11-Year-Old Pilots 1,325 MPG Concept Car

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

11-Year-Old Pilots 1,325 MPG Concept Car

Posted by timothy on Thursday June 23, 2011 @07:39AM from the color-me-and-all-kids-everywhere-envious dept.

MikeChino writes "Hypermiling vehicles depend on ultra-efficient engines and low weight to go the distance, so Cambridge Design Partnership selected 11-year-old Cambreshire student Kitty Foster as the pilot their new 1,325 MPG car. The vehicle incorporates a highly modified lightweight oxygen concentrator that was originally developed for the Ministry of Defense to treat injured soldiers."

220 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Hard to believe anyone... by Super+Dave+Osbourne · 2011-06-23 07:43 · Score: 1

would allow an 11 year old to drive a car of any type. Maybe it goes the speed of one of the battery powered or wind up 'toy cars' that kids putz around on at home.
1. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 07:46 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty obviously this was about the weight.
  Using an 11 year old girl rather than an adult probably adds a couple of hundred MPG.
2. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by sheddd · 2011-06-23 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  I was driving at 6; mostly around a farm but occasionally on the road. I was probably safer than the average 80 year old.
3. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by bmo · 2011-06-23 07:51 · Score: 2
  
  It's on a closed track. It's less risky than a go-kart.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mallory_Park
  >putz around
  >putz as a verb
  I don't think it means what you think it means.
  --
  BMO
4. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by arun84h · 2011-06-23 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  An 11 year old with a license to drive? What's next, Great Britain? A 16 year old with a license to kill?
5. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  Your aren't off by much on the speed. In my high school we participated in events like this. I was the only one in the class that wasn't the the standard shop class kid as this was an elective offered only to juniors and seniors (you could take it all year both years). The competition was held up at Brainerd International Raceway and basically the engines have a pull string (think lawn mower) to start the vehicle and don't have multiple gears, so you pull start the vehicle and once up to speed shut the engine off and coast to a stop, then repeat until you are around the track. The fast ones top out at about 15mph.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
6. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Oxford_Comma_Lover · 2011-06-23 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  I had crashed three cars by the time I was three. Not on the farm. I think I only took off in the tractor once at that age...
  I once saw an eighty-year-old man parallel park by driving his car forward until he hit the car in front, angling the wheel, driving back till he hit the car in back, angling the wheel, and repeating this process as the two eighty-year-old women in the back seat appeared to be growing more and more concerned.
  In retrospect, it seemed to sum up a great deal about everything.
  
  --
  -- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
7. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Really? Do you also think that minibikes and carts were designed for Shriners?
  I'm guessing you grew up in a city, because every 11 year old I knew growing up had a mini-bike, four-wheeler, or cart that would go at least 55MPH+. I got my first Honda when I was 6. And, most rural kids I know started driving trucks around the farms by at least by 12.
8. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by ChikMag777 · 2011-06-23 08:06 · Score: 1
  
  My nephews started racing junior dragsters at ~8 y.o.
9. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  A mature 11 year old is going to have a better brain on their shoulders in most respects than an immature 21 year old adult. The latter is very common.
10. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by zill · 2011-06-23 08:11 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  You don't need a license to drive.
  You need a license to drive on public roads.
  What private citizens do with their private vehicles in their private race tracks is none of the government's business.
11. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by westlake · 2011-06-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  I was driving at 6; mostly around a farm but occasionally on the road. I was probably safer than the average 80 year old.
  I was raised on a farm and saw far too many young kids on tractors. I know exactly how safe you were --- which is to say, not safe at all.
12. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:17 · Score: 0
  
  Mod parent up. I've been driving since I was 10... and not tiny compacts either.
13. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Lazareth · 2011-06-23 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  While that is true, something has to be said about the security of the child and the responsibility of guardianship. While traffic regulations does not apply on private ground, social service does.
14. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by RussellSHarris · 2011-06-23 08:18 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty obviously this was about the weight.
  No shit. I want to know what sort of gas mileage it would get if it was carrying a normal-sized adult human.
  Plus it makes NO mention of how fast the thing goes. For all I know, a bicycle might go just as fast, and use significantly less gasoline... i.e. none.
15. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by hawguy · 2011-06-23 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I once saw an eighty-year-old man parallel park by driving his car forward until he hit the car in front, angling the wheel, driving back till he hit the car in back, angling the wheel, and repeating this process as the two eighty-year-old women in the back seat appeared to be growing more and more concerned.
  It's not just 80 year olds that park this way - I see this parking style often in the city where I live - parking is hard to come by and people will cram their car into impossibly small spaces.
16. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-06-23 08:23 · Score: 1
  
  No shit. I want to know what sort of gas mileage it would get if it was carrying a normal-sized adult human.
  That depends. Are we talking normal size the world over, or "normal-sized" by American standards? Since the average adult American is obese, I think you're going to skew the numbers either way you go.
17. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by taktoa · 2011-06-23 08:24 · Score: 2
  
  The average adult American is not obese.
18. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Rene+S.+Hollan · 2011-06-23 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  So does "Come back with a warrant", at least in the U.S.
  
  --
  In Liberty, Rene
19. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yes. Why not a little person?
20. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by rockout · 2011-06-23 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  ... said the big-boned Slashdot user.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
21. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by hackertourist · 2011-06-23 08:36 · Score: 1
  
  This was a competition organized for school kids, in the UK. The UK is one of the worst nanny-states about anything to do with children, so I can guarantee you that something has been said etc.
22. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by JWSmythe · 2011-06-23 08:40 · Score: 1
  
  That's exactly what I was thinking. Average size for an 11 year old female is 52" (4' 4") tall and 80 pounds. Compare that to the average weight for an 18 to 20 year old male, at 69" (5' 9") tall and 155 lbs.
  By using the younger girl, they're saving 17" in cabin/seating space (non-linear due to the angle of the seat), and 75 pounds of weight.
  Way back in the day, I had a little 50cc moped. Don't consider comparing it to the performance of current "pocket bikes". It was old and slow. It was my first "motorcycle" Ya, ya, not a motorcycle, but it was more than a bicycle, and I wasn't old enough to be licensed for motorcycles yet. I weighed about 130 pounds then, and could do 30 mph reasonably quickly. Again, that's compared to a bicycle, not to a real motorcycle or car. :) Someone who weighed about 180 tried to ride it. He could get up to 15mph, and it took about 4 times as long to get there.
  I suspect there are a few other reasons they chose her in particular. She was probably mature enough to be able to drive it. I wouldn't think a 5 year old could do it safely, despite the advantage in weight (avg female: 39.6 lbs). She's probably a family member of someone involved, and they probably didn't have any adults of such a small stature to participate. I can't honestly say I know any adults quite that small, but I do know some females who are right around 5' tall, and weigh about 100 pounds. There's still an advantage over an average adult male, but not as significant.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
23. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by RussellSHarris · 2011-06-23 08:41 · Score: 1
  
  Are we talking normal size the world over, or "normal-sized" by American standards?
  Well, it was in Cambridge and that's in the UK; I think it'd be a fair compromise if it was average-sized by UK standards.
  Granted, according to Forbes the percentage of "overweight" (BMI > 25) adults in the UK is ~10% lower than in the US, but it's still very high.
24. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:42 · Score: 1
  
  Are you fucking serious? Please stay the hell away from childhoods, you're absolutely ruining them.
25. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by bmo · 2011-06-23 09:00 · Score: 2
  
  >While that is true, something has to be said about the security of the child and the responsibility of guardianship. While traffic regulations does not apply on private ground, social service does.
  You seriously think that a school sponsored event runs aground of child safety laws? You really do?
  You are what is wrong with society.
  --
  BMO
26. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by bmo · 2011-06-23 09:02 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed.
  People are wondering why kids are staying indoors eating cheetos and playing vidya games and getting fat.
  People like the parent are child abusers.
  --
  BMO
27. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by kent_eh · 2011-06-23 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  a bicycle might go just as fast, and use significantly less gasoline... i.e. none.
  My bicycle does even better...
  It emits gas.
  
  At least when I'm riding it.
  
  --
  
  ---
  "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
28. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by TRRosen · 2011-06-23 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  What state do you live in. Safety permits are required for all ages for any vehicle bigger then a bicycle in michigan, on road or off.
  Note most drunk driving laws apply to anyone in control of a motor vehicle either on a public road or not. Why you can be arrested before you even leave the parking lot.
29. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by dontbgay · 2011-06-23 09:11 · Score: 2
  
  Roughly 25% equates to average? We shouldn't let facts get in the way of your slander though. Sure, it's a lot of people. No, it's not the average.
  
  --
  Sig not found.
30. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Gordonjcp · 2011-06-23 09:20 · Score: 1
  
  You've never been to a farm, then? If you can't drive pretty much all the machinery by the time you're 11, then there's clearly something wrong with you.
31. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:22 · Score: 1
  
  They were in short supply?
32. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by sortius_nod · 2011-06-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly.
  I ran around barefoot with the other local kids at 6 years old. Nothing like running down to the lagoon for some swimming and fishing with the other kids.
  These days you'd get done for neglect because you're not spending every moment supervising your kids.
33. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by couchslug · 2011-06-23 09:27 · Score: 1
  
  Not all young humans are too impulsive, stupid, or otherwise incompetent to drive, ride horses, or race motocross for that matter!
  Have some UK motocross age/class info:
  http://forums.mxtrax.co.uk/showthread.php?t=162847
  "6-7 yr automatic 50cc 2 or 4 stroke auto air cooled only 12" rear 15"front.
  7-10 yr junior 65cc 2 stroke or 110cc 4 stroke 12" rear 14" front.
  9-12 yr intermediate 85cc 2 stroke or 124cc 4 stroke 14" rear 17" front.
  11-15 yr senior 85cc 2 stroke or 125cc 4 stroke 19" rear 21" front.
  14-17 yr open 125cc 2 stroke or 250cc 4 stroke 19" rear 21" front. "
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
34. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  I remember driving a tractor for the first time, a 1940's era John Deere model B. The front wheels are close enough together to call it a tricycle (albeit one that weighs two tons), and there is no roll cage or any sort of safety feature in the all-too-common event of a roll. I'd never used a hand clutch before and when I did an especially bad job of shifting I made the damn thing hop, nearly getting thrown off the seat. Any bigger slope and I would have flipped the tractor for sure. Lots of farmers have been crushed by their own tractors.
35. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:55 · Score: 0
  
  I grew up in the country, and as well was on tractors, 3-wheelers (notorious for tipping!!!111!!gasp!!), and other machinery. If you're properly supervised and taught the dangers and how to use it (you know... parents being proper parents), then you grow up being accustomed to situations that may be hazardous, instead of in the nanny state of stopping kids from being within 200 feet of anything pointy.
  I lived. I grew up. I very, very much pity kids growing up in society today.
36. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:57 · Score: 0
  
  some of us actually grew up on 15 or 16yo licensing..and we were driving way before that.
37. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:05 · Score: 0
  
  Pretty obviously this was about the weight.
  Using an 11 year old girl rather than an adult probably adds a couple of hundred MPG.
  Yeah but they probably lose it because females always have to stop to ask for directions. Circus midgets are always the answer no matter what the question is.
38. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Belial6 · 2011-06-23 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  If you use the definition of "not dead" as "obese".
39. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by jonbryce · 2011-06-23 10:08 · Score: 1
  
  The car isn't road-legal anyway because the tyre tread is less than 1.6mm
40. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by jonbryce · 2011-06-23 10:09 · Score: 1
  
  It emits CO2 and possibly methane, and you want to get those as low as possible.
41. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-06-23 10:12 · Score: 2
  
  60% of adult Americans are obese.
42. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Belial6 · 2011-06-23 10:14 · Score: 1
  
  And that is why the vast majority of kids are retarded. The kind of vehicle this kid is driving is less dangerous than a bicycle. Heck, it is less dangerous than taking a bus to school.
43. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Belial6 · 2011-06-23 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. The worst child abusers are often like the poster above who like the tortoise wins the race with slow and stead pace. Let your kid stay home while you run to the store, and you might end up in jail. Spend every day for 18 years preventing them from becoming self sufficient, and you get a pat on the back. It truly is disgusting.
44. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  What state do you live in.
  He's in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. No license is needed to drive a vehicular on private property, and you can drive it at any age. It's actually fairly common for kids who live out in the country to know how to drive something like a tractor or a Landy before they're 17 (the age one can legally drive)
45. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Belial6 · 2011-06-23 10:21 · Score: 1
  
  I think you will find significant correlation between the kids who's parents prevent them from having experiences that let them learn and mature, and immature 21 year olds.
46. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Reading your comment (and the parent) I was like WTF does gas mileage have to do with a wicked fast car -- who cares. I misread and was under the impression it was 1325 MPH, not MPG.... Cause let me tell you how funny it is to picture some crazy engineer dad putting his 11 year old daughter in a car and sayin "Now go fast Suzy".
  Of course had I stopped to think, I would have recognized (as I did a minute after reading this) current records are like half of this speed.
47. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by nblender · 2011-06-23 10:44 · Score: 2
  
  My son has been driving my truck, offroad, since he was 6. I like the idea that if I'm injured and incapable of driving, my son will be able to get the two of us out to the nearest road... He's almost 10 now so having him drive me closer to civilization in an extreme emergency is not inconceivable..
  He's also been helping to fix my truck since he was 4 and rebuilt the entire front axle of my 4x4 when he was 8.. Not because I think he should, but because he wanted to. Been teaching him how to weld, also.
48. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by treeves · 2011-06-23 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  ...Brainerd International Raceway.
  How about having Jerry Lundegaard do the driving!
  Oh, geez. Look, I'm cooperatin' here!
  
  --
  ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
49. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by SleazyRidr · 2011-06-23 11:50 · Score: 1
  
  But... the car might have had chemicals in it! He might have driven somewhere where he could have seen an exposed breast!
  Won't someone please think of the boobies!
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
50. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by mug+funky · 2011-06-23 13:42 · Score: 1
  
  the skinny, humourless /.ers skew the figures.
51. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by mug+funky · 2011-06-23 13:43 · Score: 1
  
  ugh! metric, please! i have no idea what the hell you're talking about!
52. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by vivian · 2011-06-23 14:14 · Score: 1
  
  I think that's the standard parking technique in places like Nice, France. In flat parking areas, apparently sometimes people leave their handbrakes off so their cars can be nudged back or forward without damaging the fenders.
53. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by taktoa · 2011-06-23 14:19 · Score: 1
  
  Joke's on you, I'm 20 lbs underweight.
54. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by taktoa · 2011-06-23 14:24 · Score: 2
  
  The CDC begs to differ: http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/databriefs/db01.pdf
55. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 14:32 · Score: 1
  
  Hell I drove my dad's race car when I was 12. At the time it was a 75' Nova with a Chevy 350. It had about 300hp and ran low 14's in the quarter mile. I never did terribly well racing it, but it was fun as hell when you are 12. That was years ago and the minimum age at that time was 12 to drag race. I think now they go as low as eight, but I think it is from 8 to 14 you race the junior dragsters which are basically small dragsters with a motor cycle engine that run an eighth mile instead of the full quarter.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
56. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 14:39 · Score: 1
  
  Sounds like my oldest son. He is only 2 and a half but loves to help dad "fix" things. He has discovered how to use the pop rivet gun, which is useful since the project of late has been putting in the new floor pans in my 68' MG Midget project car so I have actually gotten him to fix things instead of just pretending. Last summer he wanted to "fix" things which was basically give him a screw driver or wrench and let him poke some old crusty part and pretend, but this year he wants to actually help.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
57. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 14:59 · Score: 0
  
  You must be so proud.
58. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by blackpaw · 2011-06-23 15:17 · Score: 1
  
  I like the idea that if I'm injured and incapable of driving, my son will be able to get the two of us out to the nearest road...
  There's been a couple of cases exactly like that in outback Australia
59. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by davester666 · 2011-06-23 16:12 · Score: 1
  
  Don't some vehicles come with a system to do this automatically for you?
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
60. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by writeRight · 2011-06-23 16:24 · Score: 2
  
  "You need a license to drive on public roads." Since when did you become a Constitutional attorney? In the USA, only commercial drivers and those who have been tricked into agreeing they are commercial drivers need a license to drive on public roads. The rest of us exercise our right to travel in personal automobiles. The right has been upheld by the federal Supreme Court. You may want to listen to Rule Of Law Radio during their Monday "traffic night" call-in show. The hosts understand how to travel without a license. http://ruleoflawradio.com/index.html Right To Travel reading: http://www.apfn.org/apfn/travel.htm http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html#travel http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cases/topics/tog_right_to_travel.html
61. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by txmcse · 2011-06-23 17:12 · Score: 1
  
  it doesn't make a difference how fast it can go... the challenge was to see how far it could go. It was a science project in which all the cars were 'sponsored', and the build teams worked with schools from all over the UK. The girl who ended up driving won the chance by placing best in a series of science based games/challenges. btw... she didn't drive it 1300+ miles, only a couple of laps around the closed track. This was an experiment... and a pretty cool one at that. they used GPS + topology maps to enable the driver to stop engine production and allow gravity to do it's work where it applied most. they used special membranes to separate the energy types stored in the diesel. all in all it was a very neat display, and far more news worthy than 'little girl makes car go far'.
62. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 17:14 · Score: 1
  
  That's why they had her driving in circles - she could ask for directions every time she passed Go.
63. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by JWSmythe · 2011-06-23 17:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'll be happy to oblige you, since your machine seems to have faulty localization abilities.
  My apologies for characters that don't show up properly here. Similar replacements have been used. Some units have been adjusted for ease of reading.
  52 inches = 8.828Ã--10^-12 AU = 2.889 cubit = 1.3208 meters = 1.396Ã--10^-16 LY
  80 pounds = 1.82447708Ã--10^-29 Mo = 5.71 stone = 36.28 kilogram
  30 mph = 4.473e-8 C (in a vacuum) = 26.06 knots = 48.28 kph = 0.039 mach (on a standard day, under standard conditions)
  And of course, as my old pal Al used to say, "it's all relative".
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
64. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by JWSmythe · 2011-06-23 17:21 · Score: 1
  
  Hmmm, that's interesting, there are extraneous characters. Disregard anything that resembles a capital A, or a double dash.
  
  --
  Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
65. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Opportunist · 2011-06-23 18:14 · Score: 1
  
  First, I'm not 80. And second, do you know a better way to parallel park?
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
66. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Opportunist · 2011-06-23 18:18 · Score: 2
  
  Exactly! Boobies are hardly something for little kids!
  
  --
  We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
67. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by gl4ss · 2011-06-23 20:30 · Score: 1
  
  dunno where you're from, maybe rural mongolia, but in the West there's amusement parks and even competitive driving for 11 olds, but it's still lame that they're using a kid, why not just remote control it then if you have to skimp on the weight and use a kid. what they should have done would have been to get a midget, at least then they could call it a midget car and not a kids car.
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
68. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by cyclomedia · 2011-06-23 20:43 · Score: 1
  
  it could be a modal average, based on the number of fat americans you see, and because they really stand out they stick in your mind. Whilst you forget about the plain looking ones.
  
  --
  If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
69. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by squizzar · 2011-06-23 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, we'll give up on licensing guns and see how that works out for us...
70. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by squizzar · 2011-06-23 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  You would have shat bricks if you were there when I started driving land rovers around the farm as a kid. Not to mention go-karts etc. I'd stay away from junior karting and junior motocross events as well, you'll have a coronary.
71. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Ihmhi · 2011-06-23 22:21 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah, but if we're going by American averages that makes you, what, 270, 280?
  
  --
  Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
72. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by jellomizer · 2011-06-23 22:54 · Score: 1
  
  I was driving a truck when I was 10. Granted I was on a farm and I didn't go on any roads but I was taught to drive at 10.
  
  --
  If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
73. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-24 01:39 · Score: 0
  
  Ya know, when it's a kid's competition, it's rather difficult to not let a kid drive.
74. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by RussellSHarris · 2011-06-24 02:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, the goal is obviously to not touch the cars in front of / behind you, although barely touching them is IMHO not such a henious crime as long as you don't damage their bumper.
  The proper way to parallel park? Well, first of all, you should NEVER pull forward into a parallel parking spot unless maybe you simply have more room than you know what to do with. Here's the gist of it:
  Pull forward until your back wheels are directly alongside the front car's rear bumper. Turn your wheel hard right and back until you're at somewhere around 45 degrees to the curb, then straighten the wheel. Continue to back until your back wheels are about 6 or 8 inches from the curb (the wheels, not the bumper - your bumper might actually extend off the road a little bit, so pay attention to anything you might hit and adjust if necessary). At this point, the front wheels of your car should be (approxomately) next to the back bumper of the front car, at which point you can turn the wheel hard left and continue to back in (your back wheels won't get much closer to the curb during this) until your vehicle is parallel to the curb. Last, pull slightly forward to center your vehicle in the parking spot.
  To get out, back up until you're almost touching the car behind you, turn the wheel hard left and pull forward out of the parking spot in the same way you entered it.
  If you've practiced and you're familiar with your vehicle's handling, you can wedge yourself into really small parking places without hitting the cars in front of / behind (but as I said, you might barely touch one because it's hard to tell exactly how far they are from your bumper, particularly behind you - just go very slow).
75. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-24 02:44 · Score: 0
  
  It's on a closed track. It's less risky than a go-kart. Lame.
  
  FTFY.
  (in case you missed it)
76. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-24 03:25 · Score: 1
  
  I take it you don't let your kids drive gas karts at amusement parks?
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
77. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by uninformedLuddite · 2011-06-24 14:17 · Score: 1
  
  You really drank a lot of the kool-aid didn't you?
  
  --
  The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
78. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by RockDoctor · 2011-06-26 11:03 · Score: 1
  
  Whilst you forget about the plain looking ones.
  ... assuming that you can see them past the lardy arses of the lard-arses.
  
  --
  Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
79. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by RussellSHarris · 2011-06-27 10:37 · Score: 1
  
  it doesn't make a difference how fast it can go... the challenge was to see how far it could go.
  In that case, a pedal car could go a lot farther and always have 100% as much diesel at the end as it did at the beginning.
  In real life, it matters how fast it can go, because if it doesn't at least go significantly faster than a bicycle, I won't use it and I doubt anyone else will.
80. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by txmcse · 2011-06-27 15:26 · Score: 1
  
  Yes, in real life... size, speed, cost, consumption, and emissions matter a great deal. While a pedal car or bicycle might best this rig in all of those categories, those wouldn't meet the qualifications for this competition. If you were hoping to find them competing for your spending capital, i'm sorry... they were not. The effort was to spur creativity, research, and development... which it did quite successfully. I know i shouldn't have responded to this... but somehow trolls always get the best of me. Trolls always be troll'n, Russ. always be troll'n
81. Re:Hard to believe anyone... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-28 01:12 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, in real life... size, speed, cost, consumption, and emissions matter a great deal. While a pedal car or bicycle might best this rig in all of those categories, those wouldn't meet the qualifications for this competition.
  IOW this competition is a narrowly-defined situation that's so unrealistic that it's about as relevant to any situation in real life as a WoW convention would be.
  
  The effort was to spur creativity, research, and development... which it did quite successfully.
  They researched, developed, and created something that met the criteria for this competition: among other things, it basically has to be useless in real life in order to compete.
  
  I know i shouldn't have responded to this... but somehow trolls always get the best of me. Trolls always be troll'n, Russ. always be troll'n
  I had a point which I felt (and still feel) is a valid one, and you replied to it with your own point of view. I'd prefer a provocative post rather than a boring, uninteresting one. If that's trollin', then I guess I be trollin'.
Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by damn_registrars · 2011-06-23 07:44 · Score: 2

Passengers? Just one, the driver

Doors? None

Power Windows? Nope, no windows at all

Wheels? Just three

It's great to see something get this kind of fuel economy, to see where we can take the technology, but it might not be entirely honest to call it a "car".

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
1. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Arlet · 2011-06-23 07:49 · Score: 1
  
  Exactly. Instead of improving useless 'concept cars', effort would be better invested in producing something that could actually be useful.
2. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by wed128 · 2011-06-23 07:53 · Score: 2
  
  These sort of pissing contests sometimes produce technology that is useful in "real cars".
3. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by bluemonq · 2011-06-23 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  The Peel P50 is widely recognized as a car (specifically, the smallest car ever commercially produced). It had room for one passenger, had three wheels... and a single door and a few windows. So I guess we're pretty close. Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't stick a light one-piece Lexan windscreen/canopy on it to cut down on the wind resistance.
4. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 07:59 · Score: 0
  
  I believe the word you are looking for is 'Trike', or Tricycle. Maybe Motor Tricycle. Make it pink and call it the Eco Barbie Motor Tricycle.
5. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Kenoli · 2011-06-23 07:59 · Score: 1
  
  It's great to see something get this kind of fuel economy, to see where we can take the technology, but it might not be entirely honest to call it a "car".
  You could call it a car. You'd just have to make sure to call it a terrible, useless, or impractical car to be accurate.
  
  I mean, sure it has good fuel economy, but all other relevant aspects of a car were completely sacrificed in order to attain it. They apparently even used the lightest driver they could possibly find, an 11 year-old girl, in order to make the numbers even higher.
6. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Arlet · 2011-06-23 08:01 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe, but the same pissing contest could also be done with something a bit more useful. For instance a competition could be organized where the requirements include that the vehicle has been approved to drive on public roads and freeways.
7. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:08 · Score: 1
  
  No! No research prototypes of any kind should ever be made! If it won't fit seamlessly into next model year's Corolla, it's a waste of time and money!
  What the hell happened to slashdot?
8. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:08 · Score: 0
  
  And those kinds of contests also exist, but they serve different purposes. Cutting edge technology will never be approved to drive on public roads; no matter how safe it is it takes years to get thoroughly tested and certified. So MPG competitions for road ready cars is really about making efficient use of old technology. However, the kind of contests like the one in TFA are about developing new technologies and pushing the limits of what we're capable of. In 5 years, things that were used in this competition will likely wind up in competitions for road ready cars.
9. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:10 · Score: 0
  
  You mean something like this?
  VW XL1
10. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by irreverentdiscourse · 2011-06-23 08:10 · Score: 1
  
  Maybe it's the concept of a "car" that needs to be adjusted? Since the current one is killing all the humans...
11. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  >> a competition could be organized where the requirements include that the vehicle has been approved to drive on public roads and freeways.
  You mean with 50lb doors and car bumpers?
12. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by shadowrat · 2011-06-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah. If this is a "car" then why are we always wringing our hands over when the electric car will become commonplace? We already have tons of clean inexpensive electric cars in the form of power wheels.
13. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by mlts · 2011-06-23 08:21 · Score: 1
  
  I was thinking exactly this on another thread:
  Instead of another lightweight car with no productive use other than showing off drag coefficients in a wind tunnel, how about we see improvements in where the reward is the best?
  Most cars have decent fuel economy. We need to not fret on getting 40 mpg from a 30mpg car. Instead, we need to see about squeezing 12-15 mpg from something that has 10mpg. Ford's turbocharged [1] V6 in the full sized trucks is one example -- getting something fuel thirsty as a pickup and adding some decent economy gains will save a lot more fuel in the long run than concept small cars.
  Car companies need to show off heavy duty pickups and other boring but needed fleet vehicles that have energy saving features, but can still tow/haul/drag/carry the loads needed. For example, turbo diesel engines. This isn't a new technology, but it would be nice to see car makers offer this across the entire line of pickups, not just the heavy duty models.
  [1]: 5psi boost -- not that great, but enough to overcome the HP loss in high altitudes that normally aspirated engines suffer from.
14. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by hackertourist · 2011-06-23 08:25 · Score: 1
  
  Look at it as fundamental research instead. Yes, it's far removed from road cars, but new ideas have to be tested somewhere before a car company will commit millions to incorporate it into a saleable vehicle.
  Hypermile racing is an avenue where e.g. combustion research can be carried out at relatively low cost and in a competitive environment that fosters new ideas etc. Many schools and universities take part [1], it would be much harder for them to design and build engines of the size needed to power a fullsize car.
  1: that also means that competitions like these are in part about education. Education is best done on systems that show the fundamental principles, without getting bogged down in myriad implementation details. Another argument to use these simple racers rather than a fullsize car.
15. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Lunix+Nutcase · 2011-06-23 08:26 · Score: 1
  
  They sold out, man.
16. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by operagost · 2011-06-23 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  "Killing all the humans"... I won't even touch that remark. But a motorized vehicle is useless unless it can carry more than a bicycle. People expect to be able to have some passengers and cargo, and be protected from the elements.
  
  --
  
  Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
17. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by h4rr4r · 2011-06-23 08:37 · Score: 2
  
  My car does not have power windows, and probably on 50% of the trips it has no passenger. If I could get a nice cheap enclosed 3 wheel vehicle I would be interested.
18. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by rockout · 2011-06-23 08:38 · Score: 1
  
  I would disagree on the grounds that far more people drive 30mpg-ish cars than drive full-size trucks. And the idea isn't to get 40mpg out of it, it's to get 100 or 200mpg, eventually.
  That same technology would eventually filter to the guys that "need" a turbo-charged V6 full-size pickup. You know, to uh.... haul stuff in. Really fast. Or something.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
19. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:40 · Score: 0
  
  It goes from point A to point B. It's a car.
20. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by uglyduckling · 2011-06-23 09:18 · Score: 1
  
  It was done at the "Mileage Marathon Challenge", a 'race', the purpose of which is to get the most MPG from the car. They didn't use a light driver "to make the numbers higher", they did it to win the event, just like using a light jockey for horse racing, or a small Cox in a row boat. Everyone commenting on this story seems to have totally missed the point - it was a competition and they won it. Just like Formula One, it's done for sport, but overcoming the technical challenges will presumably produce technology that will feedback into mainstream motoring. If they had used a 150 pound male, they'd have lost the race.
21. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by SailorSpork · 2011-06-23 09:21 · Score: 1
  
  They have these other amazingly fuel-efficient vehicals powered by 11-year-olds which have been around for awhile. They are called "Bi-cycles." Amazingly, there is no petroleum-based MPG rating on them, as I understand they run on pizza and cookies.
22. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:27 · Score: 0
  
  Nice of you to offer to help take care of the overpopulation problem like that. Volunteering to drive something with the safety features of a bicycle and the handling of a car...
  Wait, what? You don't want to die in a 20 mph fender-bender? Come on, it'll be fun...
23. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:44 · Score: 0
  
  That is rather difficult to accomplish when you don't even know if the technology works yet.
  Have you even heard of a "proof of concept"?
24. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Arlet · 2011-06-23 09:48 · Score: 1
  
  If you don't mind pedaling a little bit, you can already buy one:
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velomobile
25. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by The+Grim+Reefer2 · 2011-06-23 09:56 · Score: 1
  
  The Peel P50 is widely recognized as a car (specifically, the smallest car ever commercially produced). It had room for one passenger, had three wheels... and a single door and a few windows. So I guess we're pretty close. Honestly, I'm surprised they didn't stick a light one-piece Lexan windscreen/canopy on it to cut down on the wind resistance.
  "The P50 used a 49 cc (3.0 cu in) DKW engine which gave it a top speed of approximately 61 kilometres per hour (38 mph), and was equipped with a three-speed manual transmission that had no reverse gear. Consequently, turning in a confined area could only be achieved by pushing, or lifting the car using the handle on the rear and physically pulling it round."
  "At 54 in (1,372 mm) long and 41 in (1,041 mm) wide[3] and with an unladen weight of 59 kilograms (130 lb),"
  That sounds more like an enclosed, stripped down golf cart to me. It weighs almost 1/7 of the average golf cart. Finland classified it as a moped.
26. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:07 · Score: 0
  
  Next up, they'll have it completely remotely controlled, and fill the inner compartment with pure hydrogen gas to drop more weight still!
  Bonus idiocy points if they're following it in an SUV in order to control it.
27. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Belial6 · 2011-06-23 10:27 · Score: 1
  
  I was just thinking this about my RV the other day. The thing get 8mpg. It also is already carrying around lots of heavy batteries, and it isn't like Motorhomes are cheap. Why have we not seen hybrid Motorhomes? They would be selling to people with the disposable income to pay for it. They would be targeting gas guzzlers, and they would improve the existing usage by using better batteries, and they wouldn't have to add any extra weight, as the things already carry lots of extra batteries.
28. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:42 · Score: 0
  
  Correct. It's a prototype singular transport vehicle!
  I'll take 1.
29. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by DerekLyons · 2011-06-23 10:50 · Score: 1
  
  Depending on the speed of the vehicle, a canopy might provide a higher weight penalty than it provides a benefit in drag reduction. Especially considering that you then have to make provisions to ventilate to driver's compartment to control temperature. (I.E. in any sun at all, that canopy is going to turn into a greenhouse.)
  Engineering, it's all about compromises.
30. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:56 · Score: 0
  
  A RV would have even better luck as a hybrid. One wouldn't need to open the sides and fire up the big Onan, just use the engine's batteries until they reach a threshold, the RV's engine would fire up and charge them, or just power whatever electrical load is needed. On the reverse, if the RV is on shore power, the batteries get charged, and can power that when driving, saving good amounts of gas in town.
  The larger vehicles should be the target for hybrids. Not the little toys which really don't matter in the scheme of things.
31. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by DigiShaman · 2011-06-23 11:17 · Score: 1
  
  Speaking of Jockeys, why not use one of those instead of an 11-year old?
  
  --
  Life is not for the lazy.
32. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 14:49 · Score: 1
  
  It has been done before, multiple times:
  BMW Isetta
  Messerschmitt KR200
  Peel P50
  HM Vehicles Free-Way This one was made in Minnesota in the late 70's and early 80's. Every once and a while I see one at a car show.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
33. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by cyn1c77 · 2011-06-23 15:18 · Score: 1
  
  Correct. It's a prototype singular transport vehicle!
  I'll take 1.
  Yeah, you'll take one 4x4 tire to the chest when a drunk pickup driver doesn't see you and your "car" and drives right over you.
  Part of the reason that road-legal cars are so heavy today, is because of all the government-mandated features stuffed into them. I doubt that this car will still get 1325 mpg when it is made road legal. Or that it will be able to achieve minimum highway speeds.
  And if it can't go on the highway, it's not a functional car.
34. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 17:09 · Score: 0
  
  And when you add another 100-150 pounds a normal person would weigh, the mileage drops off to ~20 mpg. I guess they forgot that part of the story.
35. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Petersson · 2011-06-23 18:30 · Score: 1
  
  It has been done before, multiple times:
  BMW Isetta
  Messerschmitt KR200
  Peel P50
  HM Vehicles Free-Way This one was made in Minnesota in the late 70's and early 80's. Every once and a while I see one at a car show.
  Czechoslovakian Velorex also fits in this group.
  
  --
  I'm not insane. My mother had me tested.
36. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 20:07 · Score: 0
  
  Probably because it went slow as hell, and the weight would be more impact than the wind resistance.
37. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by teh+kurisu · 2011-06-23 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  No, no, the SUV goes in front so that it has something to slipstream.
38. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by cyclomedia · 2011-06-23 21:17 · Score: 1
  
  I had a different, radical idea. That "cars" ("car" defined as having a non-convertible (seats folded down) goods-bearing area of less than a decent number of square metres so that your Chelsea Tractor does NOT count as a "goods vehicle") have a maximum weight ... AND still have to pass all the safety tests. The maximum weight can then decrease linearly over a few decades to about 600kg - because the power plant won't have to drag as much weight down the road it wont need to do as much work = less power needed = less fuel consumed.
  Dead simple, and works in motorsports, such as F1 or Le Mans, where they can crash at 200Mph then walk away.
  
  --
  If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
39. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by teh+kurisu · 2011-06-23 21:18 · Score: 1
  
  Depends. I've heard one theory (pertaining to recumbent tadpole tricycles I think) that if you drive or ride a vehicle that is sufficiently odd-looking, you're much safer because drivers will notice you. And slow down, stare, and exclaim, "What the fuck is that?!".
40. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by squizzar · 2011-06-23 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  Get a 125cc bike - 100+mpg, cheap to run, insure etc. The only thing that might cause a problem is rain, but a good set of waterproofs solves most of that. On the other hand though, you don't get stuck in traffic anymore.
41. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 22:52 · Score: 1
  
  There are probably others that should be included as well but those were the first ones that came to my mind.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
42. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by drinkypoo · 2011-06-24 01:15 · Score: 1
  
  The guy who designed the Corbin Sparrow has a shop here in Lake County... He also drives a 300SD, impeccable taste.
  
  --
  "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
43. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-24 06:41 · Score: 1
  
  Yeah it works in motorsports because they can spend millions of dollars building 1 or 2-seater cars out of carbon fiber. In the real world that wouldn't work unfortunately. And streetable cars don't get much lighter than 2000lbs, unless you count some open-wheeled toys like the Ariel Atom and Lotus Seven clones. I think the CRX HF with the styrofoam bumpers is about 1600lbs.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
44. Re:Rather Stretching the Idea of a "Car" by GameboyRMH · 2011-06-24 06:49 · Score: 1
  
  Yep safety standards are the enemy of performance, efficiency and good looks (they require tall, bulbous hoods - look at the front of the latest Impreza vs. an early '90s Accord - the front of the Impreza is shaped like a fat man's belly to make it safer for pedestrians, who would be hurt by the Accord's shark-nose). To work around them you have to buy an old car, a kit car, or an unholy-expensive car that uses exotic materials.
  
  --
  "When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Misread MPG as MPH by ChrisMounce · 2011-06-23 07:46 · Score: 4, Funny

Still really cool, but my original reality was much more awesome. I would have loved to break the sound barrier when I was 11.
1. Re:Misread MPG as MPH by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:57 · Score: 0
  
  I reject your reality and substitute my own.
2. Re:Misread MPG as MPH by DFurno2003 · 2011-06-23 16:50 · Score: 1
  
  Ok Anakin
No 'oxygen concentrator' by hackertourist · 2011-06-23 07:46 · Score: 1

Cambridge Design built an oxygen concentrator to replace oxygen tanks in battlefield medicine. This device is powered by a tiny diesel engine. I suspect that that engine is what's being used in this car, not the oxygen concentration device.
1. Re:No 'oxygen concentrator' by hawguy · 2011-06-23 07:51 · Score: 1
  
  Cambridge Design built an oxygen concentrator to replace oxygen tanks in battlefield medicine. This device is powered by a tiny diesel engine. I suspect that that engine is what's being used in this car, not the oxygen concentration device.
  The article doesn't make it clear what role the oxygen concentrator plays, but it does sound like it's using a diesel powered engine:
  
  Cambridge Design Partnership used elements from its own lightweight oxygen concentrator, as well as other in-house technologies, to create the unique car. The oxygen generator system was originially developed to treat injured soldiers, but in the car it is powered by an innovative micro-diesel-engine. The car also features low-friction tires to increase mileage.
  ...
  We quickly realized that our R & D work for the MoD, creating an oxygen generator, was highly applicable to the Mileage Marathon Challenge. Both required an extremely efficient system that used very low power and could run off diesel. Now I just need to figure out how to make my own car get the same kind of mileage!”
2. Re:No 'oxygen concentrator' by hackertourist · 2011-06-23 07:56 · Score: 1
  
  this page has more info. The diesel engine in the car is one of the designs they studied for the oxygen device.
3. Re:No 'oxygen concentrator' by whiteboy86 · 2011-06-23 08:11 · Score: 1
  
  They probably use oxygen injection from the concentrator to boost the burn efficiency. I've read somewhere that the french inventor of the "air powered car" was a former Formula 1 mechanic that realized that more oxygen is a very good thing for the engine.
4. Re:No 'oxygen concentrator' by necro81 · 2011-06-23 08:17 · Score: 1
  
  You do realize that diesel engines require oxygen to run, right? Think about the thermodynamics of it: burning diesel in an enriched oxygen environment is much better (more efficient, cleaner burning, hotter burning) than burning it in atmosphere. The nitrogen in the atmosphere only gets in the way: it reduces the flame temperature of the burn, because some of the heat of the reaction goes to heating the nitrogen. Some of that heat is lost in the production of NxOx compounds. Lowered temperature == lowered efficiency. I expect that the power required to run the oxygen concentrator is outweighed by the improved engine performance.
5. Re:No 'oxygen concentrator' by hackertourist · 2011-06-23 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Perhaps, but this article says there's no oxygen concentrator in the car.
Not even by OverlordQ · 2011-06-23 07:47 · Score: 1

Until you could take it out on existing roads and not get turned into a smear on the road if somebody hits you, it's not a car.

--
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
1. Re:Not even by sheddd · 2011-06-23 07:54 · Score: 1
  
  Yes; that's why I drive a military model Hummer; you'll be a grease stain when I run over your Prius, hippy!
2. Re:Not even by tepples · 2011-06-23 07:55 · Score: 1
  
  Then even an ordinary compact car isn't a "car" by your definition if you're surrounded by SUVs and trucks.
3. Re:Not even by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:09 · Score: 0
  
  I find it humorous that the celebration of aggression extends even to the point of having everyone involved in a competition to have the heaviest car possible so that you can be sure to kill the other guy in an accident. Heavy cars do nothing to increase safety, they just move safety around so that everyone else has to get a heavy car too to move that safety back. Then no one has gained anything except now every car is heavy, which makes it tear up your roads as well as expensive to manufacture and polluting.
4. Re:Not even by instagib · 2011-06-23 08:28 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm, you just summarized one of the principal problems of humanity with a car analogy. Congrats!
  
  I find it humorous
  Yeah, that's the best way to deal with it.
5. Re:Not even by blair1q · 2011-06-23 09:03 · Score: 1
  
  If everyone's driving these, that's no longer a problem. It's the car of the future, and therefore a car.
6. Re:Not even by blair1q · 2011-06-23 09:07 · Score: 1
  
  My Prius can outrun your Hummer, and if we're going over 200 miles you got no shot whatsoever. You'll spend more time pumping gas than on the road.
  So that's Mister Hippie to you, bub.
7. Re:Not even by Arlet · 2011-06-23 09:26 · Score: 1
  
  Hmm... I have a hard time imagining replacing 30-ton transport trucks with a flimsy tricycle, so unless you adopt a dual road system, you'll be stuck with mixed traffic.
8. Re:Not even by Belial6 · 2011-06-23 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  So, there is no such thing as a car then?
That's no car by hawguy · 2011-06-23 07:47 · Score: 1

That's no car, it's more like a motorized tricycle.
1. Re:That's no car by hierophanta · 2011-06-23 09:24 · Score: 1
  
  http://tinyurl.com/6e42gxn
2. Re:That's no car by hawguy · 2011-06-23 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  http://tinyurl.com/6e42gxn
  
  Why didn't you just post the lmgtfy link directly? http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+car
  I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, your link shows a bunch of car ads and this definition:
  car/kär/Noun 1. An automobile. 2. A vehicle that runs on rails, esp. a railroad car.
  Here's one for you: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tricycle
That's a great way to cheat the numbers by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 07:48 · Score: 0

If your driver is only 75lbs you get much better mileage numbers. Of course, one could make a case that this is a form of child abuse (putting a kid into an untested vehicle just to make money/get published seems like borderline exploitation to me).
1. Re:That's a great way to cheat the numbers by couchslug · 2011-06-23 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  What a fucking crock. Youth race carts and motorcycles, and (even more dangerous) play football.
  Dumb down the world to the level of the least capable, and we all lose.
  
  --
  "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
2. Re:That's a great way to cheat the numbers by hawguy · 2011-06-23 11:54 · Score: 1
  
  In a "car" like this one with low friction tires and low friction drivetrain on a circular course, do you really get much better mileage with a lighter driver? For every bit of energy you spend pushing a heavier driver up a hill, you'll get nearly all of it back as you coast down the other side with the engine turned off.
3. Re:That's a great way to cheat the numbers by teh+kurisu · 2011-06-23 21:24 · Score: 1
  
  This is something I've always wondered. Getting a heavier car up to speed takes more fuel, sure, but once you're at that speed and maintain it (as is possible on a motorway), then doesn't the additional momentum give you an advantage in punching through the air resistance?
UK Eco Marathon for schools by hackertourist · 2011-06-23 07:49 · Score: 1

so of course it's going to be piloted by a kid. All vehicles in the competition were.
Cambreshire? by oldmac31310 · 2011-06-23 07:49 · Score: 1

WTF?

--
http://www.acetonestudio.com
I'm surprised... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 07:50 · Score: 0

The real news here is:
1. No jack-booted thug cop has arrested her for driving without a license
2. No grandstanding DA has charged her with a crime where she will never get a license
3. No clueless politician has come out against tween driving "for the children"
4. A roving band of TSA agents didn't fondle her as she got within 100 miles of the border
Maybe I'm getting just a little bit cynical... Nah.
Did anyone else read 1,325 MPH ? by Liambp · 2011-06-23 07:51 · Score: 1

They are forcing an 11 year old to drive at almost twice the speed of sound. The monsters!!!
1. Re:Did anyone else read 1,325 MPH ? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:06 · Score: 0
  
  This headline was 1 letter away from being 100x more awesome.
Inhabitat Article by BJ_Covert_Action · 2011-06-23 07:53 · Score: 1

Inhabitat: Just another rainbow-filled, sky-high promises fluff blog that completely fails to comment on how or why any particular technology it writes about could be, in any manner, applied to the real world.

Also, congratulations to the 11 year old for getting written about on the internet.

--
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Why not replace it with a computer? by jfengel · 2011-06-23 07:56 · Score: 4, Interesting

An 11 year old is pretty light, but since the point clearly has nothing to do with designing a vehicle to move people around, why not just replace the entire machine with a two-pound computer?
The Challenge is held on a closed track, so it's not like anybody would get hurt. With the driver removed, we could ratchet the number up to 10,000 miles, I'm sure.
Why would you want to? I have no idea, but then, I have no idea what the point of this demonstration is in the first place except to print "large numbers of miles per gallon" in a newspaper. So why not just take it to its logical conclusion?
1. Re:Why not replace it with a computer? by softWare3ngineer · 2011-06-23 08:04 · Score: 1
  
  Because that would be cheating ;) Look for a rules change in the next round of competition. You must be this tall to operate the vehicle.
2. Re:Why not replace it with a computer? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:21 · Score: 0
  
  An 11 year old is pretty light, but since the point clearly has nothing to do with designing a vehicle to move people around, why not just replace the entire machine with a two-pound computer?
  The Challenge is held on a closed track, so it's not like anybody would get hurt. With the driver removed, we could ratchet the number up to 10,000 miles, I'm sure.
  The "car" was purpose built for maximum fuel efficiency. The most basic function of a car is to transport a person somewhere. If you replace the driver with a computer it wouldn't be a car anymore, it would be a diesel powered 3 wheeled autonomous vehicle. Plus, you would have to add a lot more than just a "two-pound computer" to have it drive itself (gyros, servos, communication hardware, batteries, etc.).
  
  Why would you want to? I have no idea, but then, I have no idea what the point of this demonstration is in the first place except to print "large numbers of miles per gallon" in a newspaper. So why not just take it to its logical conclusion?
  They do this kind of stuff to advance automotive technology. Think of this as the other side of the spectrum of purpose built race cars where power is the first priority and everything else is second. These hypermiling cars put fuel economy first. The logical conclusion is not that we should make driver-less vehicles, it should be that getting a car to go 1325 miles on a gallon of diesel is pretty damn impressive.
3. Re:Why not replace it with a computer? by SleazyRidr · 2011-06-23 11:58 · Score: 1
  
  This has everything to do with moving a person around. It's a competition about who can move a person around using the least fuel.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
4. Re:Why not replace it with a computer? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 18:43 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah, why not just use a toy radio-controlled car bought from a shop? What a fantastic proof-of-concept that would be. Somebody driving a radio-controlled car .... around a track.
i HATE this always the same by vonshavingcream · 2011-06-23 08:07 · Score: 1

these concept cars are NOT cars. they are aluminum tubes with seat. you can propel them with ANYTHING. show me a 2 ton car with at least some attempt at being road ready, then lets see the MPG. I'm not saying we shouldn't already be getting 100+MPG .. i'm just sayin
1. Re:i HATE this always the same by bolthole · 2011-06-23 08:27 · Score: 1
  
  I think you'd be more interested in, "show me how to take my 2 ton car and turn it into a 1 ton car with same hauling and cargo and safety capacity?" Then suddenly, the mpg mysteriously almost doubles. how about that!
2. Re:i HATE this always the same by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:29 · Score: 0
  
  2 ton car? Well there's your problem right there. Something that heavy isn't going to be very efficient hauling one person around. You can make nice cars below 1,5 ton, and some smaller models easily drop below 1 ton.
3. Re:i HATE this always the same by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  Well, the answer to that question *is* to stop overcaring so much about safety. Or at least stop mandating it in all new cars. People who care more about efficiency and speed than safety already have the option to buy used.
  Has the nice side effect of making cars not be so goddamn ugly as well.
4. Re:i HATE this always the same by hierophanta · 2011-06-23 09:10 · Score: 1
  
  in 2004 the average car in the us is 4000 pounds or 2 tons http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/business/05weight.html
  
  cars have already been able to achieve 100+ miles per gallon and be completely road worthy. in fact the folks over at insightcentral.com have a forum thread on it. http://www.insightcentral.net/forums/mpg-issues/9562-first-time-over-100mpg.html
  these cars are already 100% street / road legal.
5. Re:i HATE this always the same by SleazyRidr · 2011-06-23 12:11 · Score: 1
  
  Whenever there's a story about something that's just in the lab or a specialty competition like this trolls come out saying how it's worthless until it can get to market. When there's a story about something coming to market, troll come out and say that it's nothing new and that it's been in labs/competitions for year. So many trolls. . Kinda makes me sad :'(
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
When I was 11 I had an infinite MPG concept car by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:11 · Score: 0

It was called a bike.
Take that, Kitty Foster.
Not even a concept car by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 08:16 · Score: 2

When I was in high school our school participated in these events. The competition was held up at Brainerd International Raceway and there were 2 categories, modified and unmodified. In the unmodified class you couldn't make any engine modifications but everything else was open. The engine you got was some small 4 stroke Briggs & Stratton. The team would then build the chassis and body around the engine. The goal being to create as light and aerodynamic vehicle as possible while reducing rolling resistance. Cars in the this call would typically get several hundred MPG. In the modified category you could also modify the engine, and modify was a pretty loose term given some of the mods that I had seen where about the only original parts were the block and pull string. Cars in this category would be up near or above 1000 MPG.
Now when actually competing you went and did one full trip on the track if your car passed inspection. You got a metered amount of fuel (I think it was about 1 quart of ethanol) and would roll the car out to the starting line. You would then be given the go ahead and the driver would use the pull string to start the engine (there was no clutch) so they would actually start to pull the vehicle up to speed. Once the engine started the car would reach speed at which point the engine is stopped and the vehicle coasts to a stop and then they cycle begins again until you complete your single lap. Once completed the remaining fuel is measured and you MPG is calculated.
Also female drivers are very common for these types of cars because they are smaller and lighter than guys. Typically our driver would be one of the team members girlfriend who was a gymnast or on the dance line. The passenger compartment would be built for them to drive it so as to cut down on as much weight as possible.

--
Time to offend someone
1. Re:Not even a concept car by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:58 · Score: 0
  
  Engineering a high MPG car. Team member's girlfriend. This sounds fishy.
2. Re:Not even a concept car by mpoulton · 2011-06-23 09:15 · Score: 1
  
  Your high school dork squad members were dating gymnasts and dancers? Well done, sir.
  
  --
  I am a geek attorney, but not your geek attorney unless you've already retained me. This is not legal advice.
3. Re:Not even a concept car by etschreiber · 2011-06-23 11:05 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, can't resist:
  "I was just thinking we could take care of it right here, in Brainerd."
4. Re:Not even a concept car by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 14:18 · Score: 1
  
  It wasn't the dork squad as the class was mostly made up of the standard jock shop class crowd. I was the only one who really had a science and technology background as most of other guys were pretty much good a turning a wrench, some weren't even good at that. The worst thing was trying to convince that group that a composite frame would work and would weigh much less than a standard welded aluminum frame. This was early on for carbon fiber so that was out of the price range for a public high school, but fiberglass was. I never did convince them that it would work.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
5. Re:Not even a concept car by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately it wasn't an engineering class but was offered through the industrial arts department (i.e shop class) so I was the only person who had a science and technology background as the rest of the class was the standard jocks and grease monkeys. It would have been better if it was a class of other science dorks as they would have been open to ideas like more usage of composites.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
Pilot or drive? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 08:17 · Score: 0

In my day, when it was a car, it was driven and not piloted. What is different now?
Car? by w0mprat · 2011-06-23 08:58 · Score: 2

No. It's a Trike. Equivelent road-legal vehicle would be classed a motorcycle in the majority of jurasdictions on the planet. The reverse trike configuration is used by other notable high-mpg vehicles such as the Aptera.

I could sure use one in my daily commute. I get 23mpg in my Nissan Maxima. My inherited 40-year-old Mini Cooper got 50mpg with 1960s technology and 100,000 miles on the clock. How far we've (not) come!

--
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
1. Re:Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:42 · Score: 0
  
  Where I come from, motorcycles have just two wheels.
2. Re:Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 10:10 · Score: 0
  
  Cars today are much denser than they were in the day of the original Mini Cooper. Your 40-year-old Mini Cooper didn't have giant bumpers, air bags, side guard door beams, emission controls, and all of the other heavy stuff that has been legislated into modern vehicles in the name of safety and pollution control. It also didn't have much in the way of conveniences: electric windows/seats/mirrors etc.
  An original Mini topped out at around 1500 lb... 1000 pounds less than the current one!
3. Re:Car? by DerekLyons · 2011-06-23 10:53 · Score: 1
  
  I get 23mpg in my Nissan Maxima. My inherited 40-year-old Mini Cooper got 50mpg with 1960s technology and 100,000 miles on the clock. How far we've (not) come!
  And how does the emissions compare between the two? Or safety?
4. Re:Car? by bhtooefr · 2011-06-23 11:22 · Score: 1
  
  If it had a modern engine, it would probably get 75 mpg. As for safety, the original Mini was known for extremely good handling, and light weight means that modern brakes and tires can get a car stopped DAMN fast.
  So, if a Mini were built with modern technology, but to the same crash safety standards and space as the original, it would probably weigh LESS, and have extremely good active safety, and get extremely good fuel economy.
5. Re:Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 11:34 · Score: 0
  
  you are comparing an old european subcompact to a modern gashog. The old Mk1 Mk2 minis had published fuel economy numbers of around 40 miles per gallon I think (at 35hp). If you get 50 you get that because you drive slowly and don't stop much.
  The Geo Metro / Suzuki Swifts had published fuel economys of of 45-50 miles per gallon. (but also low power)
  i think the best comparison for a modern car would be the Volkswagen Polo mark V. ~60+ miles per gallon published numbers, people report getting near 100 in them, 74 horsepower, and all the modern safety gear and crashworthyness as well.
  It's not that we haven't come far, it's that most people don't want a car with a 1L engine and low power... especially not americans.
6. Re:Car? by SleazyRidr · 2011-06-23 12:15 · Score: 1
  
  Clearly you don't work for a vehicle licensing service. Usually you need a motorcycle licence to drive a vehicle with 3 wheels.
  
  --
  Is 1563649 a prime number?
7. Re:Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 12:53 · Score: 0
  
  My '87 VW Fox would routinely achieve 35mpg right up to the day it turned 14 had zero problems. Now cars are advertised with 28 as being good? Yes we've taken quite the step backward.
8. Re:Car? by williamhb · 2011-06-23 12:54 · Score: 1
  
  If it had a modern engine, it would probably get 75 mpg. As for safety, the original Mini was known for extremely good handling, and light weight means that modern brakes and tires can get a car stopped DAMN fast.
  So, if a Mini were built with modern technology, but to the same crash safety standards and space as the original, it would probably weigh LESS, and have extremely good active safety, and get extremely good fuel economy.
  Um, no. The later versions (the Mini was still being manufactured up until about 2000) had to have side impact bars added to the doors, which would have made it heavier. Meanwhile, according to the UK Department of Transport, the Mini was still one of the two least safe cars on the market, with 84% of drivers likely to be injured in a two car collision.
  (And early models were also known for the petrol cap shearing off if the car rolled in a crash, pouring flammable liquid everywhere, and the ignition breaking your knee in a crash because of its positioning.)
  It was a lovely car, my first car (a Mini that was just one year younger than me), and a joy to drive, but no it wasn't very safe.
9. Re:Car? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 15:05 · Score: 1
  
  The biggest reasons for the better mileage in the mini would be that it is lighter by a lot, it probably weight less than half of your Maxima. Depending on what year the mini is it has only limited or no emission controls. The mini has a very small engine, probably either the 1098cc or 1275cc A-series. Also the SU carbs on it are known for providing very good fuel metering, but weren't the quickest to respond to increased throttle. They didn't have power accessories, and if it is like my midget things like a horn were an option (mine doesn't have one). Those old A-series engines were very underdeveloped and I have read of people doing some crazy things with those little British cars like getting close to 200hp out of them, or converting them to hyper mileage cars and getting close to 70 mpg. I love seeing the races where they go and put a bunch of pre 75 midgets, sprites, minis, MGAs and morris minors all on the track and race them. You really can see that those are very capable little cars.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
10. Re:Car? by Bob+the+Super+Hamste · 2011-06-23 15:13 · Score: 1
  
  If it were a modern engine it probably wouldn't get as good of mileage as modern engines need to conform to modern emission standards, also the dual SU carbs on that engine were know for providing quite good fuel metering, but were a bit slot to react to increased throttle. Depending on what year his cars is it may not have to comply with any, or very little. Also there is a very active after market for those old British cars, and such things as 5 speed transmissions, full coil over suspension kits, 4 wheel disk breaks (including a bigger rotors than the front disk break only cars had), better cams, roller rockers, better heads, headers, fuel injection, plus a bunch of other stuff I am probably forgetting. The A-series engines were in production until 2000 and were very underdeveloped.
  
  --
  Time to offend someone
11. Re:Car? by DerekLyons · 2011-06-23 16:47 · Score: 1
  
  . As for safety, the original Mini was known for extremely good handling, and light weight means that modern brakes and tires can get a car stopped DAMN fast.
  But the Mini in question doesn't have modern brakes. It has 1960's brakes. So your reply is meaningless and irrelevant.
  
  So, if a Mini were built with modern technology, but to the same crash safety standards and space as the original, it would probably weigh LESS, and have extremely good active safety, and get extremely good fuel economy.
  But that's a Mini being built in a fantasy world - and utterly irrelevant, because nobody is going to put a car on the road today built with essentially no safety So again, your reply is meaningless.
12. Re:Car? by w0mprat · 2011-06-23 20:14 · Score: 1
  
  LOL. They don't. Part of the reason for not keeping it.
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
13. Re:Car? by gl4ss · 2011-06-23 21:31 · Score: 1
  
  they're doing almost that in india/china. and i think uk has plenty of engine and brake transplant minis on the road too(and e-types..). the think cars just bankrupted btw..
  
  --
  world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
14. Re:Car? by squizzar · 2011-06-23 21:32 · Score: 1
  
  Go and buy a VW Polo Bluemotion then... Your maxima is about the size of a 3 series BMW. How do you think the economy of a 1960s BMW 2002 stacks up to a new one? Apples to oranges there I think.
15. Re:Car? by L4t3r4lu5 · 2011-06-23 22:01 · Score: 1
  
  Your Nissan Maxima weighs 1.6tonnes and has a 3.5l engine. The Mini Cooper had a curb weight of under 700kg and used a 850cc to 1270cc engine. But yeah, it's technology going backwards which explains the fuel economy discrepancy.
  
  If you want better MPG, sell your Maxima and buy a compact.
  
  --
  Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
16. Re:Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 22:23 · Score: 0
  
  This is truly what disgusts me about modern car design. Forced government safety equipment (airbags, traction control, side door beams, tire pressure monitoring systems, etc) has added weight and complexity to the point where vehicles can no longer be efficient based on their engine size. In 1986, you could buy a new Ford Escort for about $6500. It had power brakes, manual steering, no air conditioning, no radio, a carbureted 1.9L engine, 4-speed manual shift, and got 30mpg city and 39mpg highway. Today, 25 years later, you spend more than twice that and get a Ford Fiesta for $14000. It has air conditioning, a radio, power steering, enough airbags to choke Mr. Incredible, and it gets 28mpg city and 37mpg highway. Is it a better car? Sure. Is it more efficient? Based on weight, yes. The 1986 Escort had a curb weight of only 2160lbs. This new Fiesta weighs 20% more than that and as a result gets worse gas mileage. Some will complain that the 1986 Escort has no airbags, no electronics, and isn't as safe to drive. Sure, the new Fiesta is probable safe enough to save your life so you can live a little longer and pollute the planet just a little more.
17. Re:Car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-24 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  Good post.
  I'll also point out the useless MPG number they toss out there. My electric car has driven over 20,000 miles and hasn't used a single drop of gas, so I guess under the current rules I can claim it gets "infinite" MPG.
18. Re:Car? by bhtooefr · 2011-06-24 09:44 · Score: 1
  
  I don't have a Maxima, must be someone else.
  And, a 1960s BMW 2002 versus a new one... what about a theoretical 2011 BMW that's the size of a 2002, with modern aerodynamics, materials, and engine management, but with 1960s safety and emissions standards?
  I've got a 1999.5 Golf TDI. The Polo BlueMotion isn't available here, but a Lupo 3L (also not available here, about 13 more years before I can bring one into the US) is closer to the size, but still significantly more weight.
Not the winner by JazzHarper · 2011-06-23 09:07 · Score: 1

Not sure why the article on the CDP car was submitted. They didn't even come close to winning.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-13875464
1325 miles on 146 MJ by EmagGeek · 2011-06-23 09:09 · Score: 1

That's just over 9 Miles/MJ.
To put it in perspective, I burn about 40 calories to travel 1 mile on my bicycle, so that's about 6 Miles/MJ.
It's hard to believe a dino-powered vehicle is more efficient.
1. Re:1325 miles on 146 MJ by shutdown+-p+now · 2011-06-23 09:43 · Score: 1
  
  Why not? It's not like human musculature is optimized for the kind of workout that is needed to ride a bicycle.
2. Re:1325 miles on 146 MJ by EmagGeek · 2011-06-25 06:43 · Score: 1
  
  I didn't say I doubted it was true. I guess I should have said "it is hard to accept" to be more clear. It's just one of those things I thought I would never see.
Why by TRRosen · 2011-06-23 09:10 · Score: 1

They couldn't afford a midget?
Oxygen Concentrator by medv4380 · 2011-06-23 09:10 · Score: 1

This sounds more like a complicated way of repeating a nasty accident, but on an 11 year old instead of 3 astronauts.
Kudos by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 09:36 · Score: 0

Well. I for one am glad for the driver. I think it would have been awesome to drive a Cambridge-designed hypermiling car at that age.
So, kudos to her.... Wait, what? ... It's a girl??? They've spent all this trouble and research and money and they're putting a female at the wheel????
This almost read... by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2011-06-23 09:44 · Score: 0

11-year-old pilots 1325 MPH concept car.
That will be awesome!

--
New Economic Perspectives
GPS to improve fuel economy by LoudMusic · 2011-06-23 10:18 · Score: 1

They state that they gained 150 MPG with GPS data.
"The GPS information made a big difference and added 150 mpg."
A more standard car likely wouldn't see the same >10% boost in economy, but I'm sure it would help. I'd love to see Toyota, Tesla, and other incorporate GPS data into their products' efficiency capabilities. It can only be a positive outcome for the car to use terrain information in calculating how and when to manipulate the drive train.

--
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
car? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 11:00 · Score: 0

My bicycle gets over 9,000 miles per gallon.
US or Imperial gallon? by kipling · 2011-06-23 11:17 · Score: 1

Given that it is UK, I suspect the 1325 figure uses imperial gallons, which are fatter than US gallons. I couldn't find a figure for the car in culturally-neutral units to confirm. So it may closer to 1100 MP(USG) or 7 Miles/MJ. Your point still stands though.

--
-- open source? sounds like the real book --
No, not "ultra efficient engines". by Kaz+Kylheku · 2011-06-23 12:15 · Score: 1

Try "ultra wimpy engines".
No power to accelerate or climb hills. Ridiculously slow speed. Ridiculously small, uncomfortable vehicle.
Show me 1300 MPG in city traffic, and without inciting road-rage in other drivers.
Show me 1300 MPG going through mountain passes.
How about ventilation? Air conditioning? Show me 1300 MPG on a road trip through a heat wave. You'd be frying like fish in the little coffin on wheels.
Safety? Front impact, side impact, rear impact, rolling?
Show me 1300 MPG after building in a steel cage around the driver.
These MPG contests are completely useless because they are devoid of these nasty things called REQUIREMENTS that real engineers have to grapple with.
If you drop almost all requirements, it is easy to optimize.
In programming, if we drop the requirement for correct execution, we can optimize everything down to a single instruction that aborts itself.
Oxygen concentrator? by w0mprat · 2011-06-23 16:36 · Score: 1

Unless the 11yo has emphysema what is the purpose of the Oxygen Concentrator? I'd love to know.

QTTFA: "The oxygen generator system was originially developed to treat injured soldiers, but in the car it is powered by an innovative micro-diesel-engine."

Does it provide a power boost instead of throttling (which incurrs pumping losses) - or is there an efficiency gain over and above the parasitic loss of running an oxygen concentrator? Usually the presence of a non-combustable gas such as nitrogen or cooled exhaust gas in EGR system allows higher compression and super lean mixtures without high EGT and melting/burning the inside of your cylinder head.

Yes, before you ask I have killed a turbo engine by too leaner mixture. Aparently metal components don't like super heated compressed oxygen...

--
After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
"Not a car" by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-23 19:02 · Score: 0

funny that people read a headline specifying 1,325 MPG and somehow still had the expectation of a normal family vehicle.
more funny that somewhere like slashdot you have people shouting down a cool research project because it's not REAL WORLD enough
what's wrong with you people ! :p
Nitrogen scrubber by idji · 2011-06-23 19:16 · Score: 1

That thing uses a Nitrogen scrubber to improve Oxygen concentration. By cycling the air pressure in chambers filled with a gas absorbing substance, atmospheric oxygen can be concentrated to 95% purity from http://www.cambridge-design.co.uk/uncategorized/bbc-report-on-cdps-lightweight-oxygen-concentrator/ Consumption of that "substance" needs to be included in the calculation of mpg.

Can someone tell us what this "substance" is?
1. Re:Nitrogen scrubber by w0mprat · 2011-06-23 20:20 · Score: 1
  
  Can someone tell us what this "substance" is?
  Zeolite http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeolite#Medical as used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxygen_concentrator - However it isn't "consumed" since it is acting as a kind of filter, with an indefinate lifespan (of they top of my head they don't handle humid air too well without something done to mitigate that). No factoring into MPG needed unless of course the "lightweight" one uses a consumable medium. Zeolite isn't exactly lightweight, so I assume that's where the they have made weight savings.
  
  --
  After logging in slashdot still does not take you back to the page you were on. It's been that way for 20 years.
Drink coffee BEFORE reading /. by ArmchairGeneral · 2011-06-23 23:19 · Score: 1

Did anyone else see the article momentarily as an 11-year-old to drive a 1,325 MPH vehicle?
Scooter by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-06-24 00:32 · Score: 1

It's still an awesome advancement over the scooter (driven more and more in the US and is a crazy around the world) which gets about 100MPG. This could be converted into a bi- or tri-wheeled vehicle for personal (1 with maybe back seat passenger) vehicle. If it was cheap and was at least as fast (and had a weather canopy), I'd consider buying one. I'd love paying only 12 Gallons of gas per year. Hell, I'd pay at least $20,000 for a vehicle that'd let me do that! Well worth the investment then.

--
I8-D
Weight/Center of Gravity by Kamiza+Ikioi · 2011-06-24 00:34 · Score: 1

They probably didn't add a canopy because it might be unsafe and less effecient. A canopy might cut resistance, but could be offset by having to move a larger vehicle mass. It could also make it top heavy, and far less safe. As Formula 1 racers go, I think most are finalized that proper body sculpting can do the same job as a canopy creating an air bubble around the driver's head, and there may be a safety concern there as well.

--
I8-D
Incorrect spelling by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-24 02:55 · Score: 0

Its "Ministry of Defence" not Defense.
Its a UK organisation, so please get the spelling right just as you would expect us to write Department of Defense not Department of Defence.
Was anybody else... by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-24 16:36 · Score: 0

...initially expecting to see an 11-year old pilot a 1,325 MPH concept car too? :)
What? No DA going after someone? by Anonymous Coward · 2011-06-25 02:31 · Score: 0

I'm surprised some DA doesn't go after some official for endangering a child. Isn't this the world we currently live in, where DA's go after anyone and everyone for anything they can get them on .. ANYTHING?