Slashdot Mirror
Meet the Virginia-Built 110MPG X-Prize Car
tcd004 writes "Instead of using Detroit engineers or Silicon Valley bitheads, Virginia-based Edison2 relied on retired Formula 1 and Nascar engineers to build its entry for the X-prize. Relying on composite materials and titanium, the team assembled an ultra-lightweight car that provides all the comforts of a standard 4-passenger vehicle, but gets more than 100 mpg. The custom engineering goes all the way down to the car's lug nuts, which weigh less than 11 grams each. Amazingly, they expect a production version of the car should cost less than $20,000." Earlier today, in a Washington, DC ceremony, Edison2 received $5 million as the X-prize winner. Writes the AP (via Google) "Two other car makers will split $2.5 million each: Mooresville, N.C.-based Li-Ion Motors Corp., which made the Wave2, a two-seat electric car that gets 187 miles on a charge, and X-Tracer Team of Winterthur, Switzerland, whose motorcycle-like electric mini-car, the E-Tracer 7009, gets 205 miles on a charge. Both of those companies are taking orders for their cars."
Go on. Do it.
Too bad the oil companies will make sure you never see it on the road.
Rob
whoda thunk such a thing could come from Lynchburg (manufacturing-wise)...i was pleasantly surprised when i heard about this a few months back.
"Two other car makers will split $2.5 million each"
What does that mean? Does it mean they get $2.5 million each or is it split between them?
Drill baby drill - on Mars
The story at Wired has pictures.
Drill baby drill - on Mars
Edison 2 site that would have been linked to in the summary if anyone posting stories gave a damn anymore
I believe the statements "Relying on composite materials and titanium" and "should cost less than $20,000" are contradictory.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Why the in hell does it look like that?
For the love of God make one of these cars look like a damn car.
With carbon fiber body and a titanium frame, it costing less then $20,000 sounds not even possible.
Add to it the 800lbs GVW and if the thing gets hit by another vehicle in the 2000lbs range it will certainly fly off the road. Good start, just not very believable in the statements made.
Does it have air bags, side-impact beams, crumple zones, etc? It seems like an impressive bit of engineering, but it will never make it to production in the US unless it meets all the government crash and safety standards.
Safety standards are one of the main reasons a 2010 Honda Civic gets nearly the same mileage in practice as a 1990 Civic. Although the more modern car has made strides in improving drive train efficiency, it weighs over 600 lbs more resulting in nearly the same fuel efficiency. Things like side-impact beams, air bags, and ABS make cars safer, but they also make them a lot heavier.
at least I hope you did there.
well it's not fast, it's not safe, but it's very efficient.
1st vehicle is made for a single person. Built for fairly low speeds (under 50), lightweight, obscene gas mileage, but 4 wheeled, and safe as can be. Made for to and fro work, non-highway.
2nd vehicle is multi-passenger, but not a long-hauler nor does it require fast speeds. Again, 50 and under. Make it lightweight, great mileage, made for around town, picking up the kids, going to the grocery store.
3rd vehicle is multi-passenger, highway driver, large capacity, made for high speeds. Gas mileage is probably nothing special. This is a travel vehicle made for time on the road.
You make these 3 with quality and safety in mind, and not trying to make money hand over fist, and you've won the salesroom. Yes, there will always be those who want sports cars, and gas-guzzeling suv's, however if you go to the sales lots today, it is VERY apparent what is lacking in quality and safety, and plain sensible engineering that a 100 year old industry should have. Disgusted doesn't scratch the surface with the current state of automobile selection.
Does this mean the car can only turn left?
this is a PROTOTYPE that was built to win a contest!! Obviously it wouldn't meet safety standards and is not road legal for various reasons. The point is, if they put it into production, and lose, say, 35mpg in efficiency (I know nothing about automotive stuff, just for the sake of argument), it's still ~65mpg! Which would be revolutionary. As for <20k... that seems unlikely, and it seems much more likely that price and the cost of large scale auto manufacture is what will keep this off your local dealer's lot.
Before we get all excited about this car's potential to solve our energy problems, we should give some thought to practical matters like crash safety.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I had a "Popular Mechanics" magazine from the early 80's that had an article on how to make a 100 MPG car with a spitfire car frame, molded fiberglass, and a Kubota tractor engine.
It's sad that it would take a X-Prize contest with a 10-million dollar purse to get us back to using the technology discussed in a old magazine.
Congrats to the teams. I'm just commenting about the automobile industry as a whole.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
It's Virginia built. That means it probably has neither turn signals, nor rear view mirrors, nor the ability to move in anything other than stop and go traffic.
Unfortunately, after the added weight of an average American the car only gets 50 MPG.
Titanium is expensive. It's not easy to fix. And the aircraft industry has gobbled it up. My company has seen titanium prices go up 6 fold in the past few years due to the 787 and the A380 using similar titanium/composite bodies. While it's come down in the recent years, raw titanium is still roughly $11/lb, vs steel which runs about $.50/lb. While you use less lbs of titanium for a car than you do steel because titanium is lighter, it's not 5% of the weight of steel. The raw material on this thing will likely cost 5-8x what a regular car will cost.
My diesel sedan from the mid-90's gets 60mpg, and weighs a bloody ton with all the steel, safety features, and such. If I threw a diesel engine in an ultralight chassis, without all the airbags and comfort, I wager I could break 100mpg. Heck, keeping everything in terms of comfort, but reducing the weight with a reengineered frame of lighter alloys, and carbon-fiber and plastic, and some better aerodynamics, and you could probably break 100mpg. Or make one where the "engine" is actually an electric motor, and a diesel generator constantly recharging the batteries in the back, and you can probably make a vehicle that can have lovely speed (as the generator can replae the need for quite a lot of the batteries needed for something like a Tesla), while having the option of running on just batteries to drive across town in wonderful silence.
That's cutting edge, but I rather go with the current "state of the art"?
More practical and way more fun to drive.
The NEV article states the safety requirements:
In addition, some states have increased the MPH limit (owner can easily mod this) to 35MPH, allowing them to travel on 45MPH roads in the slow lane:
All of this adds up to a vehicle that is good for local commuting (if allowed on the 45MPH "expressways") and grocery grabbing, with minimal safety requirements and if it's non-emissions, also benefit from tax incentives.
I'm definitely keeping my eye on this, it'd be great for those days when I don't want to ride the bike to work (i.e., have to pick up the kid). The Edison2 car would fit nicely here (though it wouldn't get tax credits).
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
"Innovations derived from racing enhance safety in the Very Light Car. These advances include collapsible space not available in current cars (such as wheels outside of the main body structure), a shape that deflects impacts, and a lightweight but sturdy steel frame. The nimbleness of the Very Light Car aids in accident avoidance, and low mass is an advantage in single-car or auto-pedestrian accidents."
( from http://www.edison2.com/facts-and-figures-overview/ )
They took a motocycle trike and put a canopy on it. FU. It's not innovative and quite frankly looks like hell. Do most people want a $20,000 quadricycle. NO! Try again, motorcycle trikes are able to at least pull something, not much but something, and they already get the mileage they claim to suddenly be capable of. Remember folks, you still have to deal with a big rig in a snow storm. What? It doesn't work under 35deg F? And you WILL die if you get into any type of accident? Great selling points. Ex F1 engineers? I don't think so. They may have worked for a short time building F1 cars but you know damn well they were run off for their lack of engineering skills. This is sophomore pre-graduate engineering at it's best.
Like the above posters have pointed out. (http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/08_37/b4099060491065.htm) Cars like this will never be seen in the U.S. Why? Because of greenie lobbyist organizations that know nothing about emissions and what truly is green. They love their lobbying power, they love driving SUVs and flying private jets to their functions. Let me put it to you this way. If you donate money to these outfits you are a fool. It's funny how they often lobby against cars like these because of their simplemindedness. "Diesel is bad! We are green! Trust us!(as they fly away on a private jet funded by you)"
The truth is that weight mainly affects acceleration, outside towns, while aerodynamics affects fuel consumption rather more. That's why the latest hybrids have such interesting shapes, especially around the rear end where the airflow detaches from the body.
As a real world, example, the Econetic Ford Fiesta is now available in the US, meeting full US specs. It produces 120BHP, more than European versions, but the NYT review mocks it for its low power and suggests it is slower than a rowing boat. That's nonsense, but it's the sort of thing rednecks like to believe. It does about 40MPUSG. It would have been hard to achieve that in a 1990 Fiesta, which would typically get around 28-33MPUSG. Yet it is much safer and much faster.
To be blunt, the real problem for economy cars in the US is the US mindset, which so often sees mere size as better than quality engineering. The mindset won't change until gasoline reaches about $5 per USG, and given the number of AGW-deniers among the current crop of Republican candidates, and Koch funding of the Tea Party, it's more likely someone will get invaded for their oil first.
Sorry if this is a bit of a rant, but my point isn't anti-US. It's complaining that the US has many of the world's best engineers who could fix all the problems of peak oil and overconsumption - but their own countrymen won't let them.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
I've seen nearly 30x that MPG in the SAE Supermileage Competition, built by HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS.
And that was several years ago.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
A few years ago, I read about a group of highschool students who did a very similar thing. They worked off a standard body, and built a hybrid drivetrain into it. They may not have achieved 110 mpg, perhaps 70 mpg. The point is, a lot of one-offs are doing this for very little money, and have been for a long time.
Long before that, back in the 90s on USENET... I recall reading a post from a guy who built an all-electric system in a light sportscar body. I don't recall what the body was, it doesn't really matter. The point is, he was TESLA MOTORS 15 YEARS AGO. Sure, the battery tech was not as good. He was probably lead-acid with a 30 mile range; but he claimed to have incredible speed off the line and I don't have any reason to doubt it.
The difference? All that marketing, patent lawyer garbage, investors, scale, etc. That's the hard part. The engineering is pretty well established.
Oh, and I'm pretty happy I didn't put down a deposit for my Aptera. I was actually toying with idea back when the dough was rolling in. Those guys even have a really cool prototype, but they keep delaying production. Why? Denied Federal funding due to 3-wheel design. Management problems. The 3-wheel denial problem was fixed; but Tesla grabbed the first round from Uncle Sam first. Still no production Aptera. Engineering is easy compared to all that other stuff.
The way I see it, getting 110 mpg cars to consumers is 10 percent engineering, 90 percent politics.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
why weld? just form/machine the parts and then bolt together, see "billet aluminium car" by kirkham motor sports.
Machining is the most expensive way to produce a metal part. You start with a block of metal and grind away everything that isn't the part. It's very wasteful, in terms of energy, even if you recycle the waste metal chips. The cheapest methods are stamping or casting. Guess how most metal car parts are made?
Robotic welding is cheap, repeatable and produces strong assemblies. Bolting tends to be labor intensive, and adds more weight (bolts weigh more than welds).
It's not like the existing car companies haven't analyzed these alternatives more than a few times over the last 100 or so years.
Putting moderation advice in your
Yes 65mpg would be SOOOO revolutionary
There isn't a sedan widely available on the US market that gets anything near 65mpg. Most cars get far less. There is a car in europe that gets 65 per gallon. I don't get your point. (?)
If that were true don't you think one of the over 100 teams who spent millions of their own money would have done that? Its easy to get 100mpg when you gloss over all of the details and rules, but the X-Prize setup many tests to ensure the car actually got 100mpg in many scenarios. Your alleged PM 100mpg car may not even be true.
Oh come on. VW sells a three-cylinder diesel model in Europe that gets over 65 miles per gallon. You don't think someone could get more than that out of a lighter car with a much smaller engine?
I read this article, not that that's a definitive citation or anything.
The 1980s PM car used a diesel engine that made about 17 horsepower. It was extremely slow to accelerate, but because the engine size was matched up to exactly how much power was needed to keep the car moving, and because a tractor engine can be operated at full power output indefinitely, it meant that the engine was operated right at its peak efficiency most of the time. It got incredible fuel milage at the expense of terrible acceleration performance.
The designers decided that carrying a larger engine with excess reserve power meant that the car would be less efficient at steady-state cruising. They were right. The downside was the car took a very long time to get up to highway speed and couldn't do more than about 65 MPH. At lower speeds, in town, it wasn't much slower than the crappy econoboxes of the time - remember this was when 100 hp seemed like a lot in a small car.
Putting moderation advice in your
It's quite clear that we possess the technology to make a 100+ MPG vehicle. The real question, though, is whether a practical vehicle can be made to attain those figures that the public would be willing to buy. Would tens of thousands of people be willing to buy it? No way.
People give American car companies a lot of crap for their vehicles performing inefficiently, but truthfully they're providing what the American consumer is willing to buy. Your average Joe won't buy a vehicle without trunk space and without comfortable seats. There are also factors such as appearance/design, safety (where are the airbags on these?), and the very basics like radio and cruise control. Keep in mind that up until the past few years, the best selling vehicle in the world was a pickup truck.
These Xprize vehicles would be hard pressed to make even the tiniest of dents in the market. They're a PR stunt and research platforms more than anything. Could the technology be used elsewhere? Absolutely. But don't expect to see these mass produced and highly sold anytime soon.
The XR3 has been around a few years and looks a lot more like a car than any of these. Is it because it is a three wheeler?
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it." - K
This guy built a car in 1984 that got 103.7 miles per gallon driving from Mexico to the Canadian border.
Tacoma native driving from Bellingham to Mexico on a tank of gas...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
>Before we get all excited about this car's potential to solve our energy problems,
>we should give some thought to practical matters like crash safety.
How long do you suppose it will be until fuel economy is the only practical matter under consideration? How long until you get to choose between driving any kind of vehicle at all or a bicycle?
My guess is it won't be very long and we will be forced to drive golf carts around town. Because you won't be able to afford to drive anything else.
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
, http://cherepovecsite.ru/
http://bessern.ru/
My daily commuter gets 70 MPG. I ride it about 10k miles per year. It has 8000 miles on it. I paid under $2k for it. It weighs 300 pounds. It goes 75 MPH on the freeway and has a range of about 300 miles. It uses no exotic anything. Anyone can buy one right now.
Why the hell is developing a 100 MPG gasoline vehicle using exotic materials worth a multi million dollar prize? This is a gigantic waste of time, effort, and money.
Seat ibiza gets 97.4mpg and it's a real car:
http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/carreviews/firstdrives/237415/seat_ibiza_ecomotive.html
http://vimeo.com/5285448
A car that could have long been in production if the government actually funded innovation and wasn't simply looking out for unions.
Simplest way to double your MPG? Carpool. I was driving in to LA on the freeway looking around. Giant traffic jam. Every car had just one person. What a gigantic waste. 10 million people and nobody using the technology already available:
http://www.erideshare.com/carpool.php?city=Los%20Angeles
I personally telecommute most days - that gives even better MPG.
Intron: the portion of DNA which expresses nothing useful.
The engineers on this team have a racing background, so I know they've seen the difference between "contact" in NASCAR races and open wheel races. As long as no one is too jiggly in NASCAR, the race proceeds with not much more than some scuffed sheet metal. Touch wheels in open wheel, and parts get ripped off. Helps the cars kill off momentum, but for the US drivers who "drive by feel," how will they get around this one?
"...And who wants to make buttprints in the sands of time?" ~Bob Moawad
the team assembled an ultra-lightweight car that provides all the comforts of a standard 4-passenger vehicle
This looks about as comfortable as the Saddle Seat RyanAir wants to use. It might fit Paris Hilton and her three best friends (does she have that many?), but for the non-anorexic crowd, it looks like a tight fit.
Disclaimer: I am an American, weigh in at 200lbs, and measure 6'4" (that's 1.93 meters for all you metric nazis out there - i.e. the rest of the world), so I'm not overweight, and there's no way I could fit in this thing
Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
Amazingly, they expect to build this vehicle for 1/5 the cost of a Tesla roadster. Right.
Sorry, but gray text on gray background is making my eyes bleed.
What does geography have to do with this achievement?
Admire mine here: http://www.coultersmithing.com/OldStuff/kart.html I did this so long ago I'm two websites, a new business, and a forum since then. And yes, I still drive it every day, it's handy and did I say fun? Swaps ends with the best of them on a limited traction road....mini cooper claims go-kart handling, but this is far better....and it will climb almost straight up. Other than the body work, does this look a little familiar? Sure does to me. Paid about $2k for this, yeah, they can make them for 10 times that, duh.
Why guess when you can know? Measure!
ttp://workout90.info
http://workout90day.info
http://getfit90days.info
http://discountmbt.info
http://mbtdiscountshop.info
http://the90days.info
http://90dayssite.info
http://5fingersmall.info
http://5fingershoes.info
http://globletrades.com
When I first checked out this web piece I figured Slashdot's readers simply have to check this out: http://hubpages.com/hub/rent-a-laptop-rentals . I can't understand renting a portable PC at all! The outlay of renting a portable PC for only a few weeks will set you back as much as simply going online and purchasing one!
Seriously, wake me when these things can be made on a traditional assembly line by unskilled labor and when they can take the place of a Ford F-150 pickup truck. Anything else is a stunt.
Sure, because EVERY car has to be able to replace a pickup in order to be useful.
Try performing any home improvement project with a Smart Car.
http://failblog.org/2009/06/19/swingset-transportation-fail/
Besides that, how are you going to transport your six precious little snowflakes and their great dane pooch to and from all the extracurricular activities in a go-kart?
The local hardware store here has pick up trucks you can rent by the hour for the rare times you need to haul something big home. They also deliver.
Point is that you STILL need practical vehicles. This kiddie car foolishness caters to the government employee who drives from their apartment to their cushy East Coast government pencil-pushing job and back again. Try climbing a hill with an electric car.
And furthermore, since all electrical storage devices self-discharge you eventually waste all the energy used to charge them.
I will be impressed when the power sources are capable of A) moving a currently-manufactered 3000 lb chassis plus payload, B) 300+ miles on a charge, and C) can be charged in 5 minutes. Anything less than that is a stunt. You want people to junk their fossil-fuel vehicles you MUST offer them something that is as good as or better than what they currently have.
Oh, and BTW, replacing a battery pack in a hybrid vehicle costs well over $5000. You think anyone is going to pay that kind of money when they can say "screw it, I'll just run on gas." Guess again.
The way I see is that the early electric vehicles should be marketed to families with multiple vehicles, as a replacement for the smaller second car that is only used to commute to work and run errands. It's the perfect use case, as generally that vehicle does not make long trips, does not need to haul a lot of people and stuff, and has a predictable usage pattern meaning it can charge up when electricity is cheap. We'll worry about how to replace the main family vehicles, taxis, vans, trucks, work vehicles, etc later.
And while batteries are expensive, you do have to factor in the total cost of ownership here - electric motors are simple and reliable, and you don't have to worry about oil, coolant, oil pumps, water pumps, complicated transmissions, injectors, exhaust system, alternators, emissions systems, and everything else you get with a gasoline powered engine. A $5000 battery pack every 10 years suddenly doesn't look so bad to me. (though I do admit I'm not too impressed with current hybrid technology)