Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Efficiency? Think Racing Cars, Not Hybrids

Posted by timothy on from the more-fun-that-way-too dept.

Gordonjcp writes "A renowned racing car designer has said that car manufacturers should be looking at making cars lighter to improve efficiency, rather than adding complex drive trains. In this article on the BBC News website, Professor Gordon Murray explains that a weight saving of 10% in a normal car would make more difference than switching to a hybrid engine and motor combination. Could this be the next nail in the SUV's coffin?"

39 of 1,320 comments (clear)

  1. In the US no one wants to buy light cars by kalidasa · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because they're afraid they'll be crushed to a fine pulp when they get hit by a big honking SUV.

    1. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by cephah · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And their fears aren't exactly unfounded. Only way to get the majority of people to stop driving heavy cars is to increase gas prices to the point where lighter cars are the only option, or having a flag day where everybody agrees to switch, i.e. not gonna happen in the near future :)

    2. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by morgan_greywolf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There's an easy solution for that: start prosecuting agressive SUV drivers for vehicular manslaughter and/or attempted vehicular manslaughter. Problem solved.

      --
      My blog
    3. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by everphilski · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I bike commute to work, the only close shave I've had is with a school bus. But then again we are both speaking with anecdotal evidence.

    4. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Lord_Frederick · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The flaw in your argument is that these days almost NOBODY gives a flying fuck about anyone but themselves. It's not restricted to SUV owners.

    5. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Lumping all SUV drivers in together is as fair as lumping in all bicycle riders together. You know, they don't follow traffic laws, don't signal, ride on the sidewalks, etc. etc. Fuck all bike riders.

    6. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Then realize that when you drive a compact or subcompact and have a mechanical failure that puts your vehicle out of your control while it is going in excess of 35 miles per hour, if you kill a pedestrian, you should be charged with manslaughter, because you knew that you were in a car.


      That sounds ridiculous, and it is. Accidents happen. People who fail to realize that the world is a chaotic place outside the control of civilized or even uncivilized society will only be upset when they are shown evidence of this.


      Cars do not cause accidents, guns do not cause murder, pencils do not cause spelling errors and pie does not cause obesity. The actions undertaken with the use of the "tool" is the cause and the perpetrator is to blame, not the devices. If there were no car, there would be carriage accidents. If no gun, there would be knife attacks. If no pencil, then coal would be used to misspell things on cave walls. If no pie, they would simply have to eat cake :).

    7. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by initdeep · · Score: 5, Insightful

      As an avid motorcyclist, i can say that a large majority of the time I've been nearly turned to a small spot on the road is due to morons driving cars who are on cell phones.

      These morons (or cagers as we motorcyclists car eto call them) come in all shapes and sizes and so do their vehicles.

      in fact i can provide anectodatal evidence of everythign from a fucking little college girl who ran a buddy off the road while merging off an off ramp, to the time a farmer pulled his combine onto the road directly in front of a group of 20 bikes.

      None of that means a shit to anybody but the people who were there, yet i can say that i'd much rather we prosecute idiots who arent paying attention than go after a specific type of vehicle.

      FYI, this isnt exactly a new situation for motorcyclists. We've been complaining about this longer than SUV's have been a mainstream vehicle.

      How about instead of trying to lump people by the type of vehicle, we instead start issuing "distracted driver" tickets to all those morons deserving of them.

      I'm fairly certain every state in the union has a distracted driving law on the books.

    8. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by BlueParrot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sadly you can remove "these days" from that claim. Your point would still be accurate and as a bonus it wouldn't come out as "Get of my lawn!".

    9. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by wattrlz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Because they're afraid they'll be crushed to a fine pulp when they get hit by a big honking SUV.

      Which is amusing because most of those SUVs are over half crumple-zone by volume. There was a time when an SUV was a 4x4 vehicle made of steel that you drove because you needed to be able to go off road or lug all your belongings somewhere in the snow. Those days are long gone. Now it doesn't snow here anymore and an SUV is a minivan with a six-liter v8 purchased for ostentation and to satisfy latent napoleon complexes.

    10. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by llamalad · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It seems to me that there's got to be a reason that pedestrians have the right of way. Maybe it's that in exchange for being granted the privilege of driving an automobile on a public road these drivers assume responsibility for remaining in control of their vehicles and are accountable for the consequences of failing to do so.

      You get in a Mazda Miata, drive off the road at 30mph, you run through a mailbox and crash into a light pole. You do the same thing in a Ford Excursion at 30mph, you go through the mailbox, pole, the two kids in their plastic wading pool, grandma whose watching them from a lawn chair, and crash in to the house, maiming mom and dad who were watching tv sitting against the wall you just drove through.

      Bigger car = more potential for harming others.

    11. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by khendron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I can just envision an Apple commercial for the switch

      SC: I'm a smart car
      SUV: And I'm an SUV
      SC: You look a little thirsty, SUV.
      SUV: I am. Ever since the price of gas went up, my owner started rationing my gas consumption.
      SC: Aww, that's too bad, SUV.
      SUV: Tell me about it. I mean, I was thirsty enough before. I could drink gas like there was no tomorrow.
      SC: Well, SUV, if you kept drinking gas like that, there probably would be no tomorrow.

      --
      Life is like a web application. Sometime you need cookies just to get by.
    12. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Tell your city to build us some bike lanes, then. You think cyclists *like* riding around egomaniacal crazies like you?

    13. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Thornburg · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'm sure all of that increase in weight is SAFETY equipment, right? It isn't the fact that even dirt cheap cars come with air conditioning, electric windows, fancy sound systems, etc, right? And none of that weight has to do with the increase in average wheel size, either, right? And none of it has to do with the huge engines they put in cars, either, right?

      The safety equipment argument is a load of hogwash pushed by the American auto industry.

      A 2008 Chevy Aveo has a curb weight of just over 2300lbs. A 1997 Geo Metro has a curb weight of just over 1800lbs. How much of that 500lb difference (a lot less than 500kg) comes from the fact that the Aveo has a 1.6L I4 while the Metro had a 1.0L I3? Certainly not all of it, but what mileage would the Aveo get if you dropped in a 1.0L engine and took out the air conditioning? I would imagine it would be quite a bit better than the pathetic EPA 24 City 34 Highway it is rated for now.

    14. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by antifoidulus · · Score: 4, Insightful

      How much fossil fuels do bike rider use? How many people are killed per year by cyclists(excluding themselves)? None of those are 0, but they are a HELL of a lot less than SUV drivers. Stop warming my planet, stop killing my people just because you have a microscopic penis.

      --
      Monstar L
    15. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by berashith · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This made me laugh. There is quite a range of types and sizes of cars in between giant SUV and sub-compact. There are also now giant SUVs coming in hybrid flavors, which I would think help to satisfy some people in your position of actually needing the Utility provided in these beasts. The problem where all of society fears lighter weight cars due to the number of giant cars is brought on by the millions of 110 pound women who will never carry more than a few gallons of milk "needing" to drive SUVs.

    16. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Thomasje · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I find it hard to believe that a few air bags add 500 kg to the weight of any car. Rather, in the eternal bigger-is-better orgy, car manufacturers feel compelled to make every iteration of any model a bit bigger than the previous one. That 2008 Honda Civic, for example, is larger than a 1979 Honda Accord, and let's not even talk about the fact that the smallest engine you can get it with (in the U.S.) is a 1.8 liter 145 hp monster...

    17. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by somersault · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I carpool to work every day, in my tiny 93 accord Heh.. only an American (okay, there's also Canadian, Mexican or Australian) could make such a statement :)

      In the UK Accords are 'family' sized cars towards the large end of the spectrum. I know the 93 version is a little smaller than a modern Accord, but it's still pretty big by our standards. If you want a proper example of tiny, consider the original Mini, or more modern "super minis" - which are actualy still larger than the original Mini. I'd hate to see one of them get into a fight with an SUV..
      --
      which is totally what she said
    18. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Anarke_Incarnate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My personal belief is that it is a sense of entitlement for the elitists who can afford things to demand preferential treatment. Oh, the evidence is there, but hard to compile into a scientific theory :)

    19. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by Sancho · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This made me laugh.

      Giant SUV hybrids tend to get 2-3mpg more than their non-hybrid counterparts. They're a joke. And lots of midsize cars don't get much better gas mileage than SUVs. I drive a pickup truck which gets 15mpg. My wife drives a midsized GM car (I forget the model.) She gets 3mpg more than my truck.

      The options for efficient cars really are pretty limited, and those which do exist are pretty highly sought after these days. There are waiting lists at all of the major dealerships within a 50 mile radius of me for any car which exceeds 30mpg.

    20. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What happens if you put a spear sticking out of the steering wheel aimed at your chest?

      Sales of hacksaws would increase dramatically?

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    21. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by element-o.p. · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem with this approach is that the light cars need to be at approximately the same height as the vehicle they hit.

      More specifically, it's not the SUV's I worry about so much, it's the huge jacked up pickup trucks where their bumper is at approximately the level of my head in the Talon TSi I used to drive. All the crush space between my bumper and me will do me absolutely no good if the first thing to hit the other vehicle is my windshield pillar because the rest of the car goes *under* the other vehicle...

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    22. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by flyingsquid · · Score: 5, Insightful
      -light

      -safe

      -cheap

      Pick any two.

      You can make a safe, lightweight car, such as a Formula 1, but it's going to cost you. Carbon composite isn't cheap. You can make a safe, cheap car. Just add a few hundred pounds of metal to the frame to strengthen it. But your fuel efficiency is going to be lousy. You can make a light, cheap car. Just strip away the frame until there's almost nothing left, but if you get into a serious crash, it's gonna be a coffin on wheels. There are other compromises too. Comforts like well-padded seats, and sound insulation that keep noise down, also result in increased weight. A larger engine is going to increase weight. And so on.

      That's not to say that we couldn't find some relatively inexpensive, safe ways to improve mileage. We may not be able to fill the highways with cheap cars that get 50 mpg and survive like a tank in a crash, but shaving a few mpg off every new car produced over the next 5 years would do a hell of a lot to reduce consumption and emissions. And of course the other question is, are there other ways to get to our destination other than driving?

    23. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by afidel · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why those vehicles are illegal, but try getting a cop to actually enforce those laws instead of mild speeding violations!

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    24. Re:In the US no one wants to buy light cars by CodeBuster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      All the crush space between my bumper and me will do me absolutely no good if the first thing to hit the other vehicle is my windshield pillar because the rest of the car goes *under* the other vehicle In fact, this is precisely why heavy trucks (the ones with air brakes and separate detachable trailers) have a safety bar on the rear on the trailer, to prevent the underside of the trailer deck from being the first solid object to contact the windshield pillar of the typical passenger car in a rear end collision. The safety bar was added to reduce fatalities which occurred because of the height difference in rear end accidents (usually the fault of the passenger car drivers following too closely). The lifted SUVs and pickup trucks that are commonly encountered on southern California freeways present many of the same dangers to more typical passenger cars.
  2. Seriously? by Thyamine · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People are still buying SUVs, and really, I still prefer the idea of an SUV than a minivan or station wagon to try and haul people/stuff around. Maybe I'd feel different if I had a few children to get in and out, but I don't see the SUV going away anytime soon. Plus why not just make a lighter SUV?

    --
    I will shred my adversaries. Pull their eyes out just enough to turn them towards their mewing, mutilated faces. Illyria
  3. What about 10% weight savings in the driver's seat by PrimeWaveZ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm just saying...

    It might be helpful.

  4. Re:Two things by LoudMusic · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cars need to be lighter and more aerodynamic. The drag on a standard automobile is just ridiculous. Rear ends today are typically vertically flat! Who are these designers that aren't familiar with the teardrop shape? Well, the teardrop shape is less space efficient than a box, and most vehicles don't go fast enough often enough to make use of quality aerodynamics. If it's just a mom driving her kids to school, and around town, she's rarely going to get over 35mph and likely not waste much fuel in wind resistance. But the fact the vehicle is boxy means she can get more kids / stuff in the back end and much easier. To have the same space but a slopey backend would required adding several feet to the overall length of the vehicle.
    --
    No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
  5. Partially right... by Notquitecajun · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I like bigger autos. I'm 6'3" with a family history of back problems. I DON'T want a car, I want a fuel-efficient pickup/SUV/Crossover that doesn't bounce around like a jeep and I don't have to deal with the up-and-down motion of getting in and out of. I like hauling crap around. I like being able to see OVER traffic.

    GM is on the right path with the Hybrid Silverado they are making, but I would like to see something a little smaller, along the lines of a Ranger or S-10/Sonoma (I LOVED the 1994 Sonoma I drove through college). Americans are going to buy small cars in the near future, but the REAL money will be made when we can drive larger SUV's and trucks that get 30+ MPG's.

    1. Re:Partially right... by eln · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people drive SUVs because they like the way they look, and then they rationalize it by coming up with other reasons.

      Most smaller cars have a lot more head and foot room, especially for the driver, than you give them credit for. I'm 6'2" and drive a 2001 Toyota Corolla. I have plenty of head room without slouching over or anything, and leg room is not an issue either. Heck, I have two kids and they fit just fine in the back seat of the thing, so the hauling kids excuse is silly too unless you happen to have 5 kids or more. It makes me crazy when people with 2 kids say they need an SUV to "haul the family around".

      As for seeing over traffic, I have no problem seeing the traffic ahead of me so long as I keep a safe distance between me and the person in front of me (2 second rule, remember?), and have only even been close to having an accident (which I was able to maneuver to avoid) once in my 15 years of driving.

      The hauling stuff excuse may be valid for some people, but you have to ask yourself how often do you really need to haul around so much stuff that you require an SUV. Most people haul stuff like that so rarely it would be far more cost effective to simply rent a pickup truck when they need to do that rather than spend all that money on the SUV full-time. Even small cars like mine can fit a surprisingly large amount of stuff in them.

      I wish people would just admit that they really wanted an SUV, so they came up with reasons why they should get one, rather than insisting that no other type of car could possibly work for them.

    2. Re:Partially right... by NeoSkandranon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well for one thing, (for example) you see the idiot who's passing the person to your left at high speed and is about to dart across two or three lanes (the one to your left, and yours, and however many are to your right) to make it to an exit ramp.

      You also see brake lights a little sooner so you know traffic is slowing ahead.

      In other words, you can see more of what's going on around you. You can't "pay attention" to something if you can't physically see it to start with.

      The downside of course, is that the more tall vehicles there are on the road, the more people think they need tall vehicles to see clearly.

      --
      If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
    3. Re:Partially right... by LurkerXXX · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great. Of course you realize since no one in a smaller vehicle has a chance of seeing through the windows of that huge thing you are driving in, you are effectively blinding them to what is on the other side of you, which could lead to accidents (which might also include you).

    4. Re:Partially right... by mhamel · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The funniest part of the "seeing over the traffic" rant is mostly that it is an ego trouble. What if the others also want to see over the traffic? They'll get a higher car? Then what?

      You have to understand that getting a higner car to see the traffic has the effect that everybody around you sees less of the traffic.

      It harldy sounds like a solution to me.

    5. Re:Partially right... by prefect42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I like being able to see OVER traffic. And there's the reason I end up staring at bumpers in my (33 US mpg) Corolla.

      I'm entirely unbothered by what you want; having cars that are taller than average for the purpose of getting a better view is antisocial.
      --

      jh

  6. Who knew? by voislav98 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Lighter cars use less gas? What's next? Telling people that they shouldn't live 200 miles from where they work? I heard a kind of a funny fact this morning on BBC, average energy consumption per capita in North America is double that in Europe. It's not like the standard of living or climate is that much different, it's all about the culture.

  7. Re:SUV's not going anywhere by east+coast · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I don't know about you but most of the SUVs I've ever seen have carried little more than the drivers fattened ass and a few sacks of groceries.

    --
    Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
  8. Re:Why the safety assumption? by Wavebreak · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Playing somewhat of the devil's advocate here, but it's been pointed out several times that increases in vehicle weight are directly caused by extra safety features. I'd say this is a prime example of correlation not equaling causation. What you're looking at is lighter vehicles that are lighter due to being older and lacking safety features, thus being less safe. Higher death rates aren't a function of weight, but a function of safety features (that is, the lack thereof). It simply happens that those safety features make a vehicle heavier, hence the correlation of lighter = less safe.

    That doesn't mean that lack of weight is fundamentally unsafe, just that we need to reduce the weight of all those safety features (and the rest of the car, while we're at it) without compromising, uh, safety. Probably a tall order tho.

    --
    Nobody expects the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal.
  9. Re:See: mid/late 80s - early 90s cars by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "A/C and DVD players can just be in expensive highly taxed models of vehicles. Everyone with more sense than money can do without them on the way to work. Certainly not every luxury has to be forgone, but some should be expensive. Some should be highly taxed."

    I can assure you, living in the SE of the US, like in New Orleans, AC is not a luxury...pretty much a necessity if you wish to arrive at work, or anywhere else, and not look like a sweat soaked beggar. Most professional offices kind of frown on that.

    Hell, down here...you turn on the AC at home basically in early April...and it really doesn't go off again till November.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  10. the word stupid comes to mind by TRRosen · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Weight has very little to do with the efficiency of a modern car. Most energy is lost to wind drag. then you have rolling friction which is not nearly as effected by weight any more due to much better bearings and firmer tires (just compare pushing an 1980 car to a new car). The primary area weight will effect is kinetic energy. of course this is what makes hybrids work so well they can store kinetic energy during stopping and release it on take off. By this idiots theory having two passengers (or one big guy) would reduce the milage of a car the same amount (adding 10% to weight - 300 lb to a 3000 lb car) ... Doesn't happen on my car.

    problem is, this guy has no knowledge of real world driving, formula one cars spend all there energy accelerating and decelerating like crazy and have ridiculously low drag coefficients. Because of this weight effects them tremendously. Many times more than any average car.