Slashdot Mirror
X Prize For a 100-MPG Car
Heinen writes in about the X Prize Foundation, which spurred innovation by offering US $10 million for the first privately built spacecraft. The Foundation now plans to offer millions for the first practical car that increases mileage five-fold. The specs for the competition are out in draft form amd call for cars in two categories that are capable of 100 MPG in tests to be run in 2009. The categories are: 4-passenger/4-wheel; and 2-passenger/unspecified wheels. The cars must be manufacturable, not "science projects. The prize is expected to top $10 million. The X Prize Foundation says that so far it has received more than 1,000 inquiries from possible competitors.
It's possible to make cars that are 'manufacturable' that meet this, the real problem will be making cars that are manufacturable... AND sellable.
Is there a market for super efficient cars that look like tampons with wheels?
I'm not even looking for typos.. I just find myself having to re-read the summaries three, four, and five times. Typos that lead to incoherent sentences, unclosed quotations, and more. How many grade school grammar mistakes can be made in a single paragraph?
Hopefully this will result in something more significant than the Ansari X-Prize (for spaceflight). Wasn't that supposed to jump-start private spaceflight as an industry? All I can recall are the two spaceflights the SpaceShip One team made in 2004 to win the thing, and nothing of not since.
To get good fuel economy probably needs a mindshift away from SUVs and Hummers towards smaller 1300cc or smaller cars.
The "look" of cars is pretty much fashion driven, dictated by the car manufacturers to promote consumption. This year it's round headlights, next year square; boxy Hummer look one year, curved Porche look the next; big grill, then small.
Car manufacturers keep advertising more power, size etc (10% more power than last year's model, 5% more space...). How is it that they never advertise reduced consumption (well they might, but only if it does not compromise power, size etc)..
People really need to see cars as transport. Perhaps then they will start to think in terms of efficiency etc.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
amd call for cars in two categories that are capable of 100 MPG in tests to be run in 2009.
AMD calls for cars that are capable of 100 MPG? Meanwhile, I call for AMD to design a processor that is capable of 100 GHz by 2009.
IMO this contest is looking for a milestone in a direction we may not want to go. On the surface it may seem worthy, but new technologies may be making internal combustion engines obsolete in the next decade, and I can't really tell whether the contest rules will take these advances into account. How would one judge a vehicle powered by a hypercapacitor, or by compressed air? You're comparing apples to oranges by merely judging the equivalent energy used to power the vehicle; the ultimate cost of stored electricity may be a lot lower per joule than that in refined petroleum, or it could be higher. How does one judge the total carbon emissions for that electricity? Was it generated by a coal-burning plant, or by nuclear? Or wind, or sea?
The article seems a bit vague on what practical means. Will it have to include air conditioning, power windows, automatic transmission... like Americans are used to? I can see many entries removing all these features that are pretty much standard on cars today just to save some weight. That's not even going into how I hope it's safe enough to drive and can hit 60 MPH in under, say, 15 seconds.
Now that I've mentioned my concerns, I have to say it's a great idea. Such a prize would push for innovation and provide the world with a useful solution to a growing problem.
Why not an X-Prize for an electric car that can charge from standard electrical outlets and has a range of say 200-300 miles? Don't get me wrong, I'm all for efficiency but oil is a finite resource that is concentrated in hard to reach or politically turbulent parts of the world. Even as we improve on efficiency more and more people hit the road so we wind up treading water (or oil) and going no-where. As long as we depend on fossil fuels for energy the demand is going to increase faster than we can make efficiency improvements. Electricity can be produced through a number of means including but not limited to wind and solar and unlike hydrogen the distribution infrastructure is already there.
-------------------
WP
http://blog.wperry.net/
wouldn't existing electric vehicles already meet the "100 mpg" criterea? Undefined gas mileage is certainly better than 100 mpg.
Or what about a gas/electric hybrid that didn't really use it's gas engine, except at highway speeds, and charged up from a wall socket?
VW already have a production car that gets ~80mpg and have had trial cars beat 300mpg in real traffic. Of all the big car companies they're the most likely ones to do this, yet as a big car company the $10m would be far less useful then the promotion.
/* FUCK - The F-word is here so that you can grep for it */
More pictures and info here and here. Now this is a two seat car, and if you follow the links above, you'll see not the most spacious.
VW also produce a 3 litre car, the Lupo. The fuel consummation here is 78 miles per US gallon or 94 miles per Imperial gallon and this car is in production, and will hold four people and a wee bit of luggage.
With this in mind, does this competition sound like its really pushing the envelope?
Independence? That's middle-class blasphemy. We are all dependent on one another, every soul of us on earth. G.B Shaw
Lets face it, the reason why a lot of people are driving big SUV's and suffering with 20 MPG highway 15 MPG city is because of the marvelous 5 STAR safety rating these vehicles provide.
The roads are (in America) getting more crowded by the day, the law of tonnage rules and small guys get eaten alive in wrecks.
Is it really worth it to be driving around in a vehicle that gets 30, 40 or even a 100 MPG HWY if it gets compacted like a soda can if merely bumped?
Something to think about.
I'm guessing the winner of this contest will produce a tiny car with a very lightweight aluminum chassis, maybe strengthened with mass produced carbon fiber tubes. It will run a small turbo diesel engine, perhaps at constants revs with a hybrid battery system and regenerative brakes. It will run on small low friction tires and do very poorly in crash tests.
I suspect any of the large auto manufacturers could make this car today. They don't bother because there's such a small market for this sort of vehicle.
That said, I like this X-Prize. It will show the public that high-mileage cars are possible. It will offer convincing proof that the auto manufacturers are exaggerating when they protest higher CAFE standards. It may even light a fire under a few of the auto giants to build some cars approaching this efficiency.
Can I use a gallon of uranium instead?
Can I total the distance that each piece travels, or does it all have to be in the same direction?
Can the direction be "up"?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
...we could always, yaknow, walk. *gasp*
*Steam cars were a problem, but steam power for vehicles can still be found. It turns out that steam power for extremely massive vehicles is actually quite efficient. Steamrollers were replaced by diesel but only relatively recently.
There are also many forms of internal combustion engine - the standard piston engine is one, but the rotary engine is another. There have been huge problems getting the rotary engine to be efficient - the designs so far have been pretty pathetic - but it would be possible to imagine a rotary engine designed to be extremely efficient that simply blew all existing piston engines off the planet.
Rotary engines suffer from several problems. First, way too much energy is lost as heat. Second, it is usually implemented as a single unit, which means you get very uneven power generation. No sane engineer would build a one-piston engine with the idea of getting better efficiency, so why make that mistake with rotaries? Next, pressures are all wrong. The rotary engine, when first designed, had a nasty habit of exploding from the internal pressure. Material science has come a long way since then, but the materials used to build engines has not. Nor has the cooling. The supercooling geeks in computing have abandoned using car radiators because they are so pathetically crap at getting rid of heat. They only work in a car because the car is moving at a decent pace most of the time.
All in all, I see nothing particularly hard about building a superior car engine. Now, building one that can be easily produced, provide sufficient power to give a car 100MPG at a decent speed, etc - now, that's a tougher problem. I don't think it's as hard as is made out, but it's certainly not trivial.
Of course, I'll never know, as I'm not going to be able to find the investment needed, but I would start with a computer simulation of the different sections of the car and figure out not how much power is wasted, but how much power is theoretically salvageable. (Most power is wasted in the transmission, but it is unclear any transmission is going to save much more than the double semi-automatic gearboxes can already do, so the wastage there doesn't matter. You're not going to reclaim enough to make it worth making that the primary focus.)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
volkswagen already did more than double this with their 1-litre car (100km on 1 litre of gas. that's a little more than 235 miles per gallon).
i imagine we can do a little better given that this was created nearly 5 years ago.
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Why do you need huge acceleration and top speed? You're using your car for transport, not racing. There's no need for a car that goes more than 70mph. There's no need for a car that burns rubber.
I use a very old technology 1300cc car (probably equivalent in power to a more modern 1000 cc engine car). It has sufficient guts for my purposes, even when carrying 4 people + a load.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
My first thought was "have a small gasoline engine powering an air compressor mounted in the car to fill the air tanks for the compressed air piston engine. 100mpg? no problem. I am in complete agreement with you. PS how does it feel to be the one savant with the clue?
Electricity is (mostly) reshaped fossil energy. Coal, gas, oil, uranium. Yes, uranium too. No, you don't "burn" it, but there's less left than most people imagine. I think I remember we have enough for 40 years, provided we don't increase our demand. And the demand is on the rise, and the area it comes from isn't too stable either, a lot of it is in Russia and Africa.
Yes, there are "alternative" sources for electric power, solar and wind, geothermic, tidal plants and so on. But they play a very minor role in the overall output. And the power plants are not running idle either, even here where we have strong anti-nuclear sentiments people start pondering whether to build more nuclear plants 'cause we need more electricity already.
Now, what do you think would happen when cars want some juice, too?
I wouldn't see electric cars as an alternative. To make it viable, we'd first of all increase the output of alternative electricity by magnitudes, or we're just shifting the pollution from the street to the power plants.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Power an electric car with a nuclear battery.
Please read the GUIDELINES. It is not just about making a 100 MPG car. That is not difficult at all (I've done so with a team at MIT myself). VW 1 liter car fails it! Gah...
The only problem is that to be successful as a product, these cars have to look like normal cars, drive like normal cars, be priced similar to normal cars, meet normal car safety tests, and have all the features expected by modern cars.
To meet all of these tests unfortunately requires some compromises. Looking/driving like normal cars might sacrifice some aerodynamic capabilities, being as safe as normal cars without sacrificing too much weight means using more expensive materials, and all the luxury features expected in modern cars aren't lightweight either.
I'm sure a 100USMPG car could be made, but it's likely to be either far too small, lacking in features and unsafe to be viable as a product, or far too expensive.
My 250cc motorcycle can move two people and gets 70MPG using 1960's technology not tuned at all for efficiency. Seems like a trivial challenge for $10mil.
First .. how long is a mile? In real units?
.. how much is a gallon? In real units?
Then
When are 'merkins going to start using proper units?
"Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
I reiterate practical. Looking at that car, how is it practical? I'm pretty sure it's a 1-seater, and even if you can squeeze someone behind the driver, then there's no space for luggage. It's not practical if Mom can't fit 2-year old Jimmy in the car while going grocery shopping.
It's all relative. You can make small cars safe. Look at the crash testing of the Smart car for example, but the idea is to gradually make all cars and trucks smaller and lighter so they use less energy and are less dangerous in accidents to other cars. Look at the cars & trucks in Japan or Europe on average compared to the US, they're a couple sizes smaller.
Yes, uranium too. No, you don't "burn" it, but there's less left than most people imagine. I think I remember we have enough for 40 years, provided we don't increase our demand.
. html
Who keeps spreading the rumor that our uranium supply will only last in the order of decades?!?! Start spreading the truth!
"In summary, the actual recoverable uranium supply is likely to be enough to last several hundred (up to 1000) years, even using standard reactors. With breeders, it is essentially infinite. Hundreds of thousands of years is certainly enough time to develop fusion power, or renewable sources that can meet all our power needs."
http://www.americanenergyindependence.com/uranium
here.
Sorry to mention this, oh strange American folk (I'm in Australia), but generally, fuel consumption is expressed in lt/100km.
So that's 2.3lt/100km.
You know, my eight year old Hyundai Excel, four doors + hatch, air conditoning, carries my 4 person family about quite effectively, gets 5.5lt/100km (43mpg). I measured it for some years (it varied from 4.5 to 6.5). I don't even try that hard. And it's half way there.
I am stunned to learn the average American vehicle gets 21mpg, or 8.9 lt/100km. Gosh. Do they have special oil burning jets out the back or something?
"Cats like plain crisps"
Are you trying to tell me Uranium is a fossil fuel?
XML causes global warming.
Erh... is there a second source claiming that besides one who has a keen interest in saying so?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It's very easy to see electricity as a viable alternative to oil based products for vehicle fuel. after all, electricity is clean, isn't it? Well not always. Granted an electric vehicle gives out no exhaust fumes, but we also need to consider how that electricity is made. The world is experiencing a considerable rise in the demand for electricity, and, despite all the hype, wind, solar, wave power etc can only fill a tiny propartion of that demand. Nuclear fuel is still unfashionable, so electricity generators are forced to look at hydro and fossil fuels (maily coal) to meet the demand. Hydro has its problems as it displaces peoples. In many parts of the develloping world, especially China and India coal is the major source of generating fuel. The burning of this coal creates horrendous amounts of acric pollution in many cities. So, electric cars can only be a long-term 'green' replacement for gasolean ones provided the world has a sufficient supply of 'clean' electricity: which it does not. We (the human race) need to have a complete mind change over, not just how we power our cars, but how we live our lives in general, and we must challenge our expectations of what we can reasonable expect from this planet of ours if we want it to remain somewhere worth living. Forget the car and take the bus - or walk!
Here is a 4 passenger vehicle (http://www.loremo.com/) that goes 0-100 km/h in 9 seconds and consumes 2.7 L/100km for the GT version.
:-(
The economy LS version is a pokey 20 seconds for 0-100 km/h, but sips only 1.5 L/100km
Comes with airbags, particle filter and radio.
Options: dashboard computer, air condition, MP3 player, navigation system
Not available until 2009
Hey, Mom! Is it beer, yet?
"but there would probably be a point where additions to the numerator equal additions to the denominator"
should be
"but there would probably be a point where the ratio of additions to the numerator, to additions to the denominator, stabilizes".
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
They've published the Draft Competition Guidelines.
Lots of folks are knee-jerking with "what about electric vehicles?" Unfortunately, the Slashdot summary is misleading
There are performance specs too. The vehicle must go at least 80 mph for the 2-seater; 100 mph for the 4-seater. Braking 60-0 must be less than 170 ft. They don't require crash testing, but expect you to demonstrate that you've built something to contrmporaty standards for front and side impacts. The standard compliment of mirrors, reflectors, indicators and gauges are required as well.
The end of the document describes their objectives and how they came up with their requirements. It's a pretty easy document to read, and it gives you some insight into what they're trying to do (hint: it involves eventual production of the vehicle.)
for a vehicle that is wayyyyy more efficient than the average car, uses two wheels, is inexpensive to manufacture, never breaks down, is easy to operate, corners like a dream, and is light enough to carry. I just can't figure out what to call it!
My old '92 Geo Prizm was a 4-door sedan. It burned very clean, passing every emissions test by a large margin. It didn't have power windows, but it did have almost every other 'luxury' that is standard today.
Oh yeah, it also got something like 25 mpg city, 35 mpg highway.
What the hell is with car manufacturers? At the Chicago Auto Show, it seemed that even the 'best' cars proclaimed 15 mpg city 25 mpg highway.
Is it that hard to make a car that can get better mileage than my POS Geo Prizm? With modern engineering, why is it so goddamn hard to make a car that gets 30 mpg city, 35+ mpg highway? Screw all that other crazy crap they throw in, I'd gladly buy a car that gets me from point A to point B at a price that I can afford without remorgaging my house.
http://www.uic.com.au/nip75.htm
/shrug. No one really knows how much Uranium is out there, we simply stopped looking because we have enough either on hand, or easily available, literally for a lifetime.
estimates 70 years based on the resources that we know of, noting that, unlike with oil, we haven't been looking for Uranium for most of the last 25 years.
Hell, it's my understanding that a lot of the Uranium being used, currently, is coming from dismantled WMDs.
Other estimates I'm finding have the supply on the order of 200 years.
Obviously, that will change, but Uranium (and it's cousin Thorium) aren't exactly hard to come by.
This space unintentionally left blank.
How long have nuclear plants generated electricity? Since the 1950's. And they're still building them.
How long have solar and wind plants generated electricity? Since the 1980's. And they're still building them, but steam and nuclear had a head-start by quite a bit. If more people invest in companies that build solar panels and wind generators, their percentage will increase. This sh*t don't happen in a day. AND, the yearly cost of operating a solar plant or wind plant is laughable (in a good way) compared to operating a coal plant, and especially a nuclear plant.
I wonder how many "Slashdotters (who are likely also to be programmers are driven to the edge of insanity by our honourable editors' failure to close their punctuation...
( Redundancy is ) ^ n
Let's cut to the chase. There's already a winner:
http://www.flytheroad.com/
All we have to do now is ban those big, ugly cars.
Educated americans are using SI units like we do in Europe.
If you want to deliver for NASA, the military etc, then you MUST deliver everything in SI units.
Imperial units is just a way for the government to keep americans remember that they are part of the english empire.
While all my young friends fret and worry about the expenses acrued by their automobiles, while they work 60 hour weeks, I always make it on time to dinenrs or movies. And I do it with my feet!
Everyone's got feet! Use those! Spend the money you would throw at insurance and repairs towards alchohol!
The only argument against walking everywhere seems to be "but I hate walking".
Essentially we're getting 100mph for the transport, but the wanger extension is what is giving us 20mpg. People talk about safety etc, but really these are hedges against speaking the real reason; the perception that Real Men drive Hummers with gunracks, only faggots drive 1100cc Noddy cars.
I'm not quite buying your simplification, though, either: how do you account for the 59% of car purchases made by women? What's their issue, penis envy?
While it may be popular these days to try and pin all the country's (if not the entire world's) ills on a bunch of redneck, white, male, gun-toting, Hummer-driving, "flyover state"-ers, I don't think that reality backs that up. Your typical car buyer is female, and is looking for safety, performance (acceleration and handling, which in many people's minds is intertwined with safety), style, and somewhere significantly further down the list, environmental impact and fuel economy. While the guy driving a Hummer may make a nice target for ridicule, there aren't really enough of them to really matter compared to the legions of people driving mid-market cars which really don't have much in the way of a "penis factor" going for them.
Gas just doesn't cost enough for people to care more about mileage than about style. And to be honest, even if it went up by an order of magnitude, while you'd see cars become more efficient, I doubt that you'd really see people changing their fundamental views very much. We're not really talking about anything that's developed recently here; the same forces are at work today with cars, that led people a century or two ago to buy matched sets of horses to pull their coach. Two thousand years ago, there were probably Romans ogling each others' chariots -- when you have something that represents such a large investment (as personal transportation devices almost always are, regardless of the era), they almost automatically become status symbols.
If we ever get cars that on average get 100MPG, it'll be because the cost of fuel is $10 a gallon; even then, there will still be Hyundais and BMWs, econo-boxes and performance machines, minivans and maybe even a Hummer or two, because that's what people will want and have always wanted.
Given the choice between trying to change a deep-rooted social behavior and solving the technical problem of making a minivan/Hummer/whatever that gets 100MPG, I'd say the technical problem is far more feasible to solve.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
liters per 100km is like 'gallons for 100 miles', not 'miles per gallon'. The figures are inversed. Curious how Australians use that. In Korea we use kilometers per liter (km/l). Middle-sized sedans get somewhere around 10 to 12km/l while the compacts go from anywhere between 18 and 25km/l. Luxury stuff gets about 6 to 8. Google tells me 25km/l = 58.8mpg. 100mpg should be 42.5km/l.
Serving time in Aristotelean prison for violating laws of physics
I am stunned to learn the average American vehicle gets 21mpg, or 8.9 lt/100km.
Here people have decided that the supposed benefits of huge Galaxy-class land vessels are worth paying to refill every couple of days, because not only is there the long-standing male car culture here, but now women are using vehicles as a means of self-actualization, self-aggrandizement, self-empowerment, or whatever you want to call it.
We're perfectly willing to go for instant gratification rather than long-term sanity. Run up your credit cards, buy a Ford Annihilator, and have fun! It's the New American Way. Restraint is for pussies and foreigners.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Car manufacturers keep advertising more power, size etc (10% more power than last year's model, 5% more space...). How is it that they never advertise reduced consumption (well they might, but only if it does not compromise power, size etc)..
to the amount that these can increase. You do have a point, every wear we see bigger displacement, more power, more space. Models are just going to keep getting bigger until they're full-size. The interesting thing is, what do the do when someone wants a small car with a small engine? They simply release a new model with a new name so there isn't the consumer image that they've "scaled down". The Toyota corolla is a good example, the car kept growing in size, so they introduced new models to fill in the lower gap such as the Tercel, Echo and Yaris.
I can only think of one car company that has scaled down the size of their cars (albeit slightly), and that is Honda with their Civic (6th-7th gen) and the Acura TL and RL
What a beautiful coincidence from the Slashdot fortune cookie:
"One way to make your old car run better is to look up the price of a new model."
It's 20,160 rods/hogshead. Quite a milestone. (rodstone?)
It's just carbon fibers and epoxy resin. The materials are no more expensive than a high quality fiberglass composite (which is actually fairly expensive compared to steel), but the manufacturing is. Fundamentally, it's just a bunch of hydrocarbons, so there's no reason to believe the resins couldn't be made more cheaply. Right now they are sold primarily in high-performance, low volume applications, but it would be a little cheaper with more widespread adoption. It doesn't help that environmental regulations practically prohibit the construction of new chemical production plants in this country.
It's more like 2x current MPG. Toyota Prius already gets 50-60mpg. Gasoline cars will be obsolete soon with Honda hydrogen car within a year or two.
\
You're right, waiting sucks. Unless you're sleeping, or at work, or at the mall, or eating dinner, or doing homework, or watching TV, or any other point of the day where you could plug your car into an electrical outlet. You're also right about the infrastructure not being there. It will take several enterprising individuals to come up with the pay-charge stations that you'll park your car at at the mall, or at work, or at the train station, or at your apartment. Hell, they could even rig your car with an RFID tag and you'd just get a monthly statement saying where you charged your car, and for how long, working on the same operating principles as a toll road or other pay-as-you-go system.
Ever see a Smart Fortwo? They are rather silly looking things, and quite popular. They are practically the dominant form of life on the streets in Victoria. Remains to see how they'll sell in the US, but I'm betting they can do ok. You have to remember that there's a wide variety of car buyers. No, you probably won't get the people that like H2s to buy your car, but others might find the look cute. Heck, I'd seriously look at a Fortwo if I didn't already have a car I liked and you won't catch me buying a large SUV. You could give me one, and I'd just sell it, I don't care for the appearance or handling, nevermind the cost.
After all, how many rods per hogshead is 100 MPG?
Volkswagen is already almost there. The Diesel Lupo gets 78 (US) Miles/Gallon. An improved version is in the works. Too bad no one would buy this in the US.
r gy_vehicle&oldid=117730882
& start=15&showall=&id=VWN&doc=vwg0006011
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Low-ene
Lupo doing 94 (US) Miles/Gallon in australia: http://autoweb.drive.com.au/cms/newsarticle.html?
Intermediate steps will be needed in between today's 6MPG hummers and tomorrow's electric mass-produced, mass-driven car. And to be perfectly honest, there is still a massive amount of research to be done. This one prize is for the intermediate step, between now and the car of the Future. 100MPG cars fit this bill nicely. However, I definitely agree that there needs to be a similar contest in making a massproduced, easily charged electric car/etc.
Seriously, why bother? We have a solution to the pollution and mess that is our current transportation system:
1. Solar Panels.
2. Lithium Ion Batteries.
Or you can continue building crappier cars that continue to burn our ever dwindling rotten dinos, at ever decreasing rates.
Here's my bibliography:
1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics
2. http://www.teslamotors.com/index.php?js_enabled=1
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
how long is a mile? In real units?
1 mile = 1 mile
1 gallon = 1 gallon
I hope this helps.
To 100 MPG?
Ah, i see you are using an american baseline.
Everywhere else in the world, this would be 2-3 fold...
HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
With a 100 mpg goal, the competition is aiming rather low. Take one of the above and modify it a bit, and you should be close. Especially if you apply American highway traffic as a scenario (relatively low and constant speed).
100 mpg might sound nice, but it's not a real groundbreaking achievement anymore.
Oh, and the first two cars I mentioned already flopped on the market. While technically superior, they were simply too expensive.
I daily drive a vehicle that gets about 100mpg. It's a 1983 Honda C70 Passport. It's a scooter/motorcycle that weighs about 180lbs, has a 70cc 4 stroke motor and a 3spd transmission. It has a top speed of between 40 and 50mph and gets a real 100mpg. In perfect tune, it would probably turn in an honest 110mpg.
Lets compare this to a car. A car has to be much larger, people expect it to be able to go 70 to 80mph and get to 60 mph in less than 20 seconds. You'd need a much larger vehicle and motor, tires, etc. Even with clever techniques, I just don't see it.
The smallest diesel VW came close to achieving the goal (3 cylinder turbo diesel). Nobody bought it.
We should just drive things like the honda passport. It's what they do in asia, and it works. The don't cost much to make, operate, or maintain.
I don't know how some of the taller people find cars in the EU. I spent two weeks going out after work looking for a non SUV to replace my old Honda. The only non SUV's that could handle my height was a VW. After the issues with my Wife's VW (No QC, the lack of parts in the states took the car off the road for almost 3 months http://www.consumeraffairs.com/automotive/vw_coils .html ) I am not going to purchase another VW.
The newer cars are smaller, thus I am afraid that I now drive a SUV. I couldn't even purchase a diesel as MA made it impossible to purchase at this moment. (THe only legal ones are ultra low sulfur diesel which wasn't available last Oct and might not be available now).
-Jason
Honda has a cool Ultra Capacitor prototype, dubbed the FCX. From what I can tell, this is one of the "bleeding edge" protoypes that are both fast charging and have a fairly large capacity of about 1750W/kg, compared to 900W/kg (according to the above site).
correction
That's "power per unit of mass", which doesn't make sense. What's the "energy per unit of mass" of these things ? Is it 1750 Wh/kg or 1750 Ws/kg ?
The 1.2 liter displacement micro-diesel engine versions of german-made four-seater cars Audi A2 and Volkswagen Lupo are real-world 3liters/100kilometer performers. Depending on british, yankee or aldebaranian gallon being used in the definition of this 100MPG challenge, that is not very far from pass (maybe just 15% less tha required).
w /plus/.gdata/cikk/gpc_lupo3l.jpg
Actually Volkswagen had a three-wheeled, two-seater vehicle which ran the 100kilometers on exactly 1liter of fuel. It was fully ready for series production, but the disappointing sales of above described A2 and Lupo cars but the manufacturing plans to sleep. Especially the high cost of light aluminium body and extremely tight fitting tolerances to minimize air drag made the 1liter vehicle unfit for market reeality.
Although german people are quite "green" thinking and eco-conscious, they are also car buffs. Everbody in Germany wants a car that can do 200+ kilometers/hour on their unlimited superhighway networks. This is of course impossible with an engine smaller than 2.0 liters displacement, so these small engine cars did not seel well, to say it politely.
The only sales the Audi A2 made (about 175,000 cars overall) were simply because it had cute shape and quite livable on the inside, so richer women did get it for intra-city use (remember its body is aluminium, driving price up). However, almost all of those sales were with the larger, more powerful 1.4 liter displacement engine variants, which consumes about 30% more fuel.
Anyhow, if VW or Audi wanted to cash the prize, they could show a slightly tuned A2 or Lupo next month, so this new X-prize is meaningless.
In fact VW is just considering to introduce a new Lupo version that is more capable and still meets the 3liter/100km economy. It will cost 8000 euros or about half of the previous model. See photo: http://index.hu/cikkepek/totalcar/magazin/hirek/v
... is find a 100 mile long downhill slope
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
Except that it isn't.
There already exists a car that can get 65 mpg - routinely - not on some secret test track. It has been available for about six years, and there are millions already on the roads in Europe. It's called the Renault Clio dCI and I have one. It is about the same size as any other super-mini and has a four star (out of five) European safety rating. It's quite lively - pulls away quickly and goes well over 80 mph. The Clio is not the only car of its class - there are others with similar performance and specification.
Why is this remarkable? It is not.
The only remarkable thing is that more people don't seem to know about this. Until fuel prices start to reflect the true cost of motoring, many people seem to prefer to bury their heads in the sand and continue to drive their gas-guzzling monsters.
And the X-prize? It sounds as though it shouldn't be too hard to hit that 100 mpg figure. The real challenge is the change of perception required from the public.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Well, the problem is that if _everyone_ started being logical about their consumption, the economy would crumble. Long story incoming, but bear with me.
Basically what happens ever since the Great Depression is that we can produce orders of magnitude more than we can possibly sell. That's, in a nutshell, what happened in the Great Depression in the first place. Think supply and demand. It works somewhat like this:
- think a graph that plots number of units produced versus the cost per unit to produce it. Obviously, the more units you produce, the less it will cost, so it looks sorta hyperbole shaped.
- Now think a second curve on that graph: number of units produced, vs the price at which you can sell them. Yeah, Say's Law sorta applies, supply produces its own demand, but at an increasingly lower price. E.g., everyone needs a pair of shoes, but if you want to sell them _two_ pairs of shoes, you'll need to make them a bit more affordable. And if you want to sell them _three_ pairs of shoes, you'll have to lower the price some more.
The point where the two curves intersect is basically the supply and demand equilibrium point.
What happened in the Great Depression was that the two curves became basically parallel. There was no point where you'd cover even the production price, much less make a profit. Hence, factories going bankrupt and it didn't make sense for someone else to start a new factory. Hence, unemployment exploded.
Of course, there were other factors, such as the devastating effects of a forced deflation, but in a nutshell, supply-vs-demand this is what happened. It will help illustrate my point just fine.
Since then, we learned to deal with it by messing with both sides of the equation. E.g.,
- demand side: government spending (sometimes even to wasteful extremes) to create extra demand. It keeps some companies in business producing, say, missiles. And those companies then go and buy trucks, keeping those companies in business too. And their employees go and buy clothes and TVs, so they help keep more companies in business. There's a bit of a multiplier effect there. See, Keynesian Multiplier. At any rate, it raises aggregate demand to keep the economy going.
- demand side: think marketting, fashion, planned obsolescence, minor upgrades presented as the next must-have thing, etc. Basically making people want to throw their perfectly good 2-year-old car and buy a new one just because the new one has rounded headlights. Basically instead of just lowering the price to make people buy a second car, convince them that the car they bought last year are sooo unfashionable now, and they have to throw it away and buy a new one.
- supply side: the previous point also has the side-effect of lowering supply. More and more people are moved from manufacturing an excess of goods, to jobs like design (someone has to come up with those rounded headlights), marketting, PR, R&D to come up with those minor upgrades that marketting will then present as the greatest paradigm shift ever, etc.
If people just started being sane about their purchases, all that edifice would have a harder time keeping working. If you see cars as just transport, for example, then there is no need to upgrade as long as the new one doesn't offer an earth-shattering advantage in that department.
Fuel economy makes a poor incentive to upgrade. You're not going to to buy an 100,000$ car just because it uses 5% less fuel than your 2 year old car. It just won't pay for itself by the time the next upgrade would be due. If it's just transport and the only difference is the mpg, then you're going to hold onto a car for 20 years. And if you're logical, it also won't be MPG alone, but total cost, so you won't get an expensive Porsche when a cheap Skoda does the same job.
So basically, expect the economy to go very funny very fast if people actually started being sane about their purchases. At the moment you can be the smart one not blowing your money on fashionable crap, basically, at the expense of relying on everyone else to be the dumb ones who do. But if everyone snapped out of it, you may well get to live in interesting times.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
Check Mother Earth News 1980:o n/1980-09-01/Mothers-Own-Hybrid-Car.aspx
w w.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportation/1980-09 -01/Mothers-Own-Hybrid-Car.aspx+site:motherearthne ws.com+hybrid+1980
http://www.motherearthnews.com/Green-Transportati
The site was slow to begin with, so here's the Google cache:
http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache:ePauTxj56ckJ:w
Privacy begins with
Hmmmm.....Will it rulez by those Air Powered Car?
I thought we only were at MPG-4 yet? My mom still things MP3 is whats hot right now.
you could buy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Lupo
u g
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Audi_A2
But the initial higher price is not reclaimable
by lower petrol/diesel consumption.
They have been discontinued due to low
promotion and customer interest.
Especially the A2 is starting to be a highly
sought after item on the used car market.
But it has been shown that a large scale production
regular 4wheeled seating 4 car with less
than 3 liters/100km is possible
without much further ado.
Some examples:
( in German the EN page is nearly void of information )
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niedrigenergiefahrze
ref: 100mpg ~ 2.35liter/100km
At one point around 1990, Austin in the UK produced a Montego (mid-sized saloon car) with a Perkins Diesel engine that could perform 100 MPG (note: British gallons) and 100 MPH (but not at the same time)
t ef.htm
t =31246
Pictures of Austin Montego: http://www.austin-rover.co.uk/index.htm?sipanimon
Reference to the 100 MPG / 100 MPH Montego : http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/forum/post/index.htm?
So currently you think that 20 MPG is good or normal!? You guys really do pay too little for gas.
I have a big heavy 2 litre engine car and it still does well over 42MPG (in US Gallons) and that is not unusual in Euro-land.
...increases mileage by 2.4 times to 100 MPG.
Nothing to see here. Move along.
They'd find their winner.
"No problem. I have the capacity to do infinite work so long as you don't mind that my quality approaches zero."-Dilbert
Many cars in Europe are already averaging ~50mpg, some much more.
There is a world outside of the US, and in most cases, it surpasses it.
(61hp & 14.5 seconds to hit 60 mph), and is impractical for roads that rely on highway driving.
...' and so on?
Thats siply not true. In Germany, where the higways are mostly unrestricted in speed, its still possible and practical to use that cars. There speeds like 100MPH are common, some people are even going 150MPH or more (these are not the economic cars -- oc course), still I'm alive and happy.
So what is your problem an an US-Higway, where 55 or 65 MPH are common? In Germany you are allowed to go about 60MPH on a rural road, and these economic cars do it very well. And yet, these economic cars were develloped in germany, and are one of the safest in their class.
Oh, well, the top speed of my economic car is 100MPH, yet I get it to 110MPH regulary (measured by GPS), and still not hitting the limit. How does your car? Are you even able to try it out? Or are you relying on your 'common sense' and 'people state that
Instead of "first practical car that increases mileage five-fold" read that as "increase mileage two-fold". We already get 50mpg, you insensitive USians.
Fivefold?????
Hmm... Let's see...
1 Gallon = 3.785 liters
100 Miles = 160.9 kms
So this equals to 42.5 km's per liter.
That is just 2-fold.. lots of cars are already sold that can do 20 km/l !!!
A large power plant converts dinosaur-era organic matter to energy a lot better than the little engine under your hood, even considering distribution losses.
..how many liters per gallon? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallon
CTRL + F Funny ---> I had you!!!
since when we need more than 640k for a super efficient-100mpg car that look like tampoon with wheels?
From reading the rules, the car has to be price competitive which rules out all the cars using expensive materials such as aluminum, carbon fiber, composite plastics and whatever else.
Technically, Doctors in Germany are addressed as "Herr Doktor".
America, Home of the Brave.
My Fiat Punto MultiJet requires 25km/l (58mpg unless I'm wrong) for its everyday real use, and it was produced in 2002. So I think that the goal is not that far.
CTRL + F Funny ---> I had you!!!
There are few cars on the market today, at least in the UK, which do less than 20mpg. I drive a large, heavy pickup with a big engine. I drive fast. I get over 30mpg normally (averaged over the last 10,000 miles). And that's without even trying to drive economically. Over 50mpg is not unusual in common cars.
One of the big problems is that Americans insist on high torque engines at low revs.
Gasoline engines simply doesn't work that way. You end up with gas-guzzling five liter V8s.
Diesel does work that way. It'll double your gas mileage with no noticeable difference in the car.
No sig today...
The EcoRacer has already done 100mpg*: http://www.topgear.co.uk/news/2005/10/26/meet-vws- 100mpg-coupe/
(and 0-60 in 6 secs)
From a European perspective this looks like the scene in Austin Powers where Dr Evil, confused by the the future, demands $1 million and everybody looks at him and asks "is that all?". I suppose in a country where single figure mpg figures are normal 100mpg looks awfully daunting, but from a European perspective it seems somewhat plausible.
*Admittedly because 100 miles per imperial gallon is equal to 83 miles per US gallon
Simple:
1. Buy gallon of petrol/gas
2. Wait fifty years
3. Sell gallon of petrol to automotive museum for $50,000
4. Buy train ticket anywhere I damn well like
And over 99.27% of Uranium is in the form of U-238, which can be converted to fuel in breeder reactors. That is not included in that 70 years of known resources.
Perhaps one of the saddest things is that this future source of fuel has been used as a projectile. To future generations it will probably be as incomprehensible as shooting bullets made out of gold.
If I have seen further it is by stealing the Intellectual Property of giants.
to be capable of 100mpg highway. They may be handing $10 million to Toyota...
Better yet, pick any midsized overpowered v6 sedan; the 250-300hp range that is ever so popular these days. Build me a 100mpg vehicle that performs like that and I bet you will get people lining up for them.
Even with the dangers, see below, its high time we came around and brought vehicle standards up to new levels.
Dangers:
First, overlooked. If it cost less to drive people will drive even more. Urban sprawl would increase and traffic deaths would as well.
The used car market would implode if such technology appeared overnight. Such a change would probably be a boon in the short term for manufacturers because if the pricing were right and the vehicles looked like todays most people would switch. Another area that will see big hits is current lease holders of older engine tech cars and trucks. Throw in the multitude of people needed to support the current engine technologies and not all of those jobs would survive the changeover.
If this progressed into commercial vehicles then the government might have to act as the write off of capitalization from the rapid depreciation of the of older vehicles could put a crimp into tax generation.
The other concern for taxation is decreased use of fuel from gasoline and diesel sales. Governments won't stand for that so expect the taxes to increase thereby hitting anyone who cannot afford the new tech even harder.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
We need better designed cities, not better designed cars.
Cars are certainly the most flexible way to get around. But we should not have to use them for our daily commute through rush hour traffic or even for running most common errands or to go out and play or dine out.
The problem really is with the way we (esp. the US) design cities. Instead of spending money on public transit-oriented communities, it's much, much cheaper for the municipalities to just pave a stretch of concrete and let individual citizens pay for the cost, maintenance, and operation of personally-owned vehicles. On top of that, condo construction here is pretty lousy, whereas if single family home construction is lousy at least your immediate neighbors are farther away from the noise.
Unfortunately, we don't really have a simple way to measure how much energy people can save in cities with alternative transit as opposed to people who live in cities where they have to drive even to the nearest postal mailbox.
In the mean time, the exciting progress in the transportation field ought to be things like transit oriented design:
http://www.transitorienteddevelopment.org/
http://www.carfree.com/
Progress in these areas of urban development will get us closer to constructing sustainable colonies in space than any improvement in individually run cars.
When I was at college, the car research students had a modified 96 Chevy Lumina that did 80 mpg. That's a big, safe car, and 80 mpg is way better than what a new Prius can do. You lose some acceleration, but at cruising speed it burns almost no gas whatsoever. Would an aftermarket modification to an existing car like this qualify, or does it have to be a from-scratch car?
stuff |
I drive a Kazuma Cheetah 200cc Motorcycle (its a much cheaper but poorly manufactured Chinese version of the Honda XR200.) It has a four litre tank on it I generally travel between 160km (99.4MPG) and 180km (111.8MPG) between refueling. In theory this would mean this prize has already been won. My bike is three years old and I believe the Honda XR200 does similar mileage and that was first manufactured in 1979 (and was manufactured until 2003 its now been replaced.)
Gas converting cars also tends to give huge performance boosts, I know a Range Rover which did 12 MPG when converted now does 32MPG, I know a Renault Laguna which did 38MPG now does something close to 70MPG. These are standard cars in the UK, most diesels do about 50-70MPG. This prize is actually pointless if America wants to drive more fuel efficient cars you need give the consumer an incentive I know plenty of European cars which are extremely pretty and very fuel efficient. If America were to raise its petrol and diesel costs to those of the UK (92p per litre or $7 a US gallon) I'd bet public transport and more fuel efficient cars would suddenly start appearing on the market.
Google says 100 mpg = 2.35 L/100km
Aikon-
Oil can stay cheap. Just tax the living $417 out of gasoline, and use the revenue to fund more wars on terror to keep the oil price down.
"You agree with the war on terror, don't you, citizen? Fill up, pay up, shut up."
Already been done in a production car, years ago. 103 mpg by a turbo-diesel Daihatsu Charade. It's in the Guinness book.
Believe it or not, many people require trucks (not necessarily Hummers) to go about their business. Therefore, there will always be big pickups and tractor trailers driving around and that will make people in tiny cars feel unsafe. My motorcycle doesn't even get 100 mpg (more like 60) and it only has a 600 cc engine and is fairly light. I'm not saying it as fuel efficient as is possible, but most people feel unsafe driving something so small on the highway, and a car that gets 100 mpg would probably have to be similar in size and weight.
is the Venture 1 excluded from the 2 passenger category? http://flytheroad.com/
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/press/Lupo_3L_in_Guine ss_World_Record
Looks like a production car to me. Where do I collect my prize for bringing this car to the world's attention? I could use the money to buy a nice Bugatti Verron.
People will accept some sort of standardized, generic "people transporter" in lieu of a car, right after they all go to wearing standardized jumpsuits with built-in underwear, because hey, its only real function is to keep you warm, right? Who cares what it looks like. Ain't gonna happen.
It's called a speed suit.
You could probably start with a VW lupo (78 miles per US gallon) it would only take a 25% improvement which is totally possible to get to the goal. All we need to get more efficenet cars in the US is $5 a gallon for fuel. That is how America works. Look at the SUV sales slump after Katrina. "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti cle/2005/10/03/AR2005100301657.html"
Raise the price of gas and the cars will get less thirsty. I have even seen a huge increase in the number of moped riders in the US with a $3 per gallon price.
>women buy SUVs because they're safer.
It's not even that they're safer, for reasons you point out. It's that they're *perceived* as safer, and a large part of that is advertising. Beyond that SUV's tend to have 2 problems. One is that they frequently have a higher center of gravity, and roll more easily. Another is that they're often 4wd or AWD, and their improved starting capability in ice and snow may give false confidence, because stopping power is no better than 2wd, and you may feel confident going faster in bad conditions because you started up so well.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
Only 100mpg? Hell, back in the 80's there were cars from Toyota that would do 60 mpg on regular gasoline. Current Jettas can do 60 mpg on diesel. Why is the current average 20 mpg (according to this)? That's not "five fold" that's more like "americans wanted meaner cars not leaner cars". Too much disposable income.
You say that the number of Hummers on the street is not significant. You are very wrong. The number of Hummers out there is enough to intimidate the female drivers who make most of the rest of the purchasing decisions. They may not want Hummers themselves, but they do not want to be killed by one. So instead of buying small, agile cars that they would enjoy driving, and which, absent the Hummers, would feel safer to them, they ask the salesman, 'how high can you get me above the street?'
So, yes, ban the Hummers. Perhaps ban male drivers between the ages of 17 and 25, too, actually. Nah, that wouldn't fly.
It's an awesome engine, just need to get it finished up and built en masse.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasiturbine
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/quasiturbine.htm
Well, the hard problems is not making a car which follow those specs.
The problem is making the cars available for the consumers.
Historical all ip rights for this types of cars have been brought or worse by big oil.
So, I think the winner should be the first team which
manage to sell 10000 cars of this type to consumers.
and it happened to be before we had this great 'fuel injection' technology. the oil bastards probably bought it up and sit on it.
I'll have you to know, we RUN the british empire!
Seriously, we are the ones leading all the english-speaking enterprises such as the Global Crusade on Terror.
And, yes, I'm proud of it!
But you are correct, as continually observed by Mark Steyn http://steynonline.com/, regarding the "good guys" who seriously fight in the war on terror, Iraq, East Timor, and pretty much anywhere else:
"The same core of English-speaking countries, technically multinational but distressingly unicultural and unilingual and indeed, given that most of them share the same head of state, uniregal." (Referring, of course, to the USA, the UK, Canada, and Australia)
His argument, which I agree with, is that this is the legacy of English values from way back, and that the USA is now foremost in upholding these values as the UK settles into a more passive role.
Not that that has much to do with SI vs USCS units, but y'all brung it up to start with!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
It gets 229 MPG and it has an airbag, ABS and stability control. Google VW 1 Liter diesel or go here: http://www.seriouswheels.com/cars/top-vw-1-liter-c ar.htm
The problem isn't top speed, it's how fast you get there. I need to be able to get up to ~60mph in the length of an average on ramp - many of which are an uphill climb to get onto the elevated freeway. My Scion xA is rated at 0-60 in under 11 seconds (108 hp, 105 lb-ft), and when it's cold, I can just barely make it up to speed on one of the on ramps I normally use.
The '92 Corolla I had previously couldn't make it up to speed on the on ramp I used most frequently then when it was cold out - I narrowly avoided three accidents over five years, each almost caused by the fact that I was entering traffic a solid 10 mph slower than it was moving.
14+ seconds is unacceptable.
Reality has a conservative bias: it conserves mass, energy, momentum...
"And the demand is on the rise, and the area it comes from isn't too stable either, a lot of it is in Russia and Africa."
AFAIK most comes from Australia and Canada.
For whom your standard group based transport system is completely useless.
2 5_497139_1_1_1_1_1,00.html
http://www.oecd.org/topicstatsportal/0,2647,en_28
Even in the EU, 9 out of 10 passenger miles do not involve public transport. There are good physicical limitations why and it has nothing to do with addiction, instead it has everything to do with the fundamental limitations of group based vehicles.
Deleted
My 248cc Kawasaki has gotten 94 mpg on a roundtrip commute. It has two wheels and can carry 2 people. It has a top speed around 100mph, can accelerate from 0 to 60 in less than 6 seconds and it can easily burn rubber.
Please help me understand why it is worth $10 million to increase my gas mileage by 6.
-Luke
I hear what you're saying, and there are many other variables I neglected to mention: Married with 2 young children, we picked our house for the schools in the neighborhood. I wouldn't live in DC proper for just that reason. I'd love to live in Arlington, VA, where my office is, but I can't afford a 0.8 megadollar (and up) house for a family of four + dog. Apartment isn't really an option, we're quite cozy in our current four bedroom 1800-sq-ft house as it is.
Believe me, with the way cost-of-living is going now, we've thought long and hard about alternatives to our current situation. We've gotten some real cost-effective benefit from doing basic insulation improvements on our house, changing to CFL lighting, and optimizing our car use. Still wasn't enough, we've had to turn off cable-TV, eliminate eating out, institute a freeze on buying clothes (we're lucky to have friends with older kids, so they get hand-me-downs, I just have to wear what I have until it falls apart), cancel housecleaning & lawn services, etc. I know, some of these things sound like real luxuries, boo hoo, and they were, so we had to turn them off. And still we're running a slight deficit with the dramatic increases in energy prices and attendant trickle-down effects on food, and other goods and services.
So basically we're treading water, working harder (especially including the domestic work we've had to take on) with what feels like less job security. Once the kids start kindergarten things will improve significantly (cost of private childcare will almost disappear). I hope this all ends up being worth it.
1 Imperial Gallon ~= 1.2 US gallons.
I regret to inform you that a "$7 / gallon gas tax" would go to general revenu and not for its intended purpose.
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
All Honda would need to do is create a /. theme...
When I have a kid, I want to put him in one of those strollers for twins and then run around the mall looking frantic.
While it is true that the "flyover states" have posted speed limits of 75 mph, they certainly don't have a monopoly on speed. In Massachusetts, for example, the median speed on the Mass Pike (I-90) during rush hour is about 80 mph. If you have a car whose top speed is seventy, you'll be stuck in the right lane - good luck making that left exit.
I've driven trucks with speed governors on them that were capped at 70 mph, but a) in an eighteen foot box-truck, you can assert your right to change lanes, and even the jerks in their SUV's have to yield and b) speed is capped at 70 by a governor, not an engine that lacks the power to move the vehicle. Do we all need to drive cars that can go from 0-60 in five seconds? No. But they do need to be able to get from 20-50 in that span, or you'll get creamed trying to merge onto a highway.
I have to ditch a bunch of moderations to post this, but I can't not.
If you're thinking about SUV's and safety, read Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker article about perception vs. performance.
I quote a particularly choice section:
"Fred J. Schaafsma, a top engineer for General Motors, says, "Sport-utility owners tend to be more like 'I wonder how people view me,' and are more willing to trade off flexibility or functionality to get that. " According to Bradsher, internal industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills."
That's why most people drive SUV's -- because they want to be the biggest, which makes them think they're the safest.
As Gladwell has written elsewhere, as have many many other people paying attention to this, small cars are *vastly* safer in single-car accidents, which account for a large percentage of all accidents, and small-car-vs-small-car accidents result in much less harm to the passengers than small-vs-large *or* large-vs-large. SUV's make everyone, including the drivers of the SUV's, less safe.
Nostalgia's not what it used to be.
You are right about fuel efficiency to an extent. My car averages about 28mpg at 55-60mph. Cruising at 80mph gives me about 25mpg. Over enough distance they are pretty close in consumption however I reach my destination much much quicker. On a thousand mile trip it saves me almost 4 hours.
lose != loose
Nobody right now wants to live in a city that is designed for efficient mass transportation because it requires people to live relatively closely together i.e. a group of large apartment/condo buildings connected to the man commercial/industrial centers by light rail systems. Why living like this is a problem and the silly desires for a large house in a suburb where you're miles of car ride away from anything you want to do is beyond me, but its a state that the majority of the US population shares.
Until this perception changes and buying a house in the 'burbs (at an insane cost) isn't the thing to do, don't expect the people-moving systems to change much either. Its just not cost effective to build a light rail system that connects a single suburb to a city center, you'll never have enough passengers to justify it. You don't have to live Japanese-style for it to be worth building it, but you have to live closer to that than the way we live now.
I have been finding that all new smaller vehicles built for fuel efficiency are uncomfortable for me. I'm 6'4". I don't want to drive a vehicle that gets less than 30MPG, but no one has designed an interior that works for me. This could be fixed with tilt/telescopic steering designed for tall people. If I find a car that has enough head and leg room, it will almost certainly lack the telescopic steering needed so my arms don't have to be straight out to hold onto the steering. The Europeans may get the better mileage with their deisel engines, but I have never read anything saying that tall people there are comfortable in their smaller cars.
"I see. The fact that you . . . can't explain . . . explains everything."
To win the X-Prize, a technological breakthrough will have to occur. The X-prize focuses on something that is practical, and something that can be mass produced. This is certainly not an easy task, and I will be shocked if someone can do it by 2009.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Not everyone can live within a mile or two of their work, because they have lives outside of work. I have yet to have a job that was within 30 miles of my wife's job, mostly because we've lived in rural areas with little opportunity of switching employers for travel convenience. Both of us are engineers of different disciplines, we have to compromise to both stay employed.
Beyond accomodating the location of different employers, when you have kids, other factors come in to play. No responsible parent wants to force their kids to go to a "bad" school system, so many people locate their homes into "good" school districts. In my case, my daughter is special needs, and I will be re-locating a further 10 miles away from my job, so that she will be in a school district that has facilities for her special needs. If I lived a mile or two from where I work now, my daughter would go to a very dangerous and bad school that IMHO no children should be sent to. My wife would probably leave me before living in that area, anyway.
-- Len
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Check out this one from 2 years earlier on mother earth news:
They get a large chunk of the way there, by using 1920's era tech. Tech that's apparently available now, just needing to be bolted into cars.
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
It's about wear and tear on the engine. If you drive regularly at 45mph and your car's top speed is 90mph, you're using about 50% of the engine's capacity. However, if your top speed is 50mph, then you're using about 90% of your engine's capacity. There will inevitably be lots more wear-and-tear on an engine running close to full-speed at a high percentage of the time than not. the other reason that cars 'should' be able to go fast is that its just plain fun dammyt.
The outcome of any serious research can only be to make two questions grow where only one grew before. - Thorstein
A web page is here. Even has an "X" on the side.
Not a production car though. Modern computerized engine monitoring could allow for a more normal looking vehicle.My VW Jetta TDI already gets upwards of 50 mpg. Surely they could break 100MPG fairly easily by creating a diesel/electric hybrid.
Unfortunately in most of the U.S. diesel is currently more expensive than "regular" unleaded gas. While you may save money with your mileage, most folks don't look that far down the road.
This price difference is artificial. It's a result of the way the Federal (and to a lesser extent, some State) government taxes it.
Here's the issue: trucks (not light trucks, but big semis) do a huge amount of damage to the highways. Aside from frost/salt/washouts and other environmental damage, the biggest thing that kills roads is the high axle loads of semi trucks. Look at a road on which trucks aren't allowed (the G.W. Expressway in VA, or the Merritt in CT, and look at how old the pavement is, and compare it to a nearby freeway -- note the much newer pavement and/or ongoing construction. Cars do almost negligible damage to a well-constructed road.
Since almost all big trucks are powered by diesel fuel, the government at some point decided that making the tax on it higher than gasoline would be a convenient way of making sure that trucks pay for some of the road damage that they do. (Unfortunately they don't pay anything near the damage that they do to the highway system, and the taxpayers foot most of the bill, but I digress.)
But like most shortcuts taken by the government, this had the major unintended consequence of making diesel fuel artificially expensive for passenger vehicles -- or looking at it another way, it made gasoline engines, even though they're comparatively inefficient, much more attractive than they should be.
Just getting rid of the diesel tax, or making it the same as gasoline, isn't an option (at least not without some compensatory measure), because then we'd just be giving an even bigger handout to the OTR trucking industry than we already do.
Until the Federal government figures out some better way of taxing heavy trucks that use the Interstate highways, diesel in the U.S. is always going to be at a massive disadvantage, and our petroleum consumption is going to be far higher than it ought to be as a result. In terms of motor fuels, diesel is just better; it costs less (in terms of energy) to refine, and when used in an internal-combustion engine, you get more energy out of it per volume. With proper emissions equipment it's no more harmful than gasoline, either. The barriers to using it are mostly artificial.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
The VW Lupo got 78 mpg, and it's been around even longer than that.
I would have bought one, if they were ever sold in my country. Instead I bought a used VW Golf that gets only 42 city / 49 highway.
You're right, though: 100mpg shouldn't be hard to hit. From 65mpg, it's only 50% more; from 78 mpg, it's only 25% more.
But perhaps that shouldn't be the goal. After all, you're still burning fossil fuels. If we could put a 100mpg car on the roads today, it would make a tiny dent in oil usage. What we really want is a way to reduce the need for such things.
I own a Honda Insight. I was able to get over 100MPG for about 30 miles. (It just happened to be the 30 miles down bigbear mountain. But my mpg meter hit three digits. W00t!)
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
I own a Honda Insight. Lifetime average: 66 MPG. I routinely get 75 MPG on freeway commutes, 80 MPG every once in a while.
I read a story about a guy who drove around the British island in an Insight and averaged somewhere in the 110 MPG ballpark (setting a record).
The xprize should be a little more far-reaching.
Until we go nuclear big time or "cold fusion" or whatever, we'll still be stuck with coal, gas and petroleum (carbon + hydrocarbons). All that talk about hydrogen is just bullshit.
;). BUT, I don't really think it's such a difficult problem technically, the problem seems to be it's just not politically correct to throw money at this.
So I'd prefer a car that uses hydrocarbon fuel cells, with some form of regenerative braking. You'd still be using "fossil fuels", but it should be a lot more efficient.
Big snag is practical and efficent hydrocarbon fuel cell systems haven't been made yet that can cope with the gunk from the local fuel stations
Alcohols would probably be easier - but it's still easier and cheaper to get enough hydrocarbons from the ground.
Once you've got the cars with electric motors, regenerative braking etc, it'll be easier to switch them to other fuels/energy carriers if hydrocarbons start getting more expensive.
You're not making a particularly good argument.
If you get hit by a semi or a heavy truck of some sort (fire truck, etc.) at high speed, you're going to be dead regardless of what you're driving. So that's a wash.
However, in a collision between two passenger cars, or truck versus car at low speed, the one that's heavier is going to undergo less acceleration and subject the occupants to less force. Also, the one that puts the passengers higher up may be advantageous. That heavy chrome firetruck bumper is at chest level in a Civic, but only at knee level in a Suburban -- that might be the difference between crutches and thorasic surgery. I've been in a subcompact car that nearly got crushed under a garbage truck who backed up without looking; if we hadn't been stopped and just jumped out of the car, people would be calling me Stumpy now. In a taller car, it would have just pushed us backwards. Also, collisions where a driver rear-ends a stopped semitrailer are usually fatal for small cars because of the low positioning (the bumper of the trailer comes in through the windshield -- hello, decapitation), with bigger trucks it's more of a mixed bag. Same with side-impact injuries.
Big SUVs and light trucks certainly have tradeoffs -- there seem to be a lot more one-car accidents involving SUVs (driving off the road, rolling them, etc.) but people tend to quickly trade a risk that they perceive as under their control in order to eliminate on that's not.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Informative, insightful, and interesting! Where are my mod points when I need them?!
So, you're the asshole who speeds by me and everyone else on the Pike when I'm going 70 mph and you're weaving in and out of traffic at 85 mph. Just recently a man was going at least 85 and caused an accident on the Pike where two people lost their lives. He failed to take into account an 18-wheeler going 65 with cars changing lanes going 70. He though he could make it. Asshole.
Yes, I'd like low end torque, and better mpg. How many diesel options are there in the states? Yes, better mpg of diesel would be nice but I really like how my gasoline engine still starts at -32 C without any special fuel. Yes, #1 diesel exists, but that does not mean that it is available to purchase even in a cold climate. A friend of mine discovered much to his dismay that the "winter" diesel he bought was not #1 diesel but a "blend" that still gelled up.
75 MPH speed limit on I-90 in South Dakota or one along with a 45 MPH speed MINIMUM. A few things to keep in mind; 1) It takes more power to go up hill than it does to drive on level ground. 2) A vehicle that can OBTAIN a speed which may be in excess of the posted speed limit may not be able to MAINTAIN the posted speed MINIMUM while climbing a hill (both ways in the snow!), or while hauling its rated capacity of passengers, cargo, trailer and so on. My professor in college picked their vehicle based on its ability to maintain speed while climbing a steep grade near the school. Toyota rav4 and Honda CRV, were considered but were not able to meet this requirement, a subaru was chosen as it did. A vehicle can have a high or low HP and still be a very drivable vehicle dependent on the torque that the engine can produce, the combination of what rpm it produces those numbers and the gear ratios available.
They're near to luxury cars here, and significantly bigger than what's on the road.
Typical cars in my country and Argentina/Brazil:
Volkswagen Gol, with 4.5 million units sold, with usually 1,6 liter engines with a fuel efficiency of 10-12 kilometers per litre (34 miles per gallon approx)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volkswagen_Gol
Fiat Uno, also several million, with 1.1 liter engines being usual and doing 12-14 kilometrers per litre (40 miles per gallon)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiat_Uno
Hyundai Atos, less sold than those two, with 1.1 liter engines too and about 14 kilometer per litre (a little over 40 miles per gallon), that's my father's car as well as several coworkers' for example.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Atos
Another popular car for being among the cheapest is the Maruti 800 which has a 0.8 litre engine and does close to 50 miles per gallon! That was the first car I drove (nowadays I don't have a car).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maruti_800
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
Sorry, I messed up. I was using a page that converted kilometers per litre to Imperial Gallons.
So, multiply the MPG values by 1.2. Here are the correct values:
Volkswagen Gol - 40 miles per gallon approx
Fiat Uno - 48 miles per gallon
Hyundai Atos - about 50 miles per gallon
Maruti 800 - 60 miles per gallon!!
There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
There's something wrong with your car. My 5-speed Hyundai Accent is rated at 0-60 in 10 seconds flat (104 hp, 106 lb-ft) and easily topped 60 mph on every on ramp I've ever driven on, including the circular ones with 25 mph curves (that I can take at 40+ mph).
It might help that mine is a 5-speed, and yours is (probably) a slushbox...
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Regardless of how efficient the vehicles will become, this gross method of mass transportation cannot be successfully maintained for much longer. We cannot make people drive motorcycles, they're about as practical as the "science project" HEV's. We can encourage and give incentives to drive smaller efficient vehicles, but that doesn't solve the transportation issue.
What we really need are trains/subways to and from major communiting centers and more importantly marketing. We don't need more buses adding to the pain of commutes. We need transportation sollutions that don't add to traffic or impede it.
I am not an American, but a Canadian.
Both my cars are gas guzzlers. The older one is a Ford Taurus Station Wagon (3.8L), and the newer one is a Ford Windstar Van (also 3.8L). They each do 15L/100km. And gas prices are rising like crazy. It is 104.9 $Cdn/litre these days.
As you can see, I am not buying the car for its macho look (Hummer, SUV), but rather we have 5 people at home.
When the Taurus gets too old, I plan to replace it with a Toyota Yaris 4-door. These get 5L/100km, and are far cheaper than the Prius and other hybrids.
Yup, you're full of hot air.
Sleek? Let's take a look at the 300ZX for a second. Look directly at it. Look at the shape. Now think of the physics of high speeds. Good shape isn't it? I don't need marketing to tell me that this shape is ideal for a car designed to travel at high speeds. Cool? A marketer can't tell me what's cool. If they could, they'd have sold me on Paris Hilton long ago. I like cars that are designed for speed and handling. My desires dictate what I think is "cool" based on how effectively those needs are met. I'll talk about my desires later. Powerful? Well that's best left up to me, isn't it? They can throw around HP figures, and those will certainly give a reason to take some seat time in the car, but ultimately it's what my ass-dyno says about the car that tells me if it's powerful or not. Case in point: Honda S2000. The car is advertised to have 230hp. Even though it has an advertised 230hp (and it actually does), the car feels gutless because it has no torque. I go to the dealer, take a test drive, and realize that the car isn't powerful enough for me, regardless of numbers on paper. This is how people decide on how much power they want, not advertising. Modern? Nobody cares about this. The last time "modern" mattered, computers were still running on tubes. If we want to modify this point into something useful, we'd change it to "amenities." How much crap can they fill the car with? This is a selling point, and probably your only valid point so far. People don't need 40 cup holders, let alone illuminated cup holders. They don't need an in-board computer, DVD players, heated/cooled seats, a cooled glovebox, or any of the other two-dozen gadgets makers are stuffing into these machines. However, it has gotten to the point where every car contains all of these anyway, and to choose not to include them in your car does not save you any money. People don't care about the gadgets because every car already has them.
Ultimately, the marketing only gets us to the dealership. It's the vehicle itself that sells us. If a manufacturer tried to sell us on the idea that a Hummer was "sleek", that an Aveo was "powerful", or that a Sephia was "cool", they'd fail spectacularly. We buy what we desire for our own reasons, and all of us have different reasons for buying.
Now, to address desires: how exactly does marketing create a desire in me? By telling me that something I don't want or need is of dire importance? Hardly. They show me their product. They tell me what is in it. They tell me what relative power it has by giving me a peak HP number. The combination of showing me what it looks like, and giving me the basics gets my fat rump into the showroom so I can test drive it for myself. From there, the company is out of the loop. Does it not hit 60mph fast enough for me? Sale busted. Does it not look as good in person as it does on TV? Deal breaker. Is the handling sloppy? I'm leaving. My desires are dictated by my experiences behind the wheel, and my driving habits (lead foot). I like sports cars because I like the feeling of gee forces, both straight line and lateral. I desire a car that will give me those gees, which means I desire a performance vehicle. No amount of marketing will sway me away (gas prices will though).
The only thing we take on trust is the MPG estimates. We can't spend enough time on a test drive to get a good feeling for what the fuel efficiency is.
People buy what they desire, regardless of marketing. Can marketing make a person buy a Suburban instead of a Caravan? No. What marketing can do is get the person to make the initial comparison. The vehicles sell themselves. Marketing only gets us to take a look.
People in the US don't drive SUVs because the manufacturers tell them to. People in the US drive SUVs because they do not like the alternatives: minivans and wagons. Whether or not you appreciate this, SUVs are superior in many ways to these alternatives (room, s
Gallon of what? Plutonium? Imperial gallon or US gallon? -- K
Chris
"You can drive out Nature with a pitchfork, but It always comes roaring back again." - Tom Waits
Well if the energy stored in petrol could be directly converted to electricity I would say we were in with a shot. Burning fuel is inefficiant as alot of energy is wasted as heat & engine friction.
Another upshot of an electric motor is the high electrial->mechanical coversion effeciency, re-generative breaking and High Low-end tourque with blisteringly fast top speeds.
In the not too distant future, next Sunday A.D.
Seems to me after watching Who Killed The Electric Car and at least a dozen Slashdot entries that this has been achieved already.
The problem is not in the technology, but rather with the political power of the fossil fuel industry, in collusion with automakers, to prevent us from choosing alternatives to fossil fuel.
Of course we have no one but ourselves to blame for embracing Hummers, SUVs, and oversized trucks.
What we need to do is convince Gore to motivate Jobs and Gates to create an alternative car that has no ties to existing automakers or oil. (Ignoring that Gore made his money from oil and sold it off for the 2000 election.)
That's where we're at right now: trying to get electricity into batteries via the standard power grid. It's probably NOT the most efficient way of doing it, but it's what we've got right now, so until someone invents something better (and they will!), we'll make the best of it. In the future, will we be using 60 Hz AC powerlines with bridge rectifiers to charge DC batteries? Who knows. I can't imagine the guy with a gas can in 1905 would know what the heck to do with a modern gas pump.
100MPG+ Prius STOCK:/ fall/marathon.html
i nsightcvt.html
http://www.toyota.com/html/hybridsynergyview/2005
stock Honda Insights get close to 80MPG before you start tweaking:
http://www.greenhybrid.com/compare/mileage/honda-
plugin-Prius @ 150MPG+:
http://www.evworld.com/article.cfm?storyid=818
Note, most of these date from at least 2005. Welcome back to the future.
Acceleration is not "just proper gearing". Power/weight sets a hard limit to possible acceleration. Anything below about 0.05 horsepower per pound make safe entry onto crowded highways very difficult.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
When does this car come out of concept stage? Currently, that violates prize guidelines.
Here's my bibliography:
Fuel efficiency in transportation
Get people out of their cars and big loads off big rigs, and move it over to trains.
Solves congestion and pollution. Fund it with the money what we currently export to Big Oil and terrorists.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/20680.shtm l
t ings.php?id1=2
And, it's a deathtrap: http://www.euroncap.com/content/safety_ratings/ra
I believe European crash tests are much stricter than the American's because of the possible higher European highway speeds, and more twisty roads.
You could already achieve near 100MPG in most high MPG cars with sensible driving (such as Prius and Insight), or sensible size as you've said.
Make a car that doesn't look like a poo-buggy, is decently safe when a soccer mom in a Suburban runs a light and T-bones you, has a top speed higher than a bicycle so its not a one-car traffic jam waiting to happen on America's freeways, and can do 0-60 in time greater than geological eras.
Then we'll talk sales.
By the impression you get on /., Europeans don't need cars and everyone rides mass transit to work and now you're saying that there are millions of these Clio's in use in Europe. What are they used for? Everyone knows that you can walk, bike, or hop on public transport to do _anything_ in the EU. :)
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
Hard to beat the efficiency of a normal bicycle when it comes to wheeled transport...
These guys already get 100+ mpg easily:
/. when an article about 100+ mpg cars has more threads about "EuroEnglish" than about cars.
"Wayne honks to get a judge to run through the rain to record his fcd. It reads as high as the Insight can record: 150 mpg. Afterward, the Insight's owner hits a switch that shows Wayne's mark in kilometers per liter, which has a higher limit. It reads 1.3 L/100 km. That's 180.91 mpg. "
so either the x-price people have never heard of hypermilers or they plan on having special obstacle courses and requiring drivers to accelerate at a certain speed.
I'm pretty disappointed this link didn't show up in the first 5 posts on this topic, it's a sad day on
my karma will be here long after I'm gone
check it out!
I don't know what the record time to claiming the X prize is, but I'll bet this beats it. I give it six months TOPS.
Peugeot has a nice message on their website saying that their cars are not legal in the US, and that if you try an import one, it will be confiscated. Why? What are the US regulations which these fuel efficient European cars don't comply with?
Anybody know?
That's an interesting offer [article main link] $10,000,000.00 for a 100 mile per gallon car. What happens if I enter my engine that runs on cold liquid air and steam? Do the Foundation people pay me extra, say $15 million, or do my fellow competitors shoot me at the Finish Line? Also, does the guy who makes the 100 mpg car still get the prize if I enter my other car that gets 150 mpg? Or do they all Caesar me behind the Judges table? Hmm, decisions decisions.
Don't worry guys. I don't have the facilities, the money, or a team of fluid dynamics experts (plumbers) so I won't be entering this one. I'm working on something more important for 2007 anyway.
Industrial Age 2 + How-to Stop Malignant Cancers.
Again, normal average speed on german Highways is about 75-85MPH ... so it should be much worse here, yet even smaller cars manage it. Strange, isn't it? ;-)
....
... normal automatic gears make things even worse. If your concerns are top notch speedups, try to get a manual transmission car, learn the clutch -- then you'll rule them all! ;-) (Or get a modern automatic transmission -- not one wit a fluid coupling or the like. Those are a) power consuming and b) very slow on passing the power vrom the engine to the road.) ...
Another question: How do trucks enter the highway? They need almost forever to gain speed with their 80kpounds of load.
And do you really need the final speed at the end of the ramp? What do you do if there is absolutely no room to get on the line? Make an accident? Or is it better to watch the traffic?
And are the driving habits in the US that egoistic, that you do not use your brakes, no matter what happens? Likewise: Hey that slow guy is trying to enter the highway -- let's crush him! I simply can't believe. The germans are told to be very egoistic drivers, yet they lover their cars, so they will brake.
With a 11s 0-60MPH-car you will need less than 200 meters (somewehre between 147m - 300m) to get to the 60MPH, with a 14 secons car, it will be less than 250m. Not a so big of a change
Cold motors are really bad in power, but yet
So, enough of me being a flamebait
Happy coding!
Okay, we're arguing over a faulty generalization that is not in any form a fact nor truth, but instead bullshit, and FUD.
"many cars can easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy" is as true as "all geeks wear glasses" or "your momma is fat..." without any scientific numbers to fairly digest against.
Thank you for at least naming one vehicle such as the VW Golf to compare with, but it's only slightly comparable to the Prius in FE, size, and weight.
Briefly, fueleconomy.gov has the Golf at 34MPG for a diesel TDI (or 29.58MPG gasoline) with 638593.389 cubic inches on 3091 lbs over 98.9 inch wheelbase, or 0.01099/0.00956 MPG/lb respectively. 30miles * 30 days @ 34MPG @ $2.96 diesel = $78.
A Prius is 46MPG (16.42MPG more) on gasoline with 690373.25 (51779.861 more cubic inches) on 2890 lbs over a 106.3 inch wheelbase, or 0.01591 MPG/lb. 30 miles * 30 days @ 46MPG @ $3.228 gasoline = $63.
Price between the two is ~$1K MSRP. My scientific conclusion is the Prius is bigger, lighter, and more fuel efficient per pound than the diesel Golf, so a better value. Probably not as fun to drive, however.
Got another "easily beat a Prius hybrid on fuel economy"?