Slashdot Mirror
UBC Engineers Reach Mileage Of Over 3000 MPG
The New Revelation writes "Physorg reports that engineers at UBC have developed a single occupancy vehicle that achieves a ridiculous 3145 MPG! From the article: 'The Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) Supermileage Competition took place June 9 in Marshall, Michigan. Forty teams from Canada, the U.S. and India competed in designing and building the most fuel-efficient vehicle... The UBC design, which required the driver to lie down while navigating it, achieved 3,145 miles per US gallon (0.074 liters/100 km) -- equivalent of Vancouver to Halifax on a gallon (3.79 liters) of gas -- costing less than $5 at the pump.'"
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)
Can't we all just get along
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Wonder what speed it travels for it's optimal fuel consumtion
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
...you've invented the bicycle!
Chris Mattern
In america: A Lawsuit
Can't we all just get along
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.
Strangely, the entire team is now missing. Big oil had no comment.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
http://www.paccar.ethz.ch/news/index These guys got 5385 km/l (that's 12,666 MPG !) in 2005.
How can you get laid in it?
...by the SUV driver.
Competition results, warning PDF http://www.sae.org/students/sm2006results.pdf
Indiana and a HS there too came in with high MPG, as did Laval in Quebec province.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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
>>Sig under construction
But theoretical science often *does* lead to science with more practical applications.
When you look at the race results a few things stand out:
Seastead this.
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
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.
How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
Not a direct hit but close enough.
http://www.snopes.com/autos/business/carburetor.a
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.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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?
You're using her as bait, Master!
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.
"Old man yells at systemd"
Well the veacles are only required to be able to climb a 1% grade (and decend a 7% one) at an average velocity between 15 and 25 MPH so it wont get you where your going very fast, or through hills.
All misspellings and grammatical errors in the above post are intentional and part of my artistic expression.
Dear esteemed /.'ers
/. ...many would just look at the intro and conclusion sections of a report. We didn't provide too much detail so as not to bore. :)
/. but we're honoured. Keep the discussion (criticism) flowing.
:P Ah well.
I'm a member of the team (Charlie Yao) and thought I'd give some clarifications to what seems to be common questions.
Methodology of competition:
Basically, you're given a topped off fuel bottle and you run 6 laps around the track (with other vehicles running simultaneously). Afterwards, they remove the fuel bottle and measure the amount you consumed (by weight). Do some math, you get your efficiency.
Speed requirements:
The rules state between 15-25MPH. In practice, with 6 laps, you're given a time frame in which to complete it. If you go out of this time frame, you're penalized heavily. The max time is 38.4 minutes. The min single lap time is 3min 50s. Obviously, we care more about the former.
Driver orientation and details:
The driver lies down on his back, feet first. He still has his head tilted up so he can see... imagine standing and looking at your feet. Only drivers of a max height can fit since our vehicle is specifically designed for one. The minimum weight of the driver is 130lbs and ballast is added otherwise.
Litres/100km:
On typical vehicles, quoting km/l gives unwieldy numbers (so I hear, I'm neutral) so instead they use litres per 100km. For us, the reverse applies... 1337km/l vs. 0.074 litres/100km. And yeah, it was amusing to get 1337 performance. FYI, you can do multiple runs on the track (one team got in 8 while we got in 4) and our mileage varied from about 2900-3145 MPG. They take your best result.
Safety and practicallity:
No, it is not safe on the road... not with typical road vehicles. It is relative of course since those who choose the more fuel concious cars get screwed by SUVs. If everyone drove small cars, it wouldn't seem as dangerous would it? There actually has been an incident in the past where a student has been killed while testing on a highway. I believe it was in Ontario and maybe by U of T but I'm not certain. As for practicallity, no, it's not... but neither is any car designed for performace. Look at an F1 car and tell me where you're going to fit your family.
Info missing from TFA:
1) Not everyone is as inquisitive as
2) We have to keep some of our secrets away from our competitors
I'll check back to this thread every so often and try to reply to the best of my ability. I'd just like to add that perhaps the biggest value is educational. There's been a lot of innovation especially since we don't have the largest budget. Teams that have to travel substantially shorter distances to the competition have trailers for their vehicle, tools and extra cars for their members. We travel in one minivan and literally duct tape the car to the roof. If we can't find some more sponsors for a trailer... maybe we should get some from 3M. Also, there are teams overseas that get 3-4times our mileage... basically professional teams with relatively unlimited resources. They also generally don't have engine requirements.
Either way, it's been a great ride. It's eery to be on
Cheers,
C
P.S. Unfotunately the team pic didn't work out in my favour. I was using my shirt to hide oil stains from working on the car but it looks like I really need to go to the washroom
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.
Prediction for end of Universe #42: Fencepost error in Quantum_bogosort.cpp
That's not even near the real World Champions.
o ads/sem_results/Nogaro_May_2006/Race_classificatio n.pdf
o ads/sem_events/nogaro/rules/rules_2006_revised.pdf
See the latest Shell Eco-Marathon results:
http://www.shell.com/static/eco-marathon-en/downl
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/downl
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
May Peace Prevail On Earth
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.
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.
...on cable.
Czech language for absolute beginners
... 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?"
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.
The driver of the vehical died later due to fatigue by paddling the vehicle for 3145 miles.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
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?
The Spoon
Updated 6/28/2011