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?"

18 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 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.
    6. 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?

    7. 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.

    8. 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...

    9. 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.
    10. 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?
    11. 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?

  2. 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!
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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.

  7. 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