Students Build 2752 MPG Hypermiling Vehicle

MikeChino sends along this awe-inspiring excerpt: "Think claims of electric vehicles that get over 200 MPG are impressive? Try this on for size: a group of mechanical engineering students at Cal Poly have developed a vehicle that can get up to 2752.3 MPG — and it doesn't even use batteries. The Cal Poly Supermileage Team's wondercar, dubbed the Black Widow, has been under construction since 2005. The 96 pound car has three wheels, a drag coefficient of 0.12, a top speed of 30 MPH, and a modified 3 horsepower Honda 50cc four-stroke engine. It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today." It's not quite as street-worthy, though, as Volkswagen's 235 MPG One-Liter concept. Updated 20:01 GMT: The Cal Poly car's earlier incarnation achieved 861 MPG, not MPH; corrected above.

Comments

clocked in at 861 MPH

[itomato]

Really?

Pfft.

Not even proofsniffed.

So what?

[JSBiff]

I'm not that impressed. I mean, while the figure mentioned seems impressive, how is this 'research' helpful? I mean, we already have *known* for a very long time that if you made a super small, lightweight vehicle with excellent aerodynamics, very low top-speed, and very low torque/accelleration, you can get much more mileage than the typical car. But, nobody wants a vehicle like that. People want vehicles very much like what they already have. . . enough mass around them to provide protections in an accident, enough space and power to haul 4 - 8 people plus cargo/luggage, and decent speed and accelleration - I think most of us have had driving experiences where we really needed to accellerate *right now* in order to avoid getting run over by a truck or bus or whatever.

I honestly think these 'toy car' concepts, while they might be great learning exercises for engineering students, aren't very impressive. I'd be much more impressed by the 80-100 MPG 4-door sedan.

Re:So what?

[zippthorne]

Of course, it's a lot easier to pull out in front of a truck when you're sitting in a recumbent position with your eyes no more than two and a half feet off the road.

Which brings me to a pet peeve of mine: poorly thought out landscaping on street-corner properties. I know you think your ugly bush looks cool and all, and the tree next to it really hides the street sign you placed them around, but street signs are there for a reason, and blocking drivers' view of oncoming traffic is just plain mean. Stop doing it.

Re:861 MPH!!!!!!!

[xquark]

quote from the rtfa: "It originally clocked in at 861 MPG and has been continuously tweaked to achieve the mileage we see today."

Re:They say others did better

[phantomfive]

Not to mention on the very same page as TFA there is a link to a French car that got 8923 miles per gallon. But this team managed to get a front page story for their car. Kudos to them and their superior story submission skills.

Re:96 pounds

[Sarten-X]

...Wow. That was a dumb question. Thanks for the answer, though.

You can go faster using pedal power

[Colin Smith]

I find it ironic that you can get a fairly standard HPV (http://www.recumbents.com/home/) that'll let you go faster than 30mph just using pedal power.

 

Re:hypermiling is useless.y v

[Anonymous Coward]

Why do you not use roundabouts in the US? They seem to keep traffic moving much more freely than a 4 way stop/intersection with lights.

Re:Rather pointless

[cortesoft]

I am a bit confused by your argument. Your 'alternative' measure that you seem to think provides more information is the EXACT same measurement; it is simply the inverse of the ratio. You can simply put a 1 over your MPG if you would prefer to use gallons per mile. Also, your point about a 10 mpg improvement mattering more to a 25mpg vehicle than a 2000 mpg vehicle is merely pointing out that in RATIO measures (which both MPGs and your alternative 'liters per 100kms' are examples of) it is important to measure the PERCENTAGE change rather than the absolute change. Your example would have the exact same result using your alternative measure (only in the reverse case); going from 1000 liters/100km to 990 liters/100km is less of a percentage improvement than going from 12liters/100kms to 2liters/100 kms.

However, this doesn't seem to be the main point you are trying to make. The main point I read is that we should focus on the 'low hanging fruit'; the (correct) notion that we should start by trying to improve the least efficient users of energy first, because each percentage point of improvement in them will save more fuel overall due to their higher initial fuel use age.

It also may be true that it would be helpful to consumers to show them how much money and fuel they would save with each car choice given their driving habits; however, this is done by using on of our ratio measurements to calculate the actual fuel usage given a fixed distance (either multiplying by your liters/km ratio or dividing by MPG). I will grant that your ratio might make it more obvious what this calculation will result in (given that you chose a denominator that you hope is close to the actual number of kms driven), but your measure is still just a ratio.

The last point I would like to make is that MPG is just as good as your liters/100km in determining how much money you will save by switching to a more fuel efficient vehicle. If you double your gas mileage, you will cut your fuel bill in half... it is that simple. This is true no matter how many times you double your MPGs..... although it is also true that the absolute dollar amount of those savings gets smaller and smaller as you move up the fuel efficiency chart.

Can't slashdot be readable outside the little feud

[alexandre_ganso]

Using imperial units on the headline? Well, ok.

But NOT using it on the news? Oh fuck.

I still have not the faintest idea of what they've accomplished.

Re:The supercar version was better

[OrangeCatholic]

What we need are new roads for these cars. Essentially something along the lines of a glorified bike path.

At that point, these cars will essentially design themselves. They're so lightweight...I can imagine hundreds of different varieties will pop into existence.

These roads would be cheaper and easier to maintain, and require fewer traffic signals.

Now if someone would only come out with a decent version of SimCity, I could at least play with my fantasy.

Re:Rather pointless

[Above]

Because the 30mpg car and the 40 mpg hybrid can't carry a ton of much home from the home improvement center, tow the boat to the lake, or haul your looser buddy's furniture from his ex's place to his new efficiency.

People who get upset about a single person in an SUV or Pickup commuting to work are ignoring the larger picture. That same vehicle may be used for towing or hauling in the evening or on the weekend. Getting a little less gas milage on the weekend is far cheaper than buying a second car (e.g. that 40 mpg hybrid) just for the commute, and far more environmentally responsible than the energy and raw materials to build a second car.

Re:The supercar version was better

[theaveng]

>>>And guess who was president when it was repealed. I mean, not that these little trivialities really make a difference.

You're right. They don't. It doesn't matter to me who passed the 55mph speed limit, because that was not the point of my post. But since your brought-up politics:

- Rep or Dem, they both have demonstrated themselves intent upon increasing government, and decreasing individual liberty, while completely ignoring the People's Constitution as if it did not exist. The fact you engage in such R v. D nonsense indicates you are still stuck in the sports mentality, rather than thinking logically & rationally about government. :-)