our students bright?!

3) Said automakers recruit off the various campuses engineers who then proceed to design SUV having absolutely nothing to do with afore mentioned efficient technology.

4) US makers continue declining.

S.O.S.

Wouldn't it be great if these students for once asked "how about granting us money to make something f'ing useful or hiring us to build what we made for a change?"

useless by design

[kozumik]

These things are shams for PR and recruiting and nothing more. It's all BS. They considered the US Automaker funded competition to "Design a bigger gas guzzling SUV that's built cheaper and less safe" but realized it didn't have the same PR and recruiting value. So, we get a new solar powered go-cart every year, then those students go on to design the next SUV and pickup for GM or Ford.

You _almost_ got a point...

[hummassa]

But no, the supermileage prizes are academic competitions which should be used to promote good ideas to lower the mileage of our day-by-day cars. Down here, for instance, we do have a tax deduction on the AVT for cars with less than 1000cc. Thanks to that, most of the cars you see on a street can make more than 15km/l (35 mpg) in urban traffic -- those cars are 20-30% cheaper than the same car, equipped with a 1400cc engine. If this was a competition like "yeah, let's see who comes with an engine that can propel a normal, compact urban car with four occupants at 60km/h (40 mph) and better mileage" I would think that it would be a better idea.

Re:You _almost_ got a point...

[AndersOSU]

You mean like this?
http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/competi tions/futuretruck/index.html

Looks like the project ended in 2004, and there are no 1000+ mpg vehicles - but Wisconsin increased the fuel efficiency of an Explorer by 33% (to 25mpg)

Re:You _almost_ got a point...

[alienw]

Heh... you can improve the efficiency of almost any vehicle quite trivially (running it slightly lean and disabling the emissions equipment). It just won't pass emissions anymore.

Re:You _almost_ got a point...

[x2A]

That's so boring. They're having fun, some people like to squeeze a little of that into their lives. If you want a competition like that, start one yourself, otherwise, don't complain that no one else is doing so.

Re:You _almost_ got a point...

[AndersOSU]

Yes but:

The FutureTruck competition challenged teams of students from 15 top North American universities to continue reengineering a conventional production vehicle into a lower-emissions vehicle with at least 25% higher fuel economy, without sacrificing the performance, utility, safety, and affordability consumers want.

(from the website)
is a tad harder.

Miles per Taco

[Locus Mote]

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!

Re:Miles per Taco

[RexRhino]

Yes, Tacos are a renewable energy source... but I hear it also can produce some undesirable "gas-emmissions".

It's obvious

[drachenstern]

That's because he said MAKITA and it's a BRIGGS STRATON sponsored competition, sheesh

Re:Snopes.com

[bgarcia]

I think the other companies have too much to looossee* for them to let such an invention be supressed.

---

* I have given up trying to oppose the increasingly popular misuse of "loose" as "lose" so now I will join with them.. but of course I am way behind on having the proper number of extra letters by the new contemporary spelling of loooose so I'll be putting in even more extra o's to catch up.

It appears that you've offset the extra o's with missing p's.

Cool, but how about something useful?

[maximthemagnificent]

While neat, this doesn't really do anything other than point how how crappy it is
to lug around more weight in a car than you need too, which we already all knew.

I'd be more interested in some automatic tire inflation system, as estimates are
5% of all fuel could be saved if the tires were just inflated properly. Or how about
a cheap aftermarket fuel economy measurement system like they have in hybrids
so people can see how their driving effects economy immediately and change their
habits (hybrid drivers talk about this a lot)? Both of these seem like projects within
reach of college students that could actually lead to something.

Maxim

Re:Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at al

[asuffield]

Whats the point?

This is a sport. I do not believe it needs a point. Blame slashdot if you thought it was anything other than a fun game of engineering challenges.

Call me a businessman, not an engineer, but...

[Money for Nothin']

...tell me how many Average Joes are going to lie down to drive their car on the road?

Just *try* getting your grandparents to do so.

(Yes, of course this achievement might be improved and translated into something more practical later. So why don't we recognize the achievement when that time comes, instead of recognizing it now?)

Improvements to consumer products

[williambbertram]

Ok, so it runs on tacos, goes .8 MPH, and doesn't have the power to climb my driveway. STILL, you have to imagine that scientists who can achieve 3 THOUSAND miles per gallon could at least double the performance of my 2006 Saturn VUE. Why not set their sights on something a little more practical that might eventually benefit consumers? I'm not saying this work will never be beneficial, but if the goal were to improve the fuel efficiency of consumer autos it might be more beneficial.

Ummmm... Tesla Coil

[technoextreme]

You forgot Tesla's electric car that ran on either broadcast power or power from the air/Earth with technology similiar to Moray's. It seems much of Tesla's paperwork was seized by the Office of Alien Property immediately after Tesla's death (even though Tesla was a US citizen), and it's unknown how much of his paperwork "disappeared" even though "much" of it was returned to his nephew.

No. This idea never came to fuition because it's physically impossible. Tesla wanted to use the Tesla coils as a way to broadcast energy. The problem being that the energy drops off rather quickly as you move away from the coil.

Re:Ummmm... Tesla Coil

[NuShrike]

The what was this all about? http://www.frank.germano.com/blackbox.htm
Or these: http://www.google.com/search?q=tesla's+car&start=0 &ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official

Too much documentation to be: made up, never came to fruition, physically impossible.

8000 mpg

[zrenneh]

An engineer from the University of Bath, UK recently invented the world's most fuel efficient car: 8000mpg.

The scoop...

[RimfireShooter]

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.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[linkdead]

True...I wish these contests were more practical...such as modifying a compact car, and operating it on a 1/2mi oval track between 35 and 65mph.

The car should have a 2+2 seating (+2 refers to those seats with no leg room, which many compacts and sports cars are infamous for).

What this will do is actually push for aerodynamic innovation, as well as actual mechanical advances in the drivetrains.

I'm willing to bet if your 400HP escalade did not have that stupid "displacement on demand", and instead had a round cyndrilical shape, it would get gas mileage that would actually be reasonable.

bad part...it would look like a turd.... ....Either way, taking a street-lugeboard an aeroshield, and a crappy motor is NOT a viable vehicle.

Re:km per liter

[Hack'n'Slash]

What is your point? The message you replied to was attempting to be funny... To them, 3 145 looked similar to pi, so they suggested the GP post wasn't being geeky enough by taking pi out further, to 3.14159.

Re:speed? Results

[Red Flayer]

So we flatten and pave the hills. Really, I don't see the problem -- we need to do that to get to the last of the hydrocarbon reserves anyway.

Re:As a Hummer driver...

[JPribe]

Go to google and do an image search for "h2 collision" and variations like "h2 accident" or "hummer crash" and then tell me you actually feel safer in an H2...

Re:speed? Results

[GeckoX]

Um, results are nice and all but there is zero information in there on driving speeds etc.

+5 informative people? Did anyone _read_ the question and insinuated link to non-existent answer?

yuck

[p51d007]

I know it's a concept thingy, but building something that looks like a bicycle with a fiberglass body isn't going to do anything to improve the MGP of the LOW effecient internal combustion engine. The gas engine hasn't really "changed" since it was invented. I'm not a rocket scientist (but I did sleep in a Holiday Inn last night), but the rotary engine is about the only thing I've seen that comes close to an "improvement" on internal combustion engines in the last 100+ years.

Re:yuck

[rjshields]

Firstly, it's not a bicyle since it has an engine and no pedals. Secondly, check out what Peugeot's hdi engine did back in 2000. Yes, that's 80 MPG under normal extra-urban driving conditions, or about 4 times the mileage of your average gringo gas-guzzler or yank-tank.

Re:yuck

[rjshields]

This article is better: http://www.peugeot.com.au/PEUGEOT/AU/me.get?site.s ectionshow&FFFF1129

Re:yuck

[Waffle Iron]

rotary engine is about the only thing I've seen that comes close to an "improvement" on internal combustion engines in the last 100+ years

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.

Re:yuck

[uxo]

> it's not a bicyle since it has an engine and no pedals
Firstly, he said it looked like a bicycle, not that it was a bicycle. Its tires certainly do look like bike tires, but there are three of them, therefore it looks like a tricycle.

Re:yuck

[rjshields]

he said it looked like a bicycle, not that it was a bicycle

Sorry, I misread that bit.

Point

[Asic Eng]

It's an acedemic exercise. This does not mean it's pointless - it trains engineers by giving them a chance to design something, and it provides a means to measure success. If you wanted them to work on real cars, the size of the project and the costs associated with it would be prohibitive. Nevertheless, the engineers working on that will acquire knowledge in fuel efficiency techniques, learning to manage a project etc.

It has been pointed out that many of the techniques used are well known. That's fine - in engineering to create something new, you often need to learn about the old stuff first, a lot of improvement is incremental.

In related news

[mrops]

The driver of the vehical died later due to fatigue by paddling the vehicle for 3145 miles.

Re:speed? Results

[Bush Pig]

It reads like you have a head cold.

VW TDIs rawk

[RingDev]

I bought an '06 VW Golf TDI (turbo diesel) a few months back, and so far I am averaging low 40's mileage (worst ~39.5, best ~43.5). I hit 600 miles a tank with no problem. True, it's no lean burning, single passenger, 25mph, wheel chair, but it does have 170ft/lbs of torque, and cruises beautifully at 80mph.

-Rick

Re:km per liter

[operagost]

Why do otherwise educated people, especially Americans, not understand accuracy.

Any why are Europeans such trolls? Or do they just not get any jokes unless they're on Monty Python or Red Dwarf?

First prize was $1,000.00

[justthinkit]

and in the time it took to read my subject line $1,000.00 worth of bullets were fired in Iraq. Nice to see we have our priorities set up correctly.

that's cool...

[TheDrewbert]

but can it tow a boat?

Re:Something Useful...

[QMO]

I've mentioned it before on /.
I guess you missed it.

My sister had an American car in 1989 that ROUTINELY got over 60 mpg.
She would fill up the 8 gallon tank, drive 250 miles home, visit for a week, drive 250 miles back, go to and from work for a few days, then fill the tank again.

Re:Something Useful...

[QMO]

Sorry, my mistake. I just checked. According to maps.google.com it was only 242 miles home and 242 more back.

See "Future Truck" program

[James McP]

http://www.transportation.anl.gov/research/competi tions/futuretruck/2004_futuretruck_results.html

These take stock vehicles and modify them. The 2004 competition used a Ford Explorer as the baseline and the vehicles competed on vehicle safety, fuel efficiency, emissions, off-road performance and towing performance performance (2,000lb trailer on 7% grade). The winning team reached 25mpg (yeah, still crappy but a 33% improvement), passed all the tests, and the emissions were below the Ultra Low Emissions Vehicle (ULEV) requirements.

Those high schoolers from the "unrealistic" project move on to colleges that take part in Future Truck and eventually become the next round of automotive engineers. They need motivation, the opportunity to get their hands dirty and to see some results. Anyone who competed came up with a very high efficiency vehicle and some real skills to be proud of, skills that benefit us tomorrow, if not today.

FYI, China produces roughly 2 million one-cylinder diesel rural vehicles each year. They have a max speed of 50km/hr, max payload of 500kg and use 12-15 hp engines (many of them look like ATVs). They are also pollution machines that are environmental nightmares. If you want something more real-world, sponsor a project to design a low-emission, fuel-efficient, small diesel vehicle.

No, it shows something important

[hey!]

From a scientific point of view, it's the equivalent of the guys who attach jet engines to their cars. It's cool and all - but it isn't research and it doesn't prove anything.

True, it isn't research.

But it does point something out worth considering: The barriers to fuel efficiency aren't technological.

Consider a lone person communting into the city in a Cadillac Escalade. You are moving a 200 lb payload in a 7100 lb vehicle; 7300 lb is being moved in and out of the city. The same person commuting in a Toyota Celica is moving 2700 lb in and out of the city, considerably less than half.

The "ridiculous" gas mileage figure of 3,145 mpg come from the fact that the vehicle weighs less than the passenger. Technologically, it's easy, you throw out any weight that is not involved with getting from point A to point B. You don't have to go very far in that direction. Taking just a few steps down that path would have a much greater effect than going hybrid or developing advanced engines, much faster.

Suppose, for example, we set a goal of having no more than 1000 lbs of vehicle weight (rounded to the nearest 1000) per passenger. You're fine in your Celica if you take two passengers; your Escalade would have to take six passengers in addition to the driver, which is exactly its seating capacity. A soccer mom driving a Honda Oddysey would be have to have three kids.

How would you do this? Well, you could make a law, but rather why not simply set up toll booths where underpopulated vehicles have to pay, say, $10 per passenger under the limit to go into the city or any other congested center. If you did it electronically, you could cap this amount so it's only paid once per day. The solo commuter in his Escalade would pay $60 for the privilege of generating the congestion, pollution and parking problems.

But -- people don't like to car pool. So they'd spend a huge amount of money commuting in their large vehicles. Maybe. If we round to the nearest thousand, companies would produce solo commuting vehicles weighing just under 1500 pounds. The lightest production car ever -- the Isetta, weighed less than half that, carried two passengers, and that was in the 1950s without the benefit of advanced materials and unibody construction. Surely we could make a two passenger car with the same weight, but much greater comfort and safety. Given twice the weight budget, it could be quite posh.

Without a single new technology, you could raise the average fuel economy from something close to 35 gallons per passenger mile to over 100. The US imports ten million barrels per day of petroleum; since it currently consumes well over 320 million gallons of gasoline per day, and a barrel of oil makes about 20 gallons of gasoline, a threefold increase in fuel economy -- achieveable with today's technology -- would by itself almost exactly achieve the figure we'd need for complete energy independence.

Of course, economics being what it is, we'd still be importing quite a bit of oil, but at much lower prices; if we simply stopped importing oil, we'd be paying about what we are today for a gallon of gas.

We're supposedly at war these days. Well, consider rationing in WW2; the public sacrificed it's access to gasoline, to rubber, to canned tomatoes, in order to win that war. We could win this one with no practical sacrifice. Nobody would have to ask "is this trip really necessary?" You'd just have to change the car you buy. Even that's not much of a sacrifice. One thing the Mini (Cooper and of cours Mac) have shown is you can create perceived value in a small package.

Re:No, it shows something important

[CannedTurkey]

**Surely we could make a two passenger car with the same weight, but much greater comfort and safety. Given twice the weight budget, it could be quite posh.**

I believe you're referring to the Smart Car. http://www.smart.com/

Re:No, it shows something important

[hey!]

Close, but I think it could be done better. This thing weighs about 1600lb for two passengers (about right), but still gets only about 55 mpg. The engine puts out 37kw, or about 50 horsepower. This is more than a car this weight really needs, but they probably want the car to be fun and zippy.

I think though this might demonstrate that a practical 100mpg car is possible and maybe even practical. If by having larger production runs you could afford more advanced technology and trim a several hundred pounds of the weight, then use a smaller engine as well, you could have a car that would be very, very close, and perfectly practical for most commutes under twenty five miles or so.

Re:No, it shows something important

[drgroove]

I like your tollbooth idea, but would support it only if fuel efficiency tolls were in turn leveraged to subsidize the cost of fuel at the pump for those who were obey the person per car weight rule. There'd have to be some way of proving to the pump that you'd been a good citizen - perhaps a magnetic stripe card that recorded your toll booth visits, and the percentage that you had obeyed the law. The higher percentage, the lower the cost of gas at the pump. Otherwise, it's just another tax going to fund things that citizens don't care about, which I wouldn't support. It's a good idea, though.

Re:speed? Results

[ZombieSquirrel]

"only required to be able to climb a 1% grade (and decend a 7% one)" Given that this was a circular course, that makes for a race track that is down hill all the way around! The fuel efficiency should improve with every lap. By lap twenty we should actually be able to use this vehicle to generate energy! Why are we not employing this downhill technology on all our current roadways! I sense another oil company conspiracy.

12,665 miles a gallon

[wilsotc]

While we're being rediculous: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/10/10 05_051005_fuelcellcar.html

Re:km per liter

[Anemophilous Coward]

or perhaps it is really this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=convert+3 .144819+miles+per+gallon+to+kilometers+per+litre&b tnG=Search
-AC

Re: Volkswagen 1 liter car

[Zantetsuken]

EXACTLY - it's a nice concept, but thats about it... it could never realistically be used for driving around on the highway or in crowded streets.

Since this concept car is useless, I'd like to bring up another fuel efficient concept car - the Volkswagen 1 liter car

from the wikipedia page:

The VW 1-litre car is a two-person concept car designed to travel 100 km using just 1 litre of fuel (equivalent to 235 miles per US gallon or 282 mpg Imperial). To achieve such economy, it is made from lightweight materials; the body is streamlined; and the engine and transmission are designed and tuned for economy.

For aerodynamics, the car seats two in tandem, rather than side-by-side. There are no rear view mirrors and it instead uses cameras and electronic displays. The rear wheels are close together to allow a streamlined body. The drag coefficient (Cd) is 0.16, compared to 0.30 for typical cars.

Would you, could you. . .

[Fantastic Lad]

Would you ever consider building an "ultra-light" car? --Something which seats two, is built like a four-wheeled mountain bike with a canopy, and uses similar technologies as you and your team developed? You know; a small car which isn't a car, safer than a motorbike, and which is designed to move people real distances at reasonable speeds on a fraction of the gas a car would drink?

I've seen motorbikes (dangerous), and I've seen cars (big & wasteful), but something in between seems to have been largely ignored. Such a vehicle, made well and made available to the general public could really change things. You could probably sell them new for three or four thousand. I'd buy one.

-FL

We Are We Are We Are the Engineers!

[Bobzibub]

Kudos to you guys!

Cheers,
-b

To get a more fuel efficient vehicle...

[MtViewGuy]

If you really want better fuel mileage with decent carrying space, the best way to go is something akin to a Toyota Prius.

You need to do the following:

1. Replace the current NiMH battery packs used on most hybrids with a similar-sized next-generation Li-On battery pack. This will allow electric-only operation for longer periods of time, reducing the need to run the gasoline engine.

2. Improve the gasoline engine with better variable valve timing and direct fuel injection so the engine uses less fuel due to more precise control of the combustion process.

3. Improve the aerodynamics of the car to 0.25 Cd or less. At speeds above 50 km/h, that could make a big difference.

4. Replace power-robbing and heavy hydraulic systems for power steering and braking with electrical-based systems.

5. Redesign the air conditioning for more fuel-efficient usage.

6. Go to lighter weight materials for the entire structure of the car. This means carbon fiber, epoxy resins and possibly titanium alloys (fortunately, scientists may have come up with a breakthrough that could drastically reduce the refining cost of titanium, which could make it price competitive with steel and aluminum alloys).

Silly engines

[drewzhrodague]

Why are they using cartoon-styled piston-based engines? You have got to be kidding me! I don't understand why there aren't any transmissionless turbine/electric hybrids, you'd think that a 1950's era technology would have been put into practical use already.

Good for these folks that they can get that much mileage from a lawnmower engine. That is quite impressive, but we need more useful hybrids, with fewer reciprocating parts (more parts = more inefficiency).

So, the article is missing one thing.........

[jedimaud]

How fast did this thing (not really a car) go? Would it even make the minium speed on the interstate? My john deer mower has a bigger about the same size engine, and there is no way I would go on the interstate with it.

XPrize

[jdevivre]

I am probably echoing something that has been said before, but does it not seem logical to have an XPrize-like contest for a personal commuter vehicle? I am just pulling this out of the air, but a $500M prize goes to the first production-grade, 1000 mpg, 4-adult, safety compliant, very-low-emission vehicle? Hell, I'd put up the money if the terms were right - recovering a half-bill from a true winner would be a cinch.

Of course, that triggers a call for non-gasoline powered entries, but there needs to be some energy/cost/mass/convenience/infrastructure component that mirrors the current gasoline culture. Again, my apologies if this is unoriginal... oh, and off-topic.

Re:km per liter

[Martin Blank]

Being very generous, we can assume 3145mpg is accurate to +-0.5mpg, it's probably neared +-2.5mpg.

I travel at 120km/h on the motorway. That's 75mph, not 74.564543mph.

It's been a few years since chem class, but isn't the first example one of accuracy, as you claim, and the second example one of precision?

Yeah ... try telling that to Alex Zanardi ...

[Dionysos Taltos]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alex_Zanardi

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/motorsport/1546118 .stm

Re:Yeah ... try telling that to Alex Zanardi ...

[kfg]

Who lost his legs, but retained his life.

Try telling that to Mike Hailwood. You can't.

KFG

Re:speed? Results

[dubbreak]

I suspect there were no hills if 'saskboy' means he's from Saskatchewan. Think eastern Montana, only colder and flatter.

Here's a start.

[Kadin2048]

Well, over at the usual place, I found some values for the specific energy (potential chemical energy per unit mass) in a variety of fuels. A better source would probably be the CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, but I left it in my other coat today.

Gasoline is quoted at being around 44 megajoules per kilogram. (More sources here.)

Under ideal conditions, neglecting irreversible losses like wind and rolling resistance, you'd only have to burn fuel when you wanted to change your vehicle's speed -- because without friction it would just roll along all day -- and the energy required is a pretty trivial Newtonian mechanics problem. The work to accelerate it is just (1/2)mv^2, where m is the mass and v is the velocity. Then of course you add the 'real work' to change its position: going uphill 'costs' you mgh, where g is acceleration due to gravity and h is the height upwards moved.

If you had a perfect regenerative braking system, then theoretically you'd never need to use any more gas at all (except when going to a higher altitude then you'd gone before); you'd just stop using the regenerative brakes, then turn that energy right back out and use it to start moving again. Without regenerative brakes, you just waste the input energy whenever you stop (except whatever energy you've stored by virtue of the car's position, i.e. by parking it at the top of a hill).

Of course in real life that doesn't happen: the regenerative brakes are going to have losses, there's non-trivial rolling resistance and wind resistance that grows (I think) proportionally to the square of your forward speed.

I'm not going to go through all the math right now, but basically it's a very simple problem that boils down to what simplifying assumptions you want to make. If you add in rolling resistance and aerodynamic drag and make realistic assumptions about the brakes and transmission, at a certain point all you're asking is "what is the fuel economy of an average car, if it had a perfectly efficient engine?" If that's the question, there are easier ways to solve it: you can just figure out the "thermal efficiency" of an internal-combustion engine (not hard: put an engine on a dyno and measure the energy output at the same time as you're measuring the fuel going in) and calculate what the fuel consumption would have been, if it were 100% efficient.

The accepted figure for thermal efficiency of an ICE seems to be around 25-26%, so the short answer is that if the engine in your car right now was a perfect converter of the energy stored in gasoline to mechanical movement, you'd get around four times the gas mileage that you do right now.

Re:Here's a start.

[matfud]

The most efficient ICE in the world at the moment manages over 50 percent thermal efficiency
http://www.bath.ac.uk/~ccsshb/12cyl/

You'd need a fooking big SUV to put it in though

matfud

Re:km per liter

[jdray]

Not to defend them, but Monty Python and Red Dwarf are both British. The British folks I know insist that they aren't European. AFAIK, the British "get" our American humor, but just don't think it's very sophisticated (I'm not sure I disagree). The continental Europeans just don't seem to get it at all, except maybe the Germans, who think it's funny but refuse to laugh.

Oh, I'm feeling quite finger-pointy this morning, aren't I?

Re:This is almost useless (whoa, there)

[Goldenhawk]

Actually it's not the total velocity change that kills you, it's how fast the velocity changes - e.g., the acceleration (or in this case deceleration). You can go from 80 to zero in five seconds in reasonable comfort. But when you do it in a few milliseconds, it's gonna hurt. Bad.

Injury in accidents is from a couple basic sources: deceleration, and other things hitting you. Deceleration is bad because the organs and brain smack into their surrounding bone structure, and rip apart arteries and organ structures. If you aren't belted in, you decelerate a LOT faster if you smack into the already-stopped car interior. Broken bones, etc. are secondary to these injuries - they heal okay, even if painfully, but an artery torn loose from the heart, or a fragmented liver, won't heal before you die from massive internal bleeding.

The safest vehicles in a car-to-car crash, therefore, tend to be the big, heavy ones with a good collapsible structure. The REASON an SUV is safer in a collision with a Cooper Mini is that it doesn't decelerate as quickly as the Mini, with something like 1/4 of its mass. The Mini is going to lose big time in that collision - because it decelerates a LOT faster, along with your body. And the structure collapse pattern is also critical - you WANT it to collapse incrementally, so that as it does, it absorbs the impact energy and spreads out the deceleration over time, minimizing its transfer into your internal organs and brain. The SUV has a lot of extra metal to waste, whereas a Mini has little "padding".

A good mental picture for this is the egg drop contest - drop an egg 30 feet, it'll splash. Wrap it with collapsible materials and spread out the deceleration, and it survives. This is your brain... this is your brain in a Cooper Mini.

In a related story. . .

[kimvette]

Scientists have developed a single-occupant vehicle which will not pass US safety requirements, will cook any passengers on a sunny day, boasts massive wind noise, and does not deal well with strong cross winds. Also, the top speed of the vehicle is estimated to be 15mph.

Reaction by prospective customers? "Meh." When asked what, Bart said "She said meh." Lisa then nodded and added "M-E-H meh."

Just avoid fender benders

[Guysmiley777]

Or they'll have to scrape you off the pavement with a putty knife. This would actually be news if it was a roadworthy vehicle. It's not, it's a bicycle with a tiny engine.

Re:km per liter

[beaverfever]

pi = 3

Not sure why I know this

[steveo777]

But it's like in NASCAR. For a long time teams would use separate engines for the qualifying runs and the actual race. The first engine would burn out after a few laps, but get them close to the pole position and the second would last the whole race. NASCAR stopped them because teams that had a lot of money (IE big sponsors) could afford these "super-duper" engines and the other teams were stuck with their pace engines for the qualifying.

Simply stated, it would be unfair on the grounds of competition to allow richer schools to buy the super engines. Perhaps putting a spending limit on the project would achieve the results you spoke of. Either way, these experimenal companies are very likely watching for new brains and talent. Namely Briggs and Stratton.

Re:Not sure why I know this

[joggle]

It really seems like a good deal for Briggs and Stratton since the competitors are allowed to improve their engine within a few limits. So not only do they get name recognition but specific ideas for their engine design. (not to mention scouting for new engineers as you said)

Re:This is almost useless (whoa, there)

[wurp]

I agree with your general point, but the main reason an SUV is safer in a collision with a mini is that the SUV had a lot smaller total change in velocity. Both cars are presumably good at crunching to stretch out the delta v over a longer t. I don't think SUVs are built with more crash protection - just bigger engines & heavier frames.

That last sentence is speculation, though; I'm not speaking from any real knowledge. Other than the knowledge that SUVs aren't really built for safety. Read the death statistics (as compared with % of vehicles on the road that are SUVs) to confirm that.

mod parent +1 Absolutely Correct!

[Dan Ost]

Always a delight to see a well written, factual post on slashdot.

Wish I had mod points for you.

No turbines?

[drewzhrodague]

Out of all the mention of fabulous carbuerator mods, and other types of power generation, there's not one mention of turbines. Doesn't it make sense, that with fewer parts, there is less friction, and thus more efficiency? Just the cam-based valve system alone in modern ground vehicles is rather cartoonly parasitic in terms of friction, nevermind the reciprocating pistons. It doesn't make sense to me that there are no electric vehicles powered by a small (trasnsmissionless*) turbine electrical generator.

* why gear-down a 50,000rpm turbine to power an alternator? Can't we generate power from the spinning parts alone?

Re:No turbines?

[nusuth]

Turbine cars have been tried but failed. The reason is simple thermodynamics. Their compression rate is too low. Lower compression rate means less work extracted from a given amount of heat generated, hence lower efficiency.

Re:No turbines?

[said_captain_said_wo]

Good idea.

Chrysler actually field tested a car with a turbine around 1963: http://www.turbinecar.com/ .

Turbines have several good things going for them:

• Simple: a single moving part
  
• Clean burning from continuous combustion
  
• Multi-fuel capable
  

The disadvantage I usually see mentioned is that they would be expensive to produce, but I think that probably assumes the bladed variety, like those used in steam turbines for power generation. I'd like to think that Tesla bladeless turbines would work well in a hybrid electric vehicle, but that is still to be demonstrated.

Re:No turbines?

[starfishsystems]

The issue with turbine power for ground vehicles historically has been how to harness it efficiently under highly varying loads. That and the RPM mismatch means that direct coupling of a turbine into the powertrain doesn't work very well.

It seems like an elegant idea to use the turbine to generate electric power instead, especially since we've seen so much parallel improvement recently in electric powertrains for smaller vehicles.

I don't know why there has been no mention of this either, if only to point out where the losses would have to be reduced in order to break even with competing forms of power delivery.

Re:No turbines?

[type40]

Ma Mopar was close to running turbine motors down the assembly line in the late seventies. What I've read and head about the decion not to use them was the fact that they couldn't get better mileage than the standard Lean Burn equipped LA small bock.

got an article about it here http://www.allpar.com/mopar/turbine.html

Re:km per liter

[orasio]

The guy is reporting exactly what Google told him, and used that fact (the fact that google told him somthing), to infere that they are 1337. When you want to nitpick on people, at least make the effort to find someone who said something wrong.

Re:As a Hummer driver...

[carlislematthew]

I did as you suggested and quickly found this picture. I can safely conclude that I would indeed feel safer in a hummer.

http://www.musclecars.faketrix.com/content/crashes -pics/large/crash-with-Hummer.jpg

Re:Snopes.com

[Maxo-Texas]

I hate it when I lpooose p's like that but there is no suppressing the occasional accidental misspelling or typo.
However I had nothing to loooopse since it was a joke post.
---

This is even more amazing when

[ydra2]

you consider that Vancouver is 229 feet elevation and Halifax is 477 feet. So it's uphill all the way. They could probably get over a million MPG on the return trip.

Concept mileage, not practical mileage

[t_allardyce]

This doesn't really prove anything there have been plenty of ultra-high mpg competitions and experimental cars, if they can perfect some bit of technology that can be used practically then great but otherwise its just another concept car.

It would be really nice to have a efficient car that you could actually drive without looking like an idiot. I mean a car that looked 'normal' and no dont bullshit me with your 'whats normal' crap - we want normal cars with good mileage or electric/hybrid engines! I think sacrificing some efficiency for looks is acceptable. Obviously SUV and Hummer drivers dont count since their cars look like shit AND ruin the environment.

There are some ok-looking hybrids around and I really believe that the only reason people are driving them is because they look ok. I think smart cars are just about becoming acceptable, only just and only because those newer stupid ultra-mini electric smart-looking cars are around to take the slack. Manufacturers really need to just wack in new engines to their current models - get people starting to convert so the infrastructure will slowly build up even if those cars aren't as efficient as they could be.

Re:km per liter

[AcidLacedPenguiN]

do you mean tres drôle? (not ha ha funny, peculiar funny) this is starting to hurt my head.

Re:speed? Results

[saskboy]

You'd be mistaken, about the geography of Sask. that is. Eastern Montana is actually a pretty close representation. There's even badlands like in the Dakotas, and the north half of the province is trees and rocks and lakes and rivers. There are plains too, but they make up less than 1/3 of the province, although about half of the most populated regions. There are two seperate regions inthe south with hills in the 2000' elevation range.

Supermilage cars would work on the TransCanada pretty well, except for all the traffic wanting to run them over.

Yeah, but where to buy the fuel?

[aquabat]

That's great, but where am I supposed to buy a gallon of antimatter?

you can't compare mpg with diesel

[jizmonkey]

Diesel is substantially denser than gasoline and has more BTUs per unit of volume. It is meaningless to compare the mpg of a diesel car with the mpg of a car. I think diesel will have about 20% higher mpg just from the fuel density.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[greenguy]

There's a one-gallon gas tank strapped to it solely for the purpose of being able to give it an MPG rating.

Good point... If you carried a gallon of gas in an open container as you traveled 3000+ miles at 15-25 mph, I imagine that'd be enough time for the gas to simply evaporate.

I can top that!

[npsimons]

I have a vehicle that gets infinite MPG!

Re:Something Useful...

[sebi]

Well, yeah, but I'm sure that your sister drove like a girl.

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[Lawrence_Bird]

and what happens when it gets hit in the side by a navigator or expedition?

Re:km per liter

[DragonWriter]

I think the point was that numbers should not be expressed to precision that is misleading about their accuracy (generally, IIRC, the rule is the best precision to use -- particularly where you aren't specifying accuracy explicitly -- is to the first uncertain digit, so if you write 3,145, the accuracy should probably be somewhere between +/- 0.5 and +/- 5); of course, where there are trailing 0's that are certain to the left of the decimal place, this becomes ambiguous if you aren't using scientific notation.

It's official, slashdot has jumped the shark.

[Anonymous Coward]

Remember kids, when competitions involve expensive robotic cars or even more expensive space launches, it's COOL and WICKED and you get +5 insightful for saying how COOL and WICKED it is, but when the competition involves something that doesn't cost millions to enter and draws attention to the concept of fuel economy, it is "academic" or "ivory tower" and you get +5 Insightful by calling it useless.

Looks like anti-intellectualism wins again on Slashdot! Hurrah!

Too Late

[Doc Ruby]

If we had this competition in 1974, when the oil crisis was artificially manufactured by oil corporation collusion with Arab tyrants, floating full tankers held offshore, we might have had 10 or 100 times as much gas to use on the mileage we've consumed.

Now, by the time a practical version of this combustion could be installed in a majority of cars, we'll already well into the terminal decline of many oil producing countries.

Instead, we'll all drive giant 12MPG SUVs clogging the roads, until they just freeze in place.

Re:Too Late

[Doc Ruby]

Read Yergin's book and find him expand that Slashdot-length post in detail. Which doesn't explain away the full oil tankers floating offshore America to intensify the OPEC supply constraints.

But which Yergin does use to insist we deregulate the oil business which pays his bills.

BTW, it's funny how even an Anonymous Coward can disagree with a strong statement without flaming it. Flamebait is in the eye of the TrollMod.

Re:Hurricane Season

[Joebert]

No, seriously, if someone can get all thoose miles per gallon, I think generators should be able to use gas a little better around Hurricane Season too.

I'm not the only one here that lives in a hurricane prone area am I ?

sure, but I'll be the stereo sucked.

[CFD339]

Who is going to own one of these, and what does it really teach us any more. We can simulate aerodynamics, and can create several kinds of cumbustion, electric, and hybrid engines. We've got compressed air powered cars from France, etc.

The only people I'm really excited but in that field right now are Audi -- http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/03/audi_diese l_win.html who just won the "Twelve Hours of Sebring" endurance race with a diesel that was clean, didn't smell bad, was quiet enough to pass neighborhood noise rules, fast enough to take the poll position, and reliable.

Hmmmmm..... They're not saying much about mileage yet, but one quote compared it to production diesel cars -- which for a racing engine would be insanely better results. This thing was 650 horse power over 12 hours in hot temperatures under racing conditions, got mileage consistant with production cars, and was quiet -- almost silent compared to the other cars.

I've always wondered why someone couldn't team an ECVT transmission with a highly optimized diesel to produce a fantastic drive train for an automobile. A diesel at low RPM's produces massive torque on a fairly narrow rpm range. A strong ecvt transmission would keep that engine at a constant optimized RPM for producing the best torque/mileage compromise and convert it into an always perfect gear ratio. Seems like a no brainer to me. It must be a materials science problem with the ECVT parts.

Re:This is almost useless (whoa, there)

[kfg]

Deceleration is bad because the organs and brain smack into their surrounding bone structure, and rip apart arteries and organ structures.

And the movement of internal organs is complex. They actually go through multiple collisions in an impact event.

But what the Stan Fox collision taught us is that the limiting factor of survival is the brain. Stan's car protected his body, even from internal injury, even though it ripped open and exposed his legs (the only external injury he suffered was a bruise to his heel where it struck another car), but he spent months in a coma from his brain bouncing around in his skull.

This is your brain... this is your brain in a Cooper Mini.

Just so. However, since the issue is the safety of lightweight materials for construction of chassis; and the lightweight materials are the strongest and safest, if you want safety from mass the best way to achive it is to build a strong, light chassis and then add weight (a Lotus F1 once had a thirty pound foot rest in order to make weight), not by using heavier, but structurally inferior, materials.

KFG

Re:As a Hummer driver...

[jtorkbob]

Better link: http://www.musclecars.faketrix.com/car-crashes-aut o-accidents-wrecks-picture-4.htm

The vehicle in that picture is a HMMWV-type like the Army (and Ahnold) uses, not one of these 'H2' luxury tanks. I've always had the (unfounded) understanding that there's a big difference. Certainly there is if the HMMWV in question is the armored sort.

The GP suggested that image searching would show that H2s are not as "accident-friendly" as some would say. After trying various keywords on GIS, I'm finding perhaps a dozen pictures of bad H2 accidents, but honestly I don't see any where the H2 is more smashed up than I would expect.

Of course in the bigger vehicle you have a certain advantage... unless you end up in a bad situation because of top-heaviness, lack of maneauverability, and poor visability. Personally, I'll stick with my little $12k four-door five-speed sedan and my 35-45mpg, thank you very much.

Re:This is almost useless (whoa, there)

[nasch]

(a Lotus F1 once had a thirty pound foot rest in order to make weight)

Doubtless that was to meet minimum mass requirements of the sanctioning body, not for safety. I agree with your point, and would like to add that this strong light car will be safer for another reason: active safety. A lighter vehicle accelerates, turns, and stops more quickly, making it easier to avoid an accident in the first place.

Re:Snopes.com

[nasch]

There's no end to what you can do when you buy the right senators.

So you're saying super-efficient engines have been outlawed?

There's no end to what you can hide when people dismiss everything as a conspiracy theory. (Thanks conspiracy theorists!)

All the conspiracy theories I've heard say the car companies have these designs, and either they or the oil companies are keeping them on the shelf. Presumably these theorists believe the oil companies are paying off the car companies not to make these cars. The problem is, all it takes is one defector who thinks maybe the oil payoff isn't big enough to not make a car 100 times more efficient than the competition's. We've had plenty of time for a car company to make that decision, and plenty of time for a disgruntled engineer to take the secret and sell it to, say, Toyota. And you really think the Japanese would sit on this technology? Secrets this powerful just don't get kept for very long. Beyond that, it ignores the physics. There's only so much energy in a gallon of gasoline. Even if you harnessed almost all of it, and even if you reduced internal friction by (for example) 90%, and even if you reduced coefficient of drag to (for example) .05 from the .2-.3 where it is now, and reduced average weight to (say) 2000 pounds rather than 3200-3500 (and ignoring the fact that car weights are going up, not down) I suspect some of these theories have mileage numbers that, for a useful car, really are impossible. I'm just guessing here, though. They're certainly extraordinary claims, which as we all know require extraordinary evidence. The evidence is covered up, you say. Well, I've already examined that possibility and it sure isn't convincing to me.

And there's no end to the not-giving-a-shit of the average American.

That's for sure, except maybe where money is involved. And here, there is definitely money involved. If the public found out Detroit could have been producing cars that reduced our fuel expenditures by 75%, I doubt the reaction would be "oh well".

Sacrifice power, and you can go a long way

[tanveer1979]

Diesel cars can give amazing mileage, esp on highway runs. And I am not even talking about Pump Dusse or CRDI. A company in india called Tata makes a diesel sedan which unsurprisingly is the best selling sedan in that country(fuel prices/income ratio is way too high in India).
On a normal highway run it gives 17-18kmpl, and if you drive with a light foot, you would get 20kmpl which equals 70 kms/gallon, which is slightly below 50mpg. Now if you bring in the newer tech like crdi etc., you are looking at an easy 55mpg.
Even modern petrol cars can give 50mpg. For example the honda city sold in india is detuned to 77bhp with loads of torque at bottom range, result 40+mpg. But the same engine can be modified to deliver power, and the fuel efficiency will drop.
So it depends where your priorities lie. A top speed of 100mph and 0-60mph in 13 sec or so satisfies you? Well then you can go for a non hybrid lighweight diesel giving you 40-50mpg. If you want a bit V6 or V8 which will smoke everybody else at the lights, well then you shouldn't be looking at efficieny

Re:Single-occupancy, yes I concur.

[ceoyoyo]

Just like it's bigger brothers. I always wondered what SUV stood for, since you so rarely see them used for sport OR utility. Single user now, THAT you see all the time.

Re:speed? Results

[ceoyoyo]

And those pesky mountains in the west. I don't think climbing a 1% grade would even get you through Calgary, never mind through the mountains.

Re:This is almost useless (whoa, there)

[kfg]

Doubtless that was to meet minimum mass requirements of the sanctioning body, not for safety.

And yet the car was both lighter and more rigid than the model it replaced. Chapman had to resort to adding dead weight because the rules makers had made certain false assumptions about what made a safe car (the mass requirment itself was inteneded to promote safety, forcing the makers to use a minimum amount of raw material in the car).

As a general rule the rules makers are always running a generation or two behind the engineers. They're looking back while the engineers are looking forward.

. . . active safety . . .

Ahhhhhhh, another issue entirely, although one dear to my heart. My wife actually thanked me for saving her life once when a big ass American sedan came at us out of a driveway. I wasn't able to entirely avoid the collision, but I was able to turn it into a glancing blow on a fender instead of a direct hit on her door (we were in a first gen Capri).

KFG

standard units of measurement

[beaverfever]

Everyone should know by now that the standard unit of measurement for length (and/or area) is the American football field (AFF).

Re:standard units of measurement

[Kitsune818]

Actually, to get this right:

There are 31000 calories in a gallon of gasoline, so that's 44 Big Mac's over 55,352 football fields, resulting in 1258 AFF/BM (American Football Fields per Big Mac)

Re:As a Hummer driver...

[Khyber]

H2s are horrible. I've seen two flipped over on I-240, and from what I understand - it's basically nothing more than a Yukon with a different interior and body.

Re:UBC *IS* a "big name" university.

[Baldrson]

What ranking do you use for this statement?

Curious Question

[ebuck]

Why the upper limit on the speed of the vechile? A lower limit is easy to understand, eventually you'll run out of time to conduct the "race", but an upper limit seems perplexing. Is the track not designed to accommodate higher speeds? Is it an attempt to limit driver injury in case of catastrophic failure? Is it an insurance requirement? Is is an attempt to prevent single burn cycle entrants? Just curious.

Where 3000 mpg is poor!

[tkjtkj]

where have you guys been? Dont you recall the recent (within a few weeks) /. article describing that guy in UK whose vehicle got 8000 mpg?? c'mon! do some research!

MPG vs MPH & HP

[tommyatomic]

How much HP is being generated by these 3000 mpg engines? They are only going 15-25mph I can install a performance exhaust system, a short pipe exhaust header, high output ignition system, and high flow air intake system on my car and get more power without necisarily using more fuel. That HP is simply from removing restrictions on the engine. By generating more power I can upshift sooner and keep the engine rpms lower thereby using less fuel. I dont do that. I like driving fast. It is a known fact that people that drive like grandmas fill up less often. However they often die of old age before reaching their destination. Someone show me a fuel effeciency system that goes fast. Show me a system gives you 100mpg @ 100mph and I will say damn right. I dont care if it involves water injection, Hydrogen injection or what. Whats the point of great fuel economy if it takes years off of your life.

Re:Snopes.com

[SamSim]

That's "llooossee", you illiterate clod!

Re:speed? Results

[Assassin bug]

..And they are supplied a 3.5 liter engine. So, it's basically a hacked lawnmower.

Re:Solar cars do the same thing with no fuel at al

[Shotgun]

Or change the rules in NASCAR to limit the amount of fuel each team recieves so that at least 1/2 of the drivers will run out of gas before the end of the race. Make them good ol' boys get out of their cars and run a little bit.

Begging the Question

[MonkeyCookie]

There sure has been an uproar recently on Slashdot about the phrase "begging the question". I find it interesting that this phrase is used in another way. I had only heard of this phrase in association with philosophy and logic, where it involves a premise that assumes that the conclusion is true, and I have never heard it used in another sense.

I find the other usage to be quite a strange one, and I wonder if it has anything to do with a misunderstanding about what "begging the question" actually means.

Re:Begging the Question

[theStorminMormon]

I find the other usage to be quite a strange one, and I wonder if it has anything to do with a misunderstanding about what "begging the question" actually means.

You're like the sane man who wondered into the asylum where the inmates are in charge. It is about a misunderstanding of what "begging the question" actually means, but the resident locals are insisting that if enough people misunderstand something than that means they are understanding it. You know, it's "true for them".

Or whatever.

-stormin

Conceded

[Dionysos Taltos]

I googled Mike Hailwood and read through the first few websites. I also read through some of your other posts in this thread. My opinion has definitely changed. Thanks KFG.

DT

Speed and other creature comforts

[LuminaireX]

3000 miles to the gallon is fine and dandy, but how fast can it go with a human occupant and her luggage? I also noticed the distinct lack of a CD player and cup holder - what the hell are we to do for those 3000 miles besides wish for the time we can exit the vehicle? I suppose the driver could load up her iPod, assuming Creative hasn't sued it out of existance by the time something like this goes into production.

Re:km per liter

[euxneks]

This means that in Europe, this guys would be really 1337 hax0rs :)

Or, maybe in, say Canada, where we use metric and where UBC happens to be.

High MPG engines are nothing new.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Big 2 strokes

[spaceyhackerlady]

(you usually see 2-strokes in things like chainsaws and dirtbikes - you have to mix oil in with the gas)

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

YAWN... call me when there's a product

[dspyder]

Currently searching for a single-seater all-electric or at least super-efficient gas commute vehicle (12mi each way on a 45mph back road, recharging available at work) that cost less than a fully loaded Honda Civic.

Current products sold and licensable in the US that fit the bill: 0 (zero)

Re:km per liter

[jrp2]

"do you mean tres drôle? (not ha ha funny, peculiar funny) this is starting to hurt my head."

Or, for us simpler, cruder folks, NOT "Funny like a clown"

Re:speed? Results

[saskboy]

"I don't know why you Americans, when referring to Canadian provinces"

You mean Canadian provinces like say, I don't know, Saskatchewan?

-says SASKboy

I threw province in there so people would know I didn't mean the city. I was too lazy to type it in a gramatically correct other order.

Re:speed? Results

[saskboy]

Your concern is noted. The results I posted elsewhere in another comment [modded Redundant, go figure] and instead of posting them again here, gave the link to the site people could easily figure out the other stats from if they were willing to dig through the volumes of rules.

Re:km per liter

[VoiceOfRaisin]

in europe? they are in canada, which uses kilometers and liters already.

Grammar Nazis make /. into a concentration camp

[thc69]

E

Fucking

Gad

!!

In other news: Miracle first post derails whole discussion, causing whole Slashdot community to bitch about language in a discussion that's supposed to be about some insane (or inane) energy-efficiency creation. Making things worse, this first post pulls off it's miracle using it's subject line, not it's text -- and I didn't even know that anybody reads the subject line (I often don't).

Re: American Accuracy vs. European Accuracy

[thoughtlover]

Why do otherwise educated people, especially Americans, not understand accuracy.

Accuracy?

In America, it's customary to end a sentence with a question mark if it was posed as a question.

Nice

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Unfortunately, when they turned on the air conditioner, the milage dropped to 23 mpg.

Re:km per liter

[niXcamiC]

Not trying to troll (well, I kinda am, but not really) but there happens to be more to the world than the united states and europe, and most of it also uses metric.

Re:Something Useful...

[tylernt]

There are American-made (Westmoreland, Virginia) VW Rabbits that get 50MPG in the real world. Mine only gets 43MPG in the city though. :(

They use this newfangled technology called "diesel", which is something Americans seem to be allergic to in passenger cars. Whatever -- that means there are more Rabbits left for those of us who like paying $20 a month for fuel.

Seems like the 3-cylinder Geo/Chevy Metro approached 50MPG too. Too bad Chevy quit making them.

I shouldn't mention that there are European diesels that regularly beat 75MPG. Good thing they're not exported to the States, those fancy hybrid cars would look pretty silly trying to compete.

Downhill with a tailwind?

[Nerd4News]

Amateurs. I once rode the downhill side of the Smokey Mountains for more than 25 miles on my bike with the engine off. I figure I got eleventy gajillion MPG on that stretch.