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

[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

[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

[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

[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]

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

[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

[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

[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.

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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

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...

[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...

[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.

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?

[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:What what happen in an accident?

[Sentri]

In america: A Lawsuit

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.

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 ?

[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.

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...

[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:What what happen in an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

...by the SUV driver.

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.

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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

[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?

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:What what happen in an accident?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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.

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: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: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: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?

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.

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.

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: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

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.

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: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.

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.

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

[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

'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.

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: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.

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.

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: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

[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: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.

Re:What what happen in an accident?

[yobjob]

...on cable.

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 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.

...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.

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.

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..

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.

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: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.

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.

In related news

[mrops]

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

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: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?

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: 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.

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?

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: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.

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.

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: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.

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

Nice

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Unfortunately, when they turned on the air conditioner, the milage dropped to 23 mpg.