Slashdot Mirror
Open Source Car — 20 Year Lease, Free Fuel For Life
ruphus13 writes "The race for a hyper-fuel-efficient car is on in a big way. Now, Riversimple has tried to leverage the knowledge of the masses to bring its vision to reality soon with a car that gives the equivalent of 300 miles to the gallon. 'The idea to build an open source car isn't a new one, but you've got to give vehicle design company Riversimple credit for originality. The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds. If you agree to lease one for 20 years (yes, 20), Riversimple will throw in the cost of fuel for the lifetime of the lease...The team decided to release the car's designs under an open source license in order to speed up the time it takes to develop the vehicle while also driving down the cost of its components.'"
The company plans to unveil its first car in London later this month, a small two-seater that weighs roughly 700 pounds.
A car that will never sell anywhere in the US due to total inability to pass crash safety test. I'm actually surprised that it can be sold anywhere in the first world, to be honest.
Well I guess that means they aren't planning on marketing this in the Northeast, or anywhere that there's occasionally snow on the ground. I doubt that much of that 700 lbs would *not* be riddled with rust long before that lease would run out. Seriously, why lease a car for 20 years? And what'd the lease payment be? Not to mention the fact that you could probably just buy the damn thing (or maybe even a nicer car) using a 20 year car loan and cover the fuel out of pocket for far less than what you'd pay these jokers. Effectively locking in the cost of fuel for 20 years may sound attractive, but in practice it's more likely a win-win for the company --sure, you don't pay extra when fuel prices go up, but you also miss out on the downward fuel price fluctuations. The company is certain to make more money from you than you'll get out in fuel in any case, since if the prices are such that the deal would seem to work out in your favor, the company will just go bankrupt.
Finally! Parity between vehicles and pedestrians.
"No matter how cynical you get, it is impossible to keep up." -- Lily Tomlin
The Urban Car weighs just 772 pounds (350 kilograms), can reach speeds of 50 miles (81 kilometers) per hour, and has a range of more than 200 miles (322 kilometers).
While my Jeep may be heavier, it too on a full tank of gas has a range of 200 miles, and can reach speeds of 50 MPH. And it won't struggle on a hill and I can take my groceries home. I'll be more interested in a car like this that would more practical for the family life. But it is interesting that the engineers will soon post the entire design on the wiki, and anyone can lease the it for free, modify it, and manufacture their own vehicle. 40 Fires Foundation is a forum to develop energy-efficient cars using an open source approach.
That which does not kill me only postpones the inevitable.
Last year I gave my students as an assignment to compare various fuel cell technologies, and also to compare various hydrogen storage technologies. There are many viable alternatives for hydrogen storage, you would be surprised. Even the good-old (but with a modern twist) pressure tanks are now viable.
There are also reformation technologies that create hydrogen on the go, from (for instance) methanol. So you can look at methanol as a hydrogen storage of sorts.
Hydrogen fuel cells is the main topic of my PHD - there's way more life in these little buggers than you'd think. Sure, there was a period of overhype, but I think we went full-circle by now, and there's some solid technology being churned out and reasonable optimism in the research community as well as in industry.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
It looks similar in size to the G-Wiz, an all-electric car which can only be legally driven in the UK because it's not classed as a "car", it's a "quadricycle". Quadricycles are basically thought of as a four-wheel motorcycle, so there are almost no safety requirements.
There is little to no chance of these being legal to drive in an US state, other than those that allow "neighborhood vehicles", like golf carts and Japanese Kei-class cars - here in Ilinois you can drive those on streets that have a maximum speed limit of 35 MPH, but no faster.
I especially recommend Clarkson's G-Wiz review. The G-Wiz is beaten by a table in the drag race test. Golf carts move faster and are roomier.
Putting moderation advice in your
700lbs? 1/2 the weight of a SmartCar? An enclosed go-kart.
20 year lease? You mean I'm still going to be making payments on this thing in 2029? Gimme a break.
Hydrogen fuel cell? And we refuel it where?
I don't care how green it might be (if it ever comes to pass), but locked into payments and a design for 20 years is just silly.
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite. I don't think it's that unreallistic for a car to still be going after 20 years - how many cars are there around on the roads from 1989/1990? Still quite a few (esp. Japanese made), in some parts of the world the majority of cars are that old or older.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years. Cars don't just impact the environment with CO2 emissions, the material and energy cost of production, maintenance and disposal have to be taken into account, and it's about time seeing a manufacturer taking responsibility in this regard, rather than cashing in on the easy profits of throwaway consumerism
A 20 year lease sounds like a dumb gimmick.
But you could drive the car in a climate that gets snow and salted roads - the body is carbon fiber - no rust!
Not everything can be made of carbon fiber. The metal parts (engine, exhaust system, etc) will still rust. Plus, 20 years is a very long time to commit to a car. Lots of expensive components tend to wear out over such a long period. We're supposed to believe that the company (which has zero track record building, selling, and maintaining cars) is even going to be here after that amount of time?
Of course, based on the fine article, it rapidly becomes clear that this is a vaporware economic model for a vaporware car design. This isn't a plan for designing and building a car --it's a plan for getting media attention for the design firm. As such, it's been successful.
I don't buy into the whole ecology BS. But my 1991 Jetta is a piece of engineering magic. Still runs fine, gets good mileage, and is rust free. Burns a little oil and needs the head gasket replaced, and the body shows the assorted dings and nicks that a 19 year old car will get. I look forward to driving it 15 years from now, as If anything goes out, it is easily and cheaply replaced or repaired.
The link in the Slashdot abstract, to http://ostatic.com/ causes Norton Security to throw a fit about no fewer than _164_ drive-by downloads on that site. What an unfriendly link to provide. Serves me right for attempting to actually read the article.
Car analogy please.
This generally doesn't equate to "as much fuel as you can use." If you read the fine print on these type of statements they often mean "1 per ." When I was a kid I won a "years supply of mac n cheese." This turned out to be a coupon book with 12 coupons in it which could be used one per month. I believe Chik-fil-a did the same thing with their 'years supply' of sandwiches. They just provided 52 coupons for one sandwich per week.
So maybe you'll be allowed one fill-up per month.
Sure we can make enough methanol. My colleagues in this superproject are working on that part of the equation as we speak - there are many approaches to producing cheap methanol. Most of them require expensive catalysts, sure, but that's a one-time cost. Unless we are talking about biocatalysts, but those, on the other hand, are (or an be) extremely cheap.
Methanol may very well be the fuel of the future.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
The business model of making carts that can be rented for 20 years is the exact opposite of the current car industry's business model: the car industry of today makes cars that are not exactly reliable and long lasting. They don't have any interest to, because they want you to buy a new car every 5 to 10 years. They also want to make a ton of money from spare part sales.
But if you design a car to be reliable and with cheap spare-parts, that is also fuel-efficient, why that's the best thing one can do for the Earth, car-wise.
I wish these dudes good luck.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
I bought a used car because I can buy twice the car (performance/safety/features) for half the price of the current model. Not because of CO2 emissions or the price of fuel or being "Green". I wanted a BMW M3 and couldn't afford the current model, but could afford one with 45k miles on it.
You've obviously never tried to convince someone that they should buy a used car. The most common responses I've heard:
"if the car was still good, the previous owner would still be driving it." or
"I don't want someone else's trash." or
"Why don't you wear used clothes?"
"The technology/fuel efficiency/safety/whatever in this years model is better than the previous year...."
Doesn't matter if the car has 20k miles on it and a manufacturers warranty good for up to 75k miles.
I read through the article and a lot of blogs covering Riversimple. Here's what it looks like under the hood. It seems too early and preliminary for adoption. "Open Source" seems to have been employed purely as a buzzword to generate interest. Most of the detail is actually at the 40 Fires foundation website which will probably release design schematics. Their FAQ answers questions I had in mind and is a good place for a starting read. The codename for this car is Hybran. The EU welcomes Hydrogen cars as a strong "Green" alternative.
If you do compare it to other initiatives like OSCar, you would find this option from Riversimple probably at a better stage of adoption. But until they unveil their prototypes (16-Jun-2009 is not far) and manufacturing goals (however they intend to go about it,) consumers will be skeptical about adoption. They first have to hit a note on consumers _wanting_ it or _needing_ it before proposing an attractive business model. Most of the prior comments reflect that we are not yet ready. Design momentum on OSCar seems to have stalled in the year 2006.
In contrast another vehicle release earlier this year happened in India with a lot of buzz about a $2,500 car, the Nano from India. This car _can_ do more than 56 mpg on Gasoline. It isn't green, but you can grab one, drive one and feel much safer than the electric counterparts that roam about the cities. This car went through at least 2 yrs of testing because the average consumer was scared about safety. The adoption was further slowed down by slow manufacturing response from Tata Motors.
India has allowed an Electric car (REVA) to be used within City limits (for road safety and range concerns) manufactured by Reva. The vehicle (a modest 4 wheeler) which comes in multiple flavors has low adoption rates in cities which allow it. This car through evolution has been heavier than India's top selling gasoline small-car the Maruti Suzuki 800cc 4 seater, and offers lesser range within a city. It has a very short range of 80-100km and requires battery packs to be replaced every two years (or depending on usage.) From June, 2001 the adoption has been very slow. During July, 2008 at least 260 Reva's (multiple models) were sold which is a record high. The Reva is priced at a one time price tag of close to $6,500 with an installed set of batteries. These have to be replaced at about $1000 every year. There's some comprehensive information and links on the Wikipedia Article (Reva). The cost has been a factor in slowing down adoption added to the fact that electric charges are required almost on a nightly basis. India has welcomed the car with reduced parking charges and several cuts. The G-Whiz model sold outside India is far too pricey ($12000 in Chile) and does not enjoy these environment friendly regulatory benefits.
For crowded cities in India where pollution is a heavy problem, Electrical cars with limited range for office commuters who'd prefer some shade (where public transport is a little inconvenient with timings) has received early adoption. i would presume that countries facing rapid development and growth rates will have to take this more seriously. Scaling public transport infrastructure has always been a challenge in many developing countries owing to a myriad of reasons. The basis for creating indices to track air pollution is outlined quite well in this paper (PDF) from
No Greater Friend, No Greater Enemy! (Lucius Cornelius Sulla)
Those throw away cars don't go to the dump to get buried with all the household waste.
They get sold to people willing to do some work to them and drive them for a while longer or they go to a salvage yard and get cannibalized for parts until everything of value if picked from them, then they get recycled. All the throw away mentality does is present poorer people with an opportunity to own a car or repair their cars at a decent rate.
The Smart ForTwo weighs over 2.5 times as much (1880 lbs.) in large part to the hardware required to pass those crash tests.
How well do, for example, motorcycles pass crash tests?
Motorcycles don't. You get into a wreck with another vehicle, you die. We refer to motorcycle riders as "organ donors" in the US.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
I live in the US and we just went for a little trip from Indianapolis to Madison, Wisconsin. Round trip with side ventures and a little driving around Madison came to over 800 miles.
That's just a couple of neighboring states. I drive 30 minutes at 60 MPH to get to work and that is all within city limits. The suburbs and exurbs and much further away.
[RIAA] says its concern is artists. That's true, in just the sense that a cattle rancher is concerned about its cattle.
They don't. We motorcyclists just avoid the accidents in the first place. Without the comfort of a safety cage you tend to anticipate idiots, keep significant separation from traffic and always have an escape route. Conversely, if you do get into an accident there is little available to keep you safe. Helmets, riding pants, jackets, gloves and boots all help increase survivability of an incident, but I won't stand in the middle of an interstate with my gear on just to see how effective it is. The answer is (and always was) better driving, not safety requirements.
Back in the day, cars needed periodic tune-ups to keep going properly. Regulation was passed mandating that cars had to be designed so that they would not need tune-ups like that anymore. Automotive manufacturers screamed that it was impossible, and that it would put garages out of business, then buckled down and did it when the regulators didn't bend.
Similar laws could be made today demanding a twenty-year expected lifespan for regular cars, excluding accidents. Since much of the environmental cost associated with a car comes during its manufacture, this would have a distinct ecological benefit. Since the manufacturers don't otherwise have much incentive to build long-lasting cars, preferring to frequently sell short-lived cars, this might end up being the only way to make it happen.
Long? What do you mean the signature at the bottom of every comment I post on Slashdot is too lo
If you RTA you'll see that the bodywork is made from carbon composite
I guarantee that the vast majority of that 700 pound weight is made up of steel and copper. The body is the least of your worries in a salt environment.
But this post is a great illustration of how many people view cars as throwaway, disposable products, good for only 10 years.
That's because in a salt environment they are. The measures needed to preserve a car in those areas generally involve keeping it in a garage for the winter.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
You can actually build a workable vehicle from carbon fiber and ceramics nowdays without using any metal at all. The biggest problem is how to you repair such a vehicle when it's damaged? Is it even possible? What about recycling the materials? Both steel and aluminum are easily recyclable, thus reducing actual energy costs associated with the manufacturing of the parts but cutting out the mining process.
What I'd rather see is the push to design a vehicle that's as close to 100 percent recyclable as possible. The other issue is to design such a vehicle to be as easily repaired as possible. This means it'll be butt ugly but I feel that something that can be easily repaired (modular components) can also be easily upgraded to improved performance levels just like a PC can be.
Mod me up/Mod me down: I wont frown as I've no crown
"How well does a bike work in the rain?"
I love it, only on slashdot. Mod parent up for being a true geek! Only a true geek who doesn't do daylight or weather query whether bikes work in the rain.
For your information, pretty well. Stopping distance is slightly longer and like motorbikes and cars, performance is somewhat reduced.
People who use bicycles in wet weather handle the rain by using "coats". They put their luggage in waterproof containers which keeps the rain (a type of "weather") off the contents.
I cycle to work and back, 8 miles each way, any weather apart from ice and heavy snow. You put on a coat, and waterproof trousers. Gortex is a wonderful invention. Waterproof panniers keep my laptop nice and dry. No problem.
Some people wear specialist cycling clothing, I just use my walking gear.
I'm guessing you're not much of an outdoors kind of person.
But does it run Linux?
What license would this be released under? Will there be a fork project?
An "open-source" car opens some interesting legal questions. Hot rodders and customizers can legally build cars that haven't been crash-tested, haven't undergone long-term emissions system durability testing, etc. and register these one-of-a-kind vehicles for highway use (in most US states). Open source designs mean that many people or small companies could be building the same car, no one maker in quantities that exceed the legal threshold for a volume-produced vehicle, but cumulatively in volumes that would require undergoing the rigorous test regimes.
How will the law deal with distributed authority and decision-making of open-source designs? Who would be responsible for performing the tests? Who would pay for it? Who will ensure that all the manufacturers using the design build it to the same specifications as the versions tested? Who will be held responsible in the inevitable product-liability suits?